Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide | Yuval Noah Harari

Prevodilac: Milenka Okuka Lektor: Mile Živković

Chris Anderson: Hello. Welcome to this TED Dialogues.

Kris Anderson: Zdravo. Dobro došli u TED dijaloge.

It's the first of a series that's going to be done

Ovo je prvi u nizu koje ćemo da uradimo

in response to the current political upheaval.

kao odgovor na trenutni politički preokret.

I don't know about you;

Ne znam za vas;

I've become quite concerned about the growing divisiveness in this country

postao sam prilično zabrinut zbog rastućih podela u ovoj državi

and in the world.

i u svetu.

No one's listening to each other. Right?

Ne slušamo jedni druge. Je li tako?

They aren't.

Zaista je tako.

I mean, it feels like we need a different kind of conversation,

Mislim, utisak je da nam je potreban različit vid razgovora,

one that's based on -- I don't know, on reason, listening, on understanding,

razgovor koji je zasnovan - ne znam, na razumu, slušanju, razumevanju,

on a broader context.

na širem kontekstu.

That's at least what we're going to try in these TED Dialogues,

To ćemo bar da pokušamo u ovim TED dijalozima,

starting today.

počevši od danas.

And we couldn't have anyone with us

I nije nam se mogao pridružiti bilo ko drugi

who I'd be more excited to kick this off.

zbog koga bih bio uzbuđeniji da otpočnemo s ovim.

This is a mind right here that thinks pretty much like no one else

Ovde imamo um koji razmišlja prilično različito od svih drugih

on the planet, I would hasten to say.

na planeti, ishitreno bih zaključio.

I'm serious.

Ozbiljan sam.

(Yuval Noah Harari laughs)

(Juval Noa Harari se smeje)

I'm serious.

Ozbiljan sam.

He synthesizes history with underlying ideas

Spaja istoriju sa idejama koje je prožimaju,

in a way that kind of takes your breath away.

tako da vam to nekako oduzima dah.

So, some of you will know this book, "Sapiens."

Dakle, nekima od vas je poznata ova knjiga: "Sapijens".

Has anyone here read "Sapiens"?

Da li je neko pročitao "Sapijensa"?

(Applause)

(Aplauz)

I mean, I could not put it down.

Mislim, nisam mogao da je odložim.

The way that he tells the story of mankind

Način na koji pripoveda o čovečanstvu

through big ideas that really make you think differently --

putem velikih ideja, zaista vas tera da razmišljate drugačije -

it's kind of amazing.

nekako je divno.

And here's the follow-up,

A ovde imamo nastavak,

which I think is being published in the US next week.

koji mislim da će da bude objavljen u SAD-u sledeće nedelje.

YNH: Yeah, next week.

JNH: Da, sledeće nedelje.

CA: "Homo Deus."

KA: "Homo deus".

Now, this is the history of the next hundred years.

Sad, ovo je istorija narednih stotinu godina.

I've had a chance to read it.

Imao sam priliku da je pročitam.

It's extremely dramatic,

Izuzetno je dramatična,

and I daresay, for some people, quite alarming.

i usudio bih se da kažem, za neke ljude, prilično alarmantna.

It's a must-read.

To je obavezno štivo.

And honestly, we couldn't have someone better to help

I, iskreno, nismo mogli dovesti nekog boljeg da nam pomogne

make sense of what on Earth is happening in the world right now.

da razumemo šta se, za ime boga, dešava trenutno u svetu.

So a warm welcome, please, to Yuval Noah Harari.

Dakle, poželite toplu dobordošlicu, molim vas, Juvalu Noi Harari.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)

It's great to be joined by our friends on Facebook and around the Web.

Sjajno je što su sa nama naši prijatelji sa Fejsbuka i širom interneta.

Hello, Facebook.

Zdravo, Fejsbuk.

And all of you, as I start asking questions of Yuval,

I svi vi, kako počnem da postavljam pitanja Juvalu,

come up with your own questions,

vi smislite sopstvena pitanja

and not necessarily about the political scandal du jour,

i to ne nužno o gorućem političkom skandalu,

but about the broader understanding of: Where are we heading?

već o širem razumevanju toga: kuda smo se zaputili?

You ready? OK, we're going to go.

Da li ste spremni? U redu, počinjemo.

So here we are, Yuval:

Dakle, evo nas, Juval:

New York City, 2017, there's a new president in power,

grad Njujork 2017, imamo novog predsednika na vlasti

and shock waves rippling around the world.

i seizmičke talase širom sveta.

What on Earth is happening?

Šta se, za ime boga, dešava?

YNH: I think the basic thing that happened

JNH: Mislim da je osnovno što se desilo

is that we have lost our story.

to da smo izgubili našu priču.

Humans think in stories,

Ljudska bića misle kroz priče

and we try to make sense of the world by telling stories.

i pokušavamo da osmislimo svet tako što pričamo priče.

And for the last few decades,

A u poslednjih par decenija

we had a very simple and very attractive story

imali smo veoma jednostavnu i veoma privlačnu priču

about what's happening in the world.

o tome šta se dešava u svetu.

And the story said that, oh, what's happening is

A priča je glasila: oh, dešava se to

that the economy is being globalized,

da ekonomija postaje globalizovana,

politics is being liberalized,

politika postaje liberalizovana,

and the combination of the two will create paradise on Earth,

a kombinacija ovo dvoje će da stvori raj na zemlji,

and we just need to keep on globalizing the economy

te mi prosto moramo da nastavimo da globalizujemo ekonomiju

and liberalizing the political system,

i da liberalizujemo politički sistem

and everything will be wonderful.

i sve će da bude bajno.

And 2016 is the moment

A 2016. je treunutak

when a very large segment, even of the Western world,

kada je veoma veliki segment, čak i zapadnog sveta,

stopped believing in this story.

prestao da veruje u tu priču.

For good or bad reasons -- it doesn't matter.

Zbog valjanih ili loših razloga - nije važno.

People stopped believing in the story,

Ljudi su prestali da veruju u priču,

and when you don't have a story, you don't understand what's happening.

a kada nemate priču, ne razumete šta se dešava.

CA: Part of you believes that that story was actually a very effective story.

KA: Deo tebe veruje da je ta priča zapravo bila veoma efikasna.

It worked.

Funkcionisala je.

YNH: To some extent, yes.

JNH: Do određene mere jeste.

According to some measurements,

Prema nekim merenjima,

we are now in the best time ever

trenutno živimo u najboljem periodu

for humankind.

za čovečanstvo.

Today, for the first time in history,

Danas, prvi put u istoriji,

more people die from eating too much than from eating too little,

više ljudi umire od prejedavanja nego od neuhranjenosti,

which is an amazing achievement.

a to je neverovatno dostignuće.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Also for the first time in history,

Takođe, prvi put u istoriji,

more people die from old age than from infectious diseases,

više ljudi umire od starosti nego od zaraznih bolesti,

and violence is also down.

i nasilje je takođe u padu.

For the first time in history,

Prvi put u istoriji,

more people commit suicide than are killed by crime and terrorism

više ljudi izvrši samoubistvo nego što pogine od zločina, terorizma

and war put together.

i rata, sveukupno.

Statistically, you are your own worst enemy.

Statistički, sami ste svoj najveći neprijatelj.

At least, of all the people in the world,

Bar od svih ljudi na svetu,

you are most likely to be killed by yourself --

najveće su šanse da sami sebe ubijete -

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

which is, again, very good news, compared --

što su, opet, veoma dobre vesti, u poređenju -

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

compared to the level of violence that we saw in previous eras.

u poređenju sa stepenom nasilja koje smo gledali prethodnih era.

CA: But this process of connecting the world

KA: Ali ovaj proces povezivanja sveta

ended up with a large group of people kind of feeling left out,

je završen tako što su se velike grupe ljudi osećale nekako izostavljenim

and they've reacted.

i reagovale su.

And so we have this bombshell

Stoga imamo tu eksploziju

that's sort of ripping through the whole system.

koja nekako cepa čitav ovaj sistem.

I mean, what do you make of what's happened?

Mislim, kako da razumemo to što se dogodilo?

It feels like the old way that people thought of politics,

Čini se da je stari način na koji su ljudi razmišljali o politici,

the left-right divide, has been blown up and replaced.

podela na levo i desno, da je razbijena i zamenjena.

How should we think of this?

Kako da gledamo na ovo?

YNH: Yeah, the old 20th-century political model of left versus right

JNH: Da, stari politički model iz XX veka, levica protiv desnice,

is now largely irrelevant,

je trenutno većim delom nevažan,

and the real divide today is between global and national,

a danas je stvarna podela između globalizma i nacionalizma,

global or local.

globalno ili lokalno.

And you see it again all over the world

I vidite ponovo širom sveta

that this is now the main struggle.

da je ovo trenutno glavno previranje.

We probably need completely new political models

Verovatno su nam potrebni potpuno novi politički modeli

and completely new ways of thinking about politics.

i potpuno novi načini razmišljanja o politici.

In essence, what you can say is that we now have global ecology,

U suštini, moglo bi se reći da trenutno imamo globalnu ekologiju,

we have a global economy but we have national politics,

imamo globalnu ekonomiju, ali nam je politika nacionalna,

and this doesn't work together.

a to ne ide jedno s drugim.

This makes the political system ineffective,

Zbog ovoga je politički sistem neefikasan

because it has no control over the forces that shape our life.

jer nema kontrolu nad silama koje oblikuju naš život.

And you have basically two solutions to this imbalance:

I u suštini imate dva rešenja za ovaj disbalans:

either de-globalize the economy and turn it back into a national economy,

deglobalizujte ekonomiju i vratite je nazad u nacionalnu ekonomiju

or globalize the political system.

ili globalizujte politički sistem.

CA: So some, I guess many liberals out there

KA: Dakle, neki, pretpostavljam mnogi liberali tamo negde

view Trump and his government as kind of irredeemably bad,

vide Trampa i njegovu vladu kao nepopravljivo loše,

just awful in every way.

prosto grozne na sve načine.

Do you see any underlying narrative or political philosophy in there

Da li vidiš neki prožimajući narativ ili političku filozofiju tu,

that is at least worth understanding?

barem koje vredi razumeti?

How would you articulate that philosophy?

Kako bi artikulisao tu filozofiju?

Is it just the philosophy of nationalism?

Da li je to samo filozofija nacionalizma?

YNH: I think the underlying feeling or idea

JNH: Mislim da je prožimajuće osećanje ili ideja

is that the political system -- something is broken there.

ta da je politički sistem - da je nešto tu pokvareno.

It doesn't empower the ordinary person anymore.

Više ne osnažuje obične ljude.

It doesn't care so much about the ordinary person anymore,

Više naročito ne mari za obične ljude

and I think this diagnosis of the political disease is correct.

i mislim da je ova dijagnoza političkog oboljenja tačna.

With regard to the answers, I am far less certain.

Što se tiče odgovora, daleko manje sam ubeđen.

I think what we are seeing is the immediate human reaction:

Mislim da gledamo trenutnu ljudsku reakciju:

if something doesn't work, let's go back.

ako nešto ne funkcioniše, vratimo se na staro.

And you see it all over the world,

A vidite to širom sveta

that people, almost nobody in the political system today,

da ljudi, skoro da niko u današnjem političkom sistemu,

has any future-oriented vision of where humankind is going.

nema nekakvu viziju okrenutu ka budućnosti o tome kuda ide čovečanstvo.

Almost everywhere, you see retrograde vision:

Skoro svuda vidite retrogradnu viziju:

"Let's make America great again,"

"Učinimo Ameriku velikom ponovo",

like it was great -- I don't know -- in the '50s, in the '80s, sometime,

kao da je bila velika - ne znam - 50-ih, 80-ih nekad tad,

let's go back there.

vratimo se tamo.

And you go to Russia a hundred years after Lenin,

I pođete u Rusiju, 100 godina nakon Lenjina,

Putin's vision for the future

Putinova vizija za budućnost

is basically, ah, let's go back to the Tsarist empire.

je u suštini, ah, vratimo se u carsku imperiju.

And in Israel, where I come from,

A u Izraelu, odakle potičem,

the hottest political vision of the present is:

najnovija politička vizija današnjice glasi:

"Let's build the temple again."

"Sagradimo ponovo hram."

So let's go back 2,000 years backwards.

Zato vratimo se 2000 godina unazad.

So people are thinking sometime in the past we've lost it,

Dakle, ljudi smatraju da nam je nekad nešto u prošlosti izmaklo

and sometimes in the past, it's like you've lost your way in the city,

a ponekad u prošlosti, to je kao kad se izgubite u gradu

and you say OK, let's go back to the point where I felt secure

i kažete, u redu, vratimo se do tačke u kojoj smo se osećali bezbedno

and start again.

i počnimo ponovo.

I don't think this can work,

Mislim da ovo ne može da deluje,

but a lot of people, this is their gut instinct.

ali za mnoge ljude ovo je instinktivni osećaj.

CA: But why couldn't it work?

KA: Ali zašto ne bi delovalo?

"America First" is a very appealing slogan in many ways.

"Amerika na prvom mestu" je na razne načine veoma privlačan slogan.

Patriotism is, in many ways, a very noble thing.

Patriotizam je na razne načine veoma plemenita stvar.

It's played a role in promoting cooperation

Odigrao je ulogu u unapređenju saradnje

among large numbers of people.

među velikim brojem ljudi.

Why couldn't you have a world organized in countries,

Zašto ne možemo da imamo svet organizovan u države,

all of which put themselves first?

a da sve one sebe stavljaju na prvo mesto.

YNH: For many centuries, even thousands of years,

JNH: Mnogo vekova, čak hiljadama godina,

patriotism worked quite well.

patriotizam je funkcionisao prilično dobro.

Of course, it led to wars an so forth,

Naravno, uzrokovao je ratove itd,

but we shouldn't focus too much on the bad.

ali ne bi trebalo da se previše usredsređujemo na loše strane.

There are also many, many positive things about patriotism,

Takođe postoje mnoge, mnoge pozitivne stvari kod patriotizma

and the ability to have a large number of people

i mogućnosti da imate veliki broj ljudi

care about each other,

koji mare jedni za druge,

sympathize with one another,

saosećaju jedni s drugima

and come together for collective action.

i okupljaju se radi kolektivnog delanja.

If you go back to the first nations,

Ako se vratite do prvih nacija,

so, thousands of years ago,

dakle, hiljadama godina unazad,

the people who lived along the Yellow River in China --

ljudi koji su živeli duž reke Huanghe u Kini -

it was many, many different tribes

bilo je tu mnogo, mnogo različitih plemena

and they all depended on the river for survival and for prosperity,

i opstanak i prosperitet svih njih je zavisio od reke,

but all of them also suffered from periodical floods

ali svi oni su takođe ispaštali od sporadičnih poplava

and periodical droughts.

i periodičnih suša.

And no tribe could really do anything about it,

I nijedno pleme zaista nije moglo da uradi bilo šta povodom toga

because each of them controlled just a tiny section of the river.

jer je svako od njih kontrolisalo samo sićušni deo reke.

And then in a long and complicated process,

A potom, tokom dugog i složenog procesa,

the tribes coalesced together to form the Chinese nation,

plemena su se ujedinila kako bi osnovala kinesku naciju,

which controlled the entire Yellow River

koja je kontrolisala čitavu reku Huanghe

and had the ability to bring hundreds of thousands of people together

i imala je sposobnost da ujedini na stotine hiljada ljudi

to build dams and canals and regulate the river

kako bi sagradili brane i kanale i da bi regulisali reku

and prevent the worst floods and droughts

i sprečili najgore poplave i suše

and raise the level of prosperity for everybody.

i podigli nivo napretka za sve.

And this worked in many places around the world.

A to je funkcionisalo na mnogim mestima širom sveta.

But in the 21st century,

Međutim, u XXI veku,

technology is changing all that in a fundamental way.

tehnologija sve to menja na temeljan način.

We are now living -- all people in the world --

Trenutno živimo - svi ljudi na svetu -

are living alongside the same cyber river,

živimo duž iste sajber reke

and no single nation can regulate this river by itself.

i nijedna nacija samostalno ne može da reguliše ovu reku.

We are all living together on a single planet,

Svi živimo zajedno na jednoj planeti,

which is threatened by our own actions.

koja je ugrožena našim sopstvenim postupcima.

And if you don't have some kind of global cooperation,

A ako nemate nekakav vid globalne saradnje,

nationalism is just not on the right level to tackle the problems,

nacionalizam prosto nije na odgovarajućem nivou da se izbori s problemima,

whether it's climate change or whether it's technological disruption.

bilo da se radi o klimatskim promenama ili tehnološkom raskolu.

CA: So it was a beautiful idea

KA: Dakle, bila je to prelepa ideja

in a world where most of the action, most of the issues,

u svetu u kom se većina postupaka, većina pitanja

took place on national scale,

odigravalo u nacionalnim razmerama,

but your argument is that the issues that matter most today

ali tvoj argument je da pitanja, koja su danas najvažnija,

no longer take place on a national scale but on a global scale.

više se ne odigravaju u nacionalnim razmerama, već u globalnim.

YNH: Exactly. All the major problems of the world today

JNH: Baš tako. Svi veći problemi današnjeg sveta

are global in essence,

su u srži globalni

and they cannot be solved

i ne mogu da se reše

unless through some kind of global cooperation.

bez nekog vida globalne saradnje.

It's not just climate change,

Nisu to samo klimatske promene,

which is, like, the most obvious example people give.

a to je nekako najočigledniji primer koji ljudi navode.

I think more in terms of technological disruption.

Ja razmišljam više u smeru tehnološkog raskola.

If you think about, for example, artificial intelligence,

Ako razmišljate, na primer, o veštačkoj inteligenciji,

over the next 20, 30 years

u narednih 20, 30 godina

pushing hundreds of millions of people out of the job market --

će da izgura stotine miliona ljudi sa tržišta rada -

this is a problem on a global level.

ovo je problem na globalnom nivou.

It will disrupt the economy of all the countries.

Poremetiće ekonomiju svih država.

And similarly, if you think about, say, bioengineering

I slično, ako razmišljate, recimo, o bioinženjeringu

and people being afraid of conducting,

i o ljudskom strahu sprovođenja,

I don't know, genetic engineering research in humans,

ne znam, istraživanja genetskog inženjeringa na ljudima,

it won't help if just a single country, let's say the US,

neće pomoći, ako samo jedna država, recimo SAD,

outlaws all genetic experiments in humans,

stavi van zakona sve genetske eksperimente na ljudima,

but China or North Korea continues to do it.

ali Kina ili Severna Koreja nastave to da rade.

So the US cannot solve it by itself,

Dakle, SAD to ne mogu same rešiti

and very quickly, the pressure on the US to do the same will be immense

i veoma brzo, pritisak na SAD da učini isto će da bude ogroman

because we are talking about high-risk, high-gain technologies.

jer govorimo o tehnologiji visokog rizika i visokih dobitaka.

If somebody else is doing it, I can't allow myself to remain behind.

Ako neko drugi to radi, ne mogu sebi da dozvolim zaostajanje.

The only way to have regulations, effective regulations,

Jedini način da imamo propise, efikasne propise,

on things like genetic engineering,

za stvari, poput genetskog inženjeringa,

is to have global regulations.

je da imamo globalne propise.

If you just have national regulations, nobody would like to stay behind.

Ako samo budete imali nacionalne propise, nikome se neće zaostajati.

CA: So this is really interesting.

KA: Dakle, ovo je zaista zanimljivo.

It seems to me that this may be one key

Čini mi se da bi ovo mogao da bude uzrok

to provoking at least a constructive conversation

bar izazivanja konstruktivnog razgovora

between the different sides here,

između različitih strana ovde

because I think everyone can agree that the start point

jer smatram da će se svi složiti da je početna tačka

of a lot of the anger that's propelled us to where we are

za veći deo besa koji nas je doveo tu gde jesmo

is because of the legitimate concerns about job loss.

je zbog osnovane zabrinutosti zbog gubitka poslova.

Work is gone, a traditional way of life has gone,

Poslova više nema, tradicionalni način života je za nama

and it's no wonder that people are furious about that.

i ne čudi što su ljudi besni zbog toga.

And in general, they have blamed globalism, global elites,

A uopšteno su krivili globalizam, globalističke elite

for doing this to them without asking their permission,

što su im to uradili, a da ih nisu pitali za dozvolu

and that seems like a legitimate complaint.

i to se čini kao osnovana žalba.

But what I hear you saying is that -- so a key question is:

Međutim, razumem da ti govoriš da - dakle, ključno pitanje je:

What is the real cause of job loss, both now and going forward?

šta je istinski uzrok gubitka poslova, kako sada, tako i u budućnosti?

To the extent that it's about globalism,

U slučaju da se radi o globalizmu,

then the right response, yes, is to shut down borders

onda je ispravan odgovor, naravno, da zatvorimo granice

and keep people out and change trade agreements and so forth.

i držimo ljude podalje i da izmenimo trgovinske sporazume itd.

But you're saying, I think,

Ali ti, verujem, govoriš

that actually the bigger cause of job loss is not going to be that at all.

da zapravo veći uzrok gubitka poslova neće uopšte da bude taj.

It's going to originate in technological questions,

Nastaće kod tehnoloških pitanja

and we have no chance of solving that

i nemamo načina da to rešimo,

unless we operate as a connected world.

ukoliko ne sarađujemo kao povezan svet.

YNH: Yeah, I think that,

JNH: Da, tako razmišljam.

I don't know about the present, but looking to the future,

Ne znam za sadašnjost, ali gledajući u budućnost,

it's not the Mexicans or Chinese who will take the jobs

neće biti Meksikanci ili Kinezi ti koji će oduzeti poslove

from the people in Pennsylvania,

ljudima iz Pensilvanije,

it's the robots and algorithms.

već roboti i algoritmi.

So unless you plan to build a big wall on the border of California --

Pa, osim ako planirate da sagradite veliki zid na granici s Kalifornijom -

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

the wall on the border with Mexico is going to be very ineffective.

zid na granici s Meksikom će da bude veoma neefikasan.

And I was struck when I watched the debates before the election,

I bio sam zatečen kad sam posmatrao debate pre izbora,

I was struck that certainly Trump did not even attempt to frighten people

bio sam zatečen da izvesno Tramp nije čak ni pokušao da zastraši ljude,

by saying the robots will take your jobs.

govoreći da će im roboti uzeti poslove.

Now even if it's not true, it doesn't matter.

Sad, čak i da nije istina, nije važno.

It could have been an extremely effective way of frightening people --

Mogao je to da bude izuzetno efikasan način plašenja ljudi -

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

and galvanizing people:

i podsticanja ljudi:

"Roboti će da vam uzmu poslove!"

"The robots will take your jobs!"

And nobody used that line.

A niko nije koristio tu rečenicu.

And it made me afraid,

A to me je uplašilo

because it meant that no matter what happens

jer je značilo da šta god da se desi

in universities and laboratories,

na univerzitetima i u laboratorijama,

and there, there is already an intense debate about it,

a tu, tu se već vodi intenzivna debata o tome,

but in the mainstream political system and among the general public,

ali u mejnstrim političkom sistemu i među javnošću,

people are just unaware

ljudi su prosto nesvesni

that there could be an immense technological disruption --

da bi moglo da dođe do ogromnog tehnološkog raskola -

not in 200 years, but in 10, 20, 30 years --

ne za 200 godina, već za 10, 20, 30 godina -

and we have to do something about it now,

i moramo nešto da poduzmemo odmah,

partly because most of what we teach children today in school or in college

delom jer će većina onoga što podučavamo današnju decu u školi ili na fakultetu

is going to be completely irrelevant to the job market of 2040, 2050.

biti potpuno nevažno za tržište rada u 2040, 2050.

So it's not something we'll need to think about in 2040.

Dakle, ne radi se o nečemu o čemu ćemo morati da mislimo 2040.

We need to think today what to teach the young people.

Moramo da razmišljamo danas šta da podučavamo mlade ljude.

CA: Yeah, no, absolutely.

KA: Da, ne, apsolutno.

You've often written about moments in history

Često si pisao o trenucima u istoriji

where humankind has ... entered a new era, unintentionally.

u kojima je čovečanstvo... ušlo u novu eru, nenamerno.

Decisions have been made, technologies have been developed,

Odluke su donesene, razvijena je tehnologija

and suddenly the world has changed,

i iznenada se svet promenio,

possibly in a way that's worse for everyone.

moguće na način koji je gori za sve.

So one of the examples you give in "Sapiens"

Dakle, jedan od primera navedenih "Sapijensu"

is just the whole agricultural revolution,

je čitava zemljoradnička revlucija,

which, for an actual person tilling the fields,

koja, za stvarnu osobu koja obrađuje polja,

they just picked up a 12-hour backbreaking workday

prosto su odabrali 12-očasovni iscrpljujući radni dan,

instead of six hours in the jungle and a much more interesting lifestyle.

umesto šestočasovnog rada u džungli i daleko zanimljivijeg načina života.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

So are we at another possible phase change here,

Dakle, jesmo li kod još jedne moguće faze promena ovde,

where we kind of sleepwalk into a future that none of us actually wants?

gde nekako mesečarimo u budućnost koju zapravo niko od nas ne želi?

YNH: Yes, very much so.

JNH: Da, poprilično je tako.

During the agricultural revolution,

Tokom zemljoradničke revolucije,

what happened is that immense technological and economic revolution

desilo se to da je ogromna tehnološka i ekonomska revolucija

empowered the human collective,

osnažila ljudski kolektiv,

but when you look at actual individual lives,

ali ako pogledate u stvarne živote pojedinaca,

the life of a tiny elite became much better,

život uske elite je postao mnogo bolji,

and the lives of the majority of people became considerably worse.

a životi većine ljudi su postali značajno gori.

And this can happen again in the 21st century.

A to može ponovo da se desi u XXI veku.

No doubt the new technologies will empower the human collective.

Nesumnjivo će nova tehnologija da osnaži ljudski kolektiv.

But we may end up again

Ali možda ponovo završimo

with a tiny elite reaping all the benefits, taking all the fruits,

tako što malobrojna elita požanje sve prednosti, pobere sve plodove,

and the masses of the population finding themselves worse

a narodne mase se zateknu u gorem stanju

than they were before,

nego što im je bilo pre,

certainly much worse than this tiny elite.

sigurno mnogo gorem od ove malobrojne elite.

CA: And those elites might not even be human elites.

KA: A ta elita možda čak neće biti ljudska elita.

They might be cyborgs or --

Mogli bi da budu kiborzi ili -

YNH: Yeah, they could be enhanced super humans.

JNH: Da, mogli bi da budu unapređeni superljudi.

They could be cyborgs.

Mogli bi da budu kiborzi.

They could be completely nonorganic elites.

Mogli bi da budu u potpunosti neorganska elita.

They could even be non-conscious algorithms.

Mogli bi čak da budu nesvesni algoritmi.

What we see now in the world is authority shifting away

Trenutno gledamo kako autoritet u svetu prelazi

from humans to algorithms.

sa ljudi na algoritme.

More and more decisions -- about personal lives,

Sve više odluka - o ličnim životima,

about economic matters, about political matters --

o ekonomskim pitanjima, o političkim pitanjima -

are actually being taken by algorithms.

donose algoritmi.

If you ask the bank for a loan,

Ako zatražite zajam od banke,

chances are your fate is decided by an algorithm, not by a human being.

sve su prilike da će o vašoj sudbini odlučivati algoritam, a ne ljudsko biće.

And the general impression is that maybe Homo sapiens just lost it.

A opšti utisak je da je možda Homo sapijens prosto izgubio kontrolu.

The world is so complicated, there is so much data,

Svet je toliko komplikovan, ima previše podataka,

things are changing so fast,

stvari se menjaju suviše brzo,

that this thing that evolved on the African savanna

da je ovo biće koje je evoluiralo u afričkim savanama

tens of thousands of years ago --

pre više desetina hiljada godina -

to cope with a particular environment,

da se nosi sa određenim sredinama,

a particular volume of information and data --

određenom količinom informacija i podataka -

it just can't handle the realities of the 21st century,

da prosto ne može da izađe na kraj sa stvarnošću XXI veka,

and the only thing that may be able to handle it

a jedino što može da izađe na kraj s tim

is big-data algorithms.

su algoritmi za velike podatke.

So no wonder more and more authority is shifting from us to the algorithms.

Te ne čudi što se autoritet sve više prebacuje s nas na algoritme.

CA: So we're in New York City for the first of a series of TED Dialogues

KA: Dakle, u Njujorku smo radi prvog u nizu TED dijaloga

with Yuval Harari,

sa Juvalom Hararijem

and there's a Facebook Live audience out there.

i uživo nas prati publika na Fejsbuku.

We're excited to have you with us.

Uzbuđeni smo što ste sa nama.

We'll start coming to some of your questions

Počećemo da se bavimo nekim vašim pitanjima

and questions of people in the room

i pitanjima ljudi u prostoriji

in just a few minutes,

za svega nekoliko minuta,

so have those coming.

pa neka stižu pitanja.

Yuval, if you're going to make the argument

Juval, ako ćeš da argumentuješ

that we need to get past nationalism because of the coming technological ...

da moramo da prevaziđemo nacionalizam zbog predstojeće tehnološke...

danger, in a way,

opasnosti, na neki način,

presented by so much of what's happening

koja je prikazana kroz razna dešavanja,

we've got to have a global conversation about this.

moramo da imamo globalnu raspravu o ovome.

Trouble is, it's hard to get people really believing that, I don't know,

Problem je što je teško uveriti ljude da, pojma nemam,

AI really is an imminent threat, and so forth.

da je VI zaista trenutna opasnost itd.

The things that people, some people at least,

Da stvari koje su ljudima, bar nekim ljudima,

care about much more immediately, perhaps,

daleko hitnije za zabrinutost

is climate change,

su klimatske promene,

perhaps other issues like refugees, nuclear weapons, and so forth.

možda druga pitanja poput izbeglica, nuklearnog oružja itd.

Would you argue that where we are right now

Da li bi tvrdio sa pozicije u kojoj smo trenutno

that somehow those issues need to be dialed up?

da nekako treba naglasiti ta pitanja?

You've talked about climate change,

Govorio si o klimatskim promenama,

but Trump has said he doesn't believe in that.

ali Tramp kaže da ne veruje u to.

So in a way, your most powerful argument,

Pa, na neki način, tvoj najsnažniji argument,

you can't actually use to make this case.

zapravo ga ne možeš koristiti ovde za ubeđivanje.

YNH: Yeah, I think with climate change,

JNH: Da, smatram da kod klimatskih promena,

at first sight, it's quite surprising

na prvi pogled, prilično je iznenađujuće

that there is a very close correlation

da postoji veoma prisna veza

between nationalism and climate change.

između nacionalizma i klimatskih promena.

I mean, almost always, the people who deny climate change are nationalists.

Mislim, skoro uvek, ljudi koji poriču klimatske promene su nacionalisti.

And at first sight, you think: Why?

A, na prvi pogled, mislite: zašto?

What's the connection?

Gde je veza?

Why don't you have socialists denying climate change?

Zašto socijalisti ne poriču klimatske promene?

But then, when you think about it, it's obvious --

Ali onda, ako razmislite o tome, očigledno je -

because nationalism has no solution to climate change.

jer nacionalizam nema rešenje za klimatske promene.

If you want to be a nationalist in the 21st century,

Ako želite da budete nacionalista u XXI veku,

you have to deny the problem.

morate da poričete problem.

If you accept the reality of the problem, then you must accept that, yes,

Ako prihvatite da je problem stvaran, onda morate da prihvatite, da,

there is still room in the world for patriotism,

i dalje ima mesta u svetu za patriotizam,

there is still room in the world for having special loyalties

i dalje ima mesta u svetu za iskazivanje naročite lojalnosti

and obligations towards your own people, towards your own country.

i obaveza prema svom narodu, prema sopstvenoj državi.

I don't think anybody is really thinking of abolishing that.

Ne smatram da iko razmišlja da to ukine.

But in order to confront climate change,

Međutim, da biste se suprotstavili klimatskim promenama,

we need additional loyalties and commitments

potrebna nam je dodatna lojalnost i posvećenost

to a level beyond the nation.

na nivou većem od nacionalnog.

And that should not be impossible,

A to ne bi trebalo da bude nemoguće

because people can have several layers of loyalty.

jer ljudi mogu da imaju više slojeva lojalnosti.

You can be loyal to your family

Možete da budete lojalni svojoj porodici

and to your community

i svojoj zajednici

and to your nation,

i svojoj naciji,

so why can't you also be loyal to humankind as a whole?

pa zašto ne biste bili takođe lojalni celokupnom čovečanstvu?

Of course, there are occasions when it becomes difficult,

Naravno, postoje situacije kada to postane teško,

what to put first,

šta da stavite na prvo mesto,

but, you know, life is difficult.

ali, znate, život je težak.

Handle it.

Nosite se s tim.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

CA: OK, so I would love to get some questions from the audience here.

KA: U redu. Voleo bih da publika ovde postavi neko pitanje.

We've got a microphone here.

Imamo mikrofon ovde.

Speak into it, and Facebook, get them coming, too.

Govorite u njega, a Fejsbuk, neka i oni šalju pitanja.

Howard Morgan: One of the things that has clearly made a huge difference

Hauard Morgan: Jedna od stvari koja je očito imala veliki uticaj

in this country and other countries

u ovoj državi i drugim državama

is the income distribution inequality,

je nejednaka raspodela prihoda,

the dramatic change in income distribution in the US

drastična promena u raspodeli prihoda u SAD-u

from what it was 50 years ago,

od onoga što je bilo pre 50 godina,

and around the world.

kao i širom sveta.

Is there anything we can do to affect that?

Postoji li nešto što možemo da uradimo da bismo uticali na to?

Because that gets at a lot of the underlying causes.

Jer to nas vodi mnogim sveprožimajućim uzrocima.

YNH: So far I haven't heard a very good idea about what to do about it,

JNH: Do sad nisam čuo naročito dobru zamisao šta da radimo povodom toga,

again, partly because most ideas remain on the national level,

opet, delimično jer većina ideja ostaje na nacionalnom nivou,

and the problem is global.

a problem je globalan.

I mean, one idea that we hear quite a lot about now

Jedna zamisao koju trenutno mnogo slušamo

is universal basic income.

je o univerzalnom osnovnom prihodu.

But this is a problem.

Međutim, to je problem.

Mislim, smatram to dobrim početkom,

I mean, I think it's a good start,

but it's a problematic idea because it's not clear what "universal" is

ali je zamisao problematična jer nije jasno šta je "univerzalno"

and it's not clear what "basic" is.

i nije jasno šta je "osnovno".

Most people when they speak about universal basic income,

Mnogi ljudi kada govore o univerzalnom osnovnom prihodu,

they actually mean national basic income.

zapravo misle na nacionalni osnovni prihod.

But the problem is global.

Međutim, problem je globalan.

Let's say that you have AI and 3D printers taking away millions of jobs

Recimo da vam VI i 3D štampači oduzimaju milione poslova

in Bangladesh,

u Bangladešu,

from all the people who make my shirts and my shoes.

svim tim ljudima koji mi prave košulje i cipele.

So what's going to happen?

Pa, šta će da se desi?

The US government will levy taxes on Google and Apple in California,

Vlada SAD-a će da nametne poreze Guglu i Eplu u Kaliforniji,

and use that to pay basic income to unemployed Bangladeshis?

i koristiće to da plaćaju osnovni prihod nezaposlenim Bangladešanima?

If you believe that, you can just as well believe

Ako verujete u to, možete slobodno da verujete

that Santa Claus will come and solve the problem.

da će doći Deda Mraz i rešiti problem.

So unless we have really universal and not national basic income,

Ako ne budemo imali zaista univerzalan, a ne nacionalni osnovni prihod,

the deep problems are not going to go away.

veliki problemi neće nestati.

And also it's not clear what basic is,

A takođe nije jasno šta je osnovno,

because what are basic human needs?

jer šta su osnovne ljudske potrebe?

A thousand years ago, just food and shelter was enough.

Pre hiljadu godina, samo hrana i smeštaj su bili dovoljni.

But today, people will say education is a basic human need,

Međutim, danas će ljudi da kažu da je obrazovanje osnovna ljudska potreba,

it should be part of the package.

trebalo bi da bude u paketu s tim.

But how much? Six years? Twelve years? PhD?

Međutim, koliko? Šest godina? Dvanaest godina? Doktorat?

Similarly, with health care,

Slično je i sa zdravstvenom zaštitom,

let's say that in 20, 30, 40 years,

recimo da ćete za 20, 30, 40 godina

you'll have expensive treatments that can extend human life

imati skupe tretmane koji će moći da produže ljudski život

to 120, I don't know.

do 120 godina, pojma nemam.

Will this be part of the basket of basic income or not?

Hoće li ovo da bude deo paketa osnovnog prihoda ili neće?

It's a very difficult problem,

To je veoma težak problem

because in a world where people lose their ability to be employed,

jer u svetu u kom ljudi gube mogućnost zapošljavanja,

the only thing they are going to get is this basic income.

jedino što će da primaju je ovaj osnovni prihod.

So what's part of it is a very, very difficult ethical question.

Pa, šta spada u to je veoma teško etičko pitanje.

CA: There's a bunch of questions on how the world affords it as well,

KA: Takođe imamo gomilu pitanja o tome kako će to svet da priušti,

who pays.

ko će da plati.

There's a question here from Facebook from Lisa Larson:

Imamo pitanje sa Fejsbuka od Lise Larson:

"How does nationalism in the US now

"Kako se trenutni nacionalizam u SAD-u

compare to that between World War I and World War II

može porediti sa onim između Prvog i Drugog svetskog rata

in the last century?"

u prošlom veku?"

YNH: Well the good news, with regard to the dangers of nationalism,

JNH: Pa, dobre vesti su, kod opasnosti od nacionalizma,

we are in a much better position than a century ago.

da smo u mnogo boljoj situaciji nego pre jednog veka.

A century ago, 1917,

Pre jednog veka, 1917,

Europeans were killing each other by the millions.

Evropljani su se međusobno ubijali na milione.

In 2016, with Brexit, as far as I remember,

U 2016, kod Bregzita, koliko se sećam,

a single person lost their life, an MP who was murdered by some extremist.

jedna osoba je izgubila život, poslanika skupštine su ubili ekstremisti.

Just a single person.

Samo jedna osoba.

I mean, if Brexit was about British independence,

Mislim, ako je Bregzit bio o britanskoj nezavisnosti,

this is the most peaceful war of independence in human history.

ovo je najmirniji rat za nezavisnost u ljudskoj istoriji.

And let's say that Scotland will now choose to leave the UK

I recimo da Škotska sad odluči da napusti Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo

after Brexit.

nakon Bregzita.

So in the 18th century,

Dakle, u XVIII veku,

if Scotland wanted -- and the Scots wanted several times --

ako je Škotska želela - a Škoti jesu želeli nekoliko puta -

to break out of the control of London,

da se oslobodi kontrole Londona,

the reaction of the government in London was to send an army up north

reakcija vlade iz Londona bila je da pošalje vojsku na sever

to burn down Edinburgh and massacre the highland tribes.

da spali Edinburg i masakrira plemena na visoravnima.

My guess is that if, in 2018, the Scots vote for independence,

Moja pretpostavka je da ako u 2018. Škoti izglasaju nezavisnost,

the London government will not send an army up north

vlada iz Londona neće slati armiju na sever

to burn down Edinburgh.

da spali Edinburg.

Very few people are now willing to kill or be killed

Veoma je malo ljudi danas voljno da ubija i bude ubijeno

for Scottish or for British independence.

za škotsku ili britansku nezavisnost.

So for all the talk of the rise of nationalism

Pa, povodom svih rasprava o usponu nacionalizma

and going back to the 1930s,

i vraćanju u 1930-te,

to the 19th century, in the West at least,

u XIX vek, bar na Zapadu,

the power of national sentiments today is far, far smaller

danas je moć nacionalnog osećanja daleko, daleko manja

than it was a century ago.

nego što je bila pre jednog veka.

CA: Although some people now, you hear publicly worrying

KA: Iako čujemo da se neki ljudi trenutno brinu

about whether that might be shifting,

zbog toga da bi se to moglo promeniti,

that there could actually be outbreaks of violence in the US

da bi zapravo moglo da dođe do izbijanja nasilja u SAD-u,

depending on how things turn out.

u zavisnosti od toga kako sve ispadne.

Should we be worried about that,

Da li treba da brinemo oko toga

or do you really think things have shifted?

ili zaista smatraš da su se stvari promenile?

YNH: No, we should be worried.

JNH: Ne, treba brinuti.

We should be aware of two things.

Treba da smo svesni dve stvari.

First of all, don't be hysterical.

Pre svega, ne budite histerični.

We are not back in the First World War yet.

Još uvek se nismo vratili u Prvi svetski rat.

But on the other hand, don't be complacent.

Međutim, s druge strane, ne budite samozadovoljni.

We reached from 1917 to 2017,

Stigli smo od 1917. do 2017.

not by some divine miracle,

ne nekim božanskim čudom,

but simply by human decisions,

već prosto ljudskim odlukama,

and if we now start making the wrong decisions,

a ako sad počnemo da donosimo pogrešne odluke,

we could be back in an analogous situation to 1917

mogli bismo da se vratimo u situaciju analognu onoj iz 1917,

in a few years.

za nekoliko godina.

One of the things I know as a historian

Kao istoričar, znam jedno

is that you should never underestimate human stupidity.

a to je da nikad ne bi trebalo potcenjivati ljudsku glupost.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

It's one of the most powerful forces in history,

To je jedna od najmoćnijih sila u istoriji,

human stupidity and human violence.

ljudska glupost i ljudsko nasilje.

Humans do such crazy things for no obvious reason,

Ljudi rade tako sulude stvari bez vidljivog razloga,

but again, at the same time,

ali opet, istovremeno,

another very powerful force in human history is human wisdom.

još jedna snažna sila u ljudskoj istoriji je ljudska mudrost.

We have both.

Posedujemo obe.

CA: We have with us here moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt,

KA: Sa nama je ovde psiholog morala, Džonatan Hajt,

who I think has a question.

mislim da ima pitanje.

Jonathan Haidt: Thanks, Yuval.

Džonatan Hajt: Hvala Juval.

So you seem to be a fan of global governance,

Dakle, čini se da si pristalica globalne vladavine,

but when you look at the map of the world from Transparency International,

ali ako pogledaš kartu sveta Transparensi internešnala,

which rates the level of corruption of political institutions,

koja ocenjuje nivo korupcije u političkim institucijama,

it's a vast sea of red with little bits of yellow here and there

to je ogromno more crvene sa komadićima žute tu i tamo

for those with good institutions.

kod onih sa dobrim institucijama.

So if we were to have some kind of global governance,

Pa, ukoliko bismo imali neki vid globalne vladavine,

what makes you think it would end up being more like Denmark

zbog čega smatraš da će ona na kraju više ličiti na Dansku

rather than more like Russia or Honduras,

nego na Rusiju ili Honduras,

and aren't there alternatives,

i zar nemamo alternative,

such as we did with CFCs?

kao što smo imali kod hlorofluorougljenika?

There are ways to solve global problems with national governments.

Ima načina da se reše globalni problemi sa nacionalnim vladama.

What would world government actually look like,

Kako bi svetska vlada zapravo izgledala

and why do you think it would work?

i zašto smatraš da bi funkcionisala?

YNH: Well, I don't know what it would look like.

JNH: Pa, ne znam kako bi izgledala.

Nobody still has a model for that.

Niko i dalje nema obrazac za to.

The main reason we need it

Glavni razlog zašto nam je potrebna

is because many of these issues are lose-lose situations.

je jer su mnoga ova pitanja situacije bez pobednika.

When you have a win-win situation like trade,

Kada imate situaciju gde svi pobeđuju, poput trgovine,

both sides can benefit from a trade agreement,

obe strane mogu da imaju korist od trgovinskog sporazuma,

then this is something you can work out.

onda je to nešto oko čega možete da se dogovorite.

Without some kind of global government,

Bez nekog vida globalne vlade,

national governments each have an interest in doing it.

nacionalne vlade pojedinačno imaju interes da se time bave.

But when you have a lose-lose situation like with climate change,

Ali kad imate situaciju bez pobednika, kao u slučaju klimatskih promena,

it's much more difficult

daleko je teže

without some overarching authority, real authority.

bez nekog sveobuhvatnog autoriteta, stvarnog autoriteta.

Now, how to get there and what would it look like,

Sad, kako da to postignete i kako bi to izgledalo,

I don't know.

ne znam.

And certainly there is no obvious reason

I zasigurno da ne postoji vidljiv razlog

to think that it would look like Denmark,

da bi ličilo na Dansku

or that it would be a democracy.

ili da bi se radilo o demokratiji.

Most likely it wouldn't.

Verovatno ne bi.

We don't have workable democratic models

Nemamo funkcionalne demokratske obrasce

for a global government.

za globalnu vladu.

So maybe it would look more like ancient China

Dakle, možda bi više ličila na drevnu Kinu

than like modern Denmark.

nego na savremenu Dansku.

But still, given the dangers that we are facing,

Ali, ipak, s obzirom na opasnosti s kojima se suočavamo,

I think the imperative of having some kind of real ability

mislim da je imperativ posedovanja nekog vida stvarne sposobnosti

to force through difficult decisions on the global level

da se poguraju teške odluke na globalnom nivou

is more important than almost anything else.

daleko važniji gotovo od bilo čega drugog.

CA: There's a question from Facebook here,

KA: Ovde imamo pitanje sa Fejsbuka,

and then we'll get the mic to Andrew.

a onda ćemo dati mikrofon Endruu.

So, Kat Hebron on Facebook,

Dakle, Ket Hebron sa Fejsbuka,

calling in from Vail:

javlja se iz Vejla:

"How would developed nations manage the millions of climate migrants?"

"Kako bi se razvijene nacije snašle sa milionima klimatskih migranata?"

YNH: I don't know.

JNH: Ne znam.

CA: That's your answer, Kat. (Laughter)

KA: To vam je odgovor, Ket. (Smeh)

YNH: And I don't think that they know either.

JNH: I mislim da ni one ne znaju.

They'll just deny the problem, maybe.

Prosto će da poriču problem, možda.

CA: But immigration, generally, is another example of a problem

KA: Ali imigracija je generalno još jedan primer problema

that's very hard to solve on a nation-by-nation basis.

koji je veoma teško rešiti na nacionalnoj osnovi.

One nation can shut its doors,

Jedan narod može da zatvori vrata,

but maybe that stores up problems for the future.

ali možda to gomila probleme u budućnosti.

YNH: Yes, I mean -- it's another very good case,

JNH: Da, mislim - to je još jedan dobar primer,

especially because it's so much easier

naročito jer je danas daleko lakše

to migrate today

migrirati

than it was in the Middle Ages or in ancient times.

nego što je bilo u Srednjem veku ili u drevna vremena.

CA: Yuval, there's a belief among many technologists, certainly,

KA: Juval, postoji verovanje među mnogim tehničarima, zasigurno,

that political concerns are kind of overblown,

da je politička zabrinutost nekako preuveličana,

that actually, political leaders don't have that much influence

da političke vođe zapravo nemaju toliki uticaj

in the world,

u svetu,

that the real determination of humanity at this point is by science,

da je nauka ta koja u ovom trenutku odlučuje o čovečanstvu,

by invention, by companies,

izumima, firmama,

by many things other than political leaders,

mnogim stvarima mimo političkih vođa

and it's actually very hard for leaders to do much,

i zapravo je veoma teško za vođe da mnogo urade,

so we're actually worrying about nothing here.

pa se zapravo brinemo bez razloga.

YNH: Well, first, it should be emphasized

JNH: Pa, prvo treba naglasiti

that it's true that political leaders' ability to do good is very limited,

da je istina da je ograničena mogućnost političkih vođa da urade nešto dobro,

but their ability to do harm is unlimited.

ali je njihova mogućnost da nanesu zlo neograničena.

There is a basic imbalance here.

Tu počiva osnovna neravnoteža.

You can still press the button and blow everybody up.

Još uvek možete da pritisnete dugme i da sve raznesete.

You have that kind of ability.

Imate mogućnost za to.

But if you want, for example, to reduce inequality,

Ali ako želite, na primer, da umanjite nejednakost,

that's very, very difficult.

to je veoma, veoma teško.

But to start a war,

Ali da započnete rat,

you can still do so very easily.

i dalje to možete veoma lako.

So there is a built-in imbalance in the political system today

Dakle, imamo ugrađenu neravnotežu u današnjem političkom sistemu

which is very frustrating,

koja je veoma frustrirajuća,

where you cannot do a lot of good but you can still do a lot of harm.

gde ne možete mnogo dobrog da uradite, ali i dalje možete da nanesete mnogo zla.

And this makes the political system still a very big concern.

A zbog toga je politički sistem i dalje veoma velika briga.

CA: So as you look at what's happening today,

KA: Dakle, kad pogledaš šta se trenutno dešava

and putting your historian's hat on,

i staviš šešir istoričara,

do you look back in history at moments when things were going just fine

da li se osvrneš u istoriju, na momente kada je sve išlo sasvim dobro,

and an individual leader really took the world or their country backwards?

a pojedinačni vođa je zaista vratio svet ili svoju državu unazad?

YNH: There are quite a few examples,

JNH: Ima mnogo primera,

but I should emphasize, it's never an individual leader.

ali ću da naglasim, nikad se ne radi o pojedinačnom vođi.

I mean, somebody put him there,

Mislim, neko ga je smestio tu,

and somebody allowed him to continue to be there.

i neko mu je dozvolio da nastavi da bude tu.

So it's never really just the fault of a single individual.

Stoga nikad zaista nije krivica samo na pojedincu.

There are a lot of people behind every such individual.

Postoji mnogo ljudi iza svakog sličnog pojedinca.

CA: Can we have the microphone here, please, to Andrew?

KA: Možemo li da dodamo mikrofon ovde, molim vas, do Endrua?

Andrew Solomon: You've talked a lot about the global versus the national,

Endru Solomon: Mnogo si govorio o globalnom protiv nacionalnog,

but increasingly, it seems to me,

ali čini mi se da je sve više

the world situation is in the hands of identity groups.

situacija u svetu u rukama identitetskih grupa.

We look at people within the United States

Gledamo ljude u Sjedinjenim Državama

who have been recruited by ISIS.

koje je ISIS regrutovala.

We look at these other groups which have formed

Vidimo formiranje drugih grupa

which go outside of national bounds

koje prevazilaze nacionalne granice,

but still represent significant authorities.

ali i dalje predstavljaju značajne autoritete.

How are they to be integrated into the system,

Kako da ih integrišemo u sistem

and how is a diverse set of identities to be made coherent

i kako da učinimo koherentnim različit skup identiteta

under either national or global leadership?

pod bilo nacionalnim ili globalnim vođstvom?

YNH: Well, the problem of such diverse identities

JNH: Pa, problem sa sličnim različitim identitetima

is a problem from nationalism as well.

je takođe problem nastao iz nacionalizma.

Nationalism believes in a single, monolithic identity,

Nacionalizam veruje u jedan, monolitan identitet,

and exclusive or at least more extreme versions of nationalism

a isključujuća ili bar ekstremnija verzija nacionalizma

believe in an exclusive loyalty to a single identity.

veruje u isključivu lojalnost jednom identitetu.

And therefore, nationalism has had a lot of problems

I stoga je nacionalizam imao mnogo problema

with people wanting to divide their identities

sa ljudima koji su želeli da podele svoje identitete

between various groups.

između različitih grupa.

So it's not just a problem, say, for a global vision.

Dakle, to nije samo problem, recimo, za globalnu viziju.

And I think, again, history shows

I, opet, mislim, istorija pokazuje

that you shouldn't necessarily think in such exclusive terms.

da ne bi nužno trebalo razmišljati u sličnom isključivom smislu.

If you think that there is just a single identity for a person,

Ako smatrate da postoji samo jedan identitet za osobu:

"I am just X, that's it, I can't be several things, I can be just that,"

"Ja sam samo X, to je to, ne mogu da budem više stvari, mogu da budem samo to",

that's the start of the problem.

to je početak problema.

You have religions, you have nations

Imate religije, imate nacije

that sometimes demand exclusive loyalty,

koje ponekad zahtevaju isključivu lojalnost,

but it's not the only option.

ali to nije jedina opcija.

There are many religions and many nations

Ima mnogo religija i mnogo nacija

that enable you to have diverse identities at the same time.

koje vam istovremeno omogućuju da imate raznolike identitete.

CA: But is one explanation of what's happened in the last year

KA: Ali to je jedno od objašnjenja za to što se desilo prošle godine

that a group of people have got fed up with, if you like,

da je grupi ljudi dozlogrdila, ako hoćeš,

the liberal elites, for want of a better term,

liberalna elita, u nedostatku boljeg termina,

obsessing over many, many different identities and them feeling,

koja je opsednuta mnogim, mnogim različitim identitetima i oni se osećaju:

"But what about my identity? I am being completely ignored here.

"Ali šta je s mojim identitetom? Potpuno me ignorišete.

And by the way, I thought I was the majority"?

I, usput, mislio sam da sam ja većina?"

And that that's actually sparked a lot of the anger.

I da je to zapravo pokrenulo mnogo besa.

YNH: Yeah. Identity is always problematic,

JNH: Da. Identitet je uvek problematičan

because identity is always based on fictional stories

jer je identitet uvek zasnovan na fiktivnim pričama

that sooner or later collide with reality.

koje se kad-tad sudare sa stvarnošću.

Almost all identities,

Skoro svi identiteti,

I mean, beyond the level of the basic community

mislim, mimo nivoa osnovne zajednice

of a few dozen people,

od nekoliko desetina ljudi,

are based on a fictional story.

su zasnovani na fiktivnim pričama.

They are not the truth.

Nisu istiniti.

They are not the reality.

Nisu stvarni.

It's just a story that people invent and tell one another

To je prosto priča koju ljudi izmišljaju i pričaju jedni drugima

and start believing.

i počinju u nju da veruju.

And therefore all identities are extremely unstable.

I stoga su svi identiteti izuzetno nestabilni.

They are not a biological reality.

Nisu biološka stvarnost.

Sometimes nationalists, for example,

Ponekad nacionalisti, na primer,

think that the nation is a biological entity.

misle da je nacija biološki entitet.

It's made of the combination of soil and blood,

Kombinacija zemlje i krvi

creates the nation.

stvara naciju.

But this is just a fictional story.

Ali to je samo fiktivna priča.

CA: Soil and blood kind of makes a gooey mess.

KA: Zemlja i krv čine nekakvu gnjecavu masu.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

YNH: It does, and also it messes with your mind

JNH: Tako je, a takođe vam remeti um

when you think too much that I am a combination of soil and blood.

kada suviše razmišljate da ste spoj zemlje i krvi.

If you look from a biological perspective,

Ako pogledate iz biološke perspektive,

obviously none of the nations that exist today

očigledno da nijedna nacija koja danas postoji

existed 5,000 years ago.

nije postojala pre 5000 godina.

Homo sapiens is a social animal, that's for sure.

Homo sapijens je društvena životinja, to je izvesno.

But for millions of years,

Međutim, milionima godina,

Homo sapiens and our hominid ancestors lived in small communities

Homo sapijens i naši preci hominidi su živeli u malim zajednicama

of a few dozen individuals.

od nekoliko desetina pojedinaca.

Everybody knew everybody else.

Svako je znao sve ostale.

Whereas modern nations are imagined communities,

Dok su savremene nacije zamišljene zajednice,

in the sense that I don't even know all these people.

u smislu da ja čak ni ne znam sve te ljude.

I come from a relatively small nation, Israel,

Potičem iz relativno male nacije, Izraela,

and of eight million Israelis,

a od osam miliona Izraelaca,

I never met most of them.

većinu nikad nisam upoznao.

I will never meet most of them.

Nikada neću upoznati većinu njih.

They basically exist here.

Oni u suštini postoje ovde.

CA: But in terms of this identity,

KA: Ali u smislu tog identiteta,

this group who feel left out and perhaps have work taken away,

ova grupa koja se oseća izostavljeno i možda su im oduzeli poslove,

I mean, in "Homo Deus,"

mislim, u "Homo deusu",

you actually speak of this group in one sense expanding,

ti zapravo govoriš o ovoj grupi kako se na neki način širi,

that so many people may have their jobs taken away

da će mnogim ljudima tehnologija možda oduzeti poslove

by technology in some way that we could end up with

i da bismo na neki način mogli da završimo

a really large -- I think you call it a "useless class" --

sa zaista velikom - mislim da to nazivaš "beskorisnom klasom" -

a class where traditionally,

klasom koja tradicionalno,

as viewed by the economy, these people have no use.

gledano iz ugla ekonomije, ovi ljudi nemaju svrhu.

YNH: Yes.

JNH: Da.

CA: How likely a possibility is that?

KA: Koliko je verovatna ta mogućnost?

Is that something we should be terrified about?

Da li je to nešto što bi trebalo da nas plaši?

And can we address it in any way?

I možemo li time nekako da se bavimo?

YNH: We should think about it very carefully.

JNH: Trebalo bi veoma pažljivo o tome da razmislimo.

I mean, nobody really knows what the job market will look like

Mislim, niko zaista ne zna kako će tržište rada da izgleda

in 2040, 2050.

u 2040, 2050.

There is a chance many new jobs will appear,

Postoji mogućnost da će se pojaviti mnogi poslovi,

but it's not certain.

ali to nije izvesno.

And even if new jobs do appear,

A čak i da se novi poslovi pojave,

it won't necessarily be easy

neće nužno da bude lako

for a 50-year old unemployed truck driver

za 50-ogodišnjeg nezaposlenog kamiondžiju,

made unemployed by self-driving vehicles,

koji je ostao bez posla zbog samoupravljajućih vozila,

it won't be easy for an unemployed truck driver

neće da bude lako nezaposlenom kamiondžiji

to reinvent himself or herself as a designer of virtual worlds.

da se prekvalifikuje u tvorca virtuelnih svetova.

Previously, if you look at the trajectory of the industrial revolution,

Ranije, ako pogledate putanju industrijske revolucije,

when machines replaced humans in one type of work,

kad bi mašine zamenile ljude u jednoj oblasti rada,

the solution usually came from low-skill work

rešenje je obično došlo u vidu nekvalifikovanog rada

in new lines of business.

u novoj liniji poslovanja.

So you didn't need any more agricultural workers,

Dakle, nije vam potrebno više zemljoradnika,

so people moved to working in low-skill industrial jobs,

pa su ljudi prešli da se bave nekvalifikovanim industrijskim poslovima,

and when this was taken away by more and more machines,

a kad su mašine sve više preuzimale ove poslove,

people moved to low-skill service jobs.

ljudi su prešli na nekvalifikovane uslužne poslove.

Now, when people say there will be new jobs in the future,

Sad, kad ljudi kažu da će se u budućnosti pojaviti novi poslovi,

that humans can do better than AI,

da su ljudi bolji od veštačke inteligencije,

that humans can do better than robots,

da ljudi bolje rade od robota,

they usually think about high-skill jobs,

obično misle na visokokvalifikovane poslove,

like software engineers designing virtual worlds.

poput softverskih inženjera koji dizajniraju virtuelne svetove.

Now, I don't see how an unemployed cashier from Wal-Mart

Sad, ne vidim kako će se nezaposlena kasirka iz Vol-Marta

reinvents herself or himself at 50 as a designer of virtual worlds,

prekvalifikovati u 50. godini u tvorca virtuelnih svetova,

and certainly I don't see

a zasigurno ne vidim

how the millions of unemployed Bangladeshi textile workers

kako će milioni nezaposlenih tekstilnih radnika iz Bangladeša

will be able to do that.

biti u stanju da to urade.

I mean, if they are going to do it,

Mislim, ako će to da urade,

we need to start teaching the Bangladeshis today

moramo već danas početi da podučavamo Bangladešane

how to be software designers,

kako da budu softverski dizajneri,

and we are not doing it.

a mi to ne radimo.

So what will they do in 20 years?

Pa, šta će oni da rade za 20 godina?

CA: So it feels like you're really highlighting a question

KA: Utisak je da ti zaista naglašavaš pitanje

that's really been bugging me the last few months more and more.

koje me uistinu sve više kopka proteklih nekoliko meseci.

It's almost a hard question to ask in public,

Skoro da je teško pitanje da bi se postavilo u javnosti,

but if any mind has some wisdom to offer in it, maybe it's yours,

ali ako neki um ima malo mudrosti da je ponudi, možda je to tvoj,

so I'm going to ask you:

pa ću da te pitam:

What are humans for?

čemu služe ljudi?

YNH: As far as we know, for nothing.

JNH: Koliko nam je poznato ničemu.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

I mean, there is no great cosmic drama, some great cosmic plan,

Mislim, ne postoji velika kosmička drama, neki veliki kosmički plan

that we have a role to play in.

u kom imamo da odigramo ulogu.

And we just need to discover what our role is

A mi prosto treba da otkrijemo koja je naša uloga

and then play it to the best of our ability.

i da je odigramo najbolje što možemo.

This has been the story of all religions and ideologies and so forth,

Ovo je bila priča svih religija i ideologija i tako dalje,

but as a scientist, the best I can say is this is not true.

ali kao naučnik, sve što mogu da kažem je da nije tačna.

There is no universal drama with a role in it for Homo sapiens.

Ne postoji univerzalna drama u kojoj Homo sapijens ima ulogu.

So --

Dakle -

CA: I'm going to push back on you just for a minute,

KA: Malo ću da ti protivrečim, samo na minut,

just from your own book,

samo na osnovu tvoje knjige

because in "Homo Deus,"

jer u "Homo deusu",

you give really one of the most coherent and understandable accounts

daješ jedan od najkoherentnijih i najrazumljivijih objašnjenja

about sentience, about consciousness,

svesti, svesnosti

and that unique sort of human skill.

i tih nekih jedinstveno ljudskih veština.

You point out that it's different from intelligence,

Ističeš da se to razlikuje od inteligencije,

the intelligence that we're building in machines,

inteligencije koju ugrađujemo u mašine

and that there's actually a lot of mystery around it.

i da zapravo postoji mnogo tajnovitosti oko toga.

How can you be sure there's no purpose

Kako možeš da budeš siguran da nemamo svrhu

when we don't even understand what this sentience thing is?

kad čak ni ne razumemo šta je to svesnost?

I mean, in your own thinking, isn't there a chance

Mislim, prema tvom razumevanju, zar ne postoji mogućnost

that what humans are for is to be the universe's sentient things,

da je svrha ljudi da budu univerzumska svesna bića,

to be the centers of joy and love and happiness and hope?

da budu središta užitka i ljubavi i sreće i nade?

And maybe we can build machines that actually help amplify that,

I možda možemo da sagradimo mašine koje zapravo to mogu da pojačaju,

even if they're not going to become sentient themselves?

čak iako one same neće postati svesne?

Is that crazy?

Da li je to sumanuto?

I kind of found myself hoping that, reading your book.

Nekako sam se ponadao tome, čitajući tvoju knjigu,

YNH: Well, I certainly think that the most interesting question today in science

JNH: Pa, svakako smatram da je trenutno najzanimljivije pitanje u nauci

is the question of consciousness and the mind.

pitanje o svesnosti i umu.

We are getting better and better in understanding the brain

Sve smo bolji u razumevanju mozga

and intelligence,

i inteligencije,

but we are not getting much better

ali nismo mnogo bolji

in understanding the mind and consciousness.

u razumevanju uma i svesnosti.

People often confuse intelligence and consciousness,

Ljudi često mešaju inteligenciju i svesnost,

especially in places like Silicon Valley,

naročito na mestima poput Silicijumske doline,

which is understandable, because in humans, they go together.

što je razumljivo jer kod ljudi one idu zajedno.

I mean, intelligence basically is the ability to solve problems.

Mislim, inteligencija je u suštini sposobnost rešavanja problema.

Consciousness is the ability to feel things,

Svesnost je sposobnost osećanja,

to feel joy and sadness and boredom and pain and so forth.

osećati užitak i tugu i dosadu i bol itd.

In Homo sapiens and all other mammals as well -- it's not unique to humans --

Kod Homo sapijensa i svih ostalih sisara - nije to jedinstveno za ljude -

in all mammals and birds and some other animals,

kod svih sisara i ptica i nekih drugih životinja,

intelligence and consciousness go together.

inteligencija i svesnost idu zajedno.

We often solve problems by feeling things.

Mi često rešavamo probleme osećajući.

So we tend to confuse them.

Pa ih ponekad mešamo.

But they are different things.

Ali to su različite stvari.

What's happening today in places like Silicon Valley

Danas se na mestima, poput Silicijumske doline, dešava to

is that we are creating artificial intelligence

da stvaramo veštačku inteligenciju,

but not artificial consciousness.

ali ne i veštačku svesnost.

There has been an amazing development in computer intelligence

Došlo je do neverovatnog napretka u kompjuterskoj inteligenciji

over the last 50 years,

u proteklih 50 godina

and exactly zero development in computer consciousness,

i tačno nula napretka u kompjuterskoj svesnosti,

and there is no indication that computers are going to become conscious

i nema nagoveštaja da će kompjuteri postati svesni

anytime soon.

u skorije vreme.

So first of all, if there is some cosmic role for consciousness,

Zato, pre svega, ako postoji nekakva kosmička uloga za svesnost,

it's not unique to Homo sapiens.

nije jedinstvena za Homo sapijensa.

Cows are conscious, pigs are conscious,

Krave su svesne, svinje su svesne,

chimpanzees are conscious, chickens are conscious,

šimpanze su svesne, kokoške su svesne,

so if we go that way, first of all, we need to broaden our horizons

pa ako krenemo tim putem, pre svega, moramo da proširimo vidike

and remember very clearly we are not the only sentient beings on Earth,

i da se jasno prisetimo da nismo jedina svesna bića na Zemlji,

and when it comes to sentience --

a kad se radi o svesti -

when it comes to intelligence, there is good reason to think

kad se radi o inteligenciji, postoji dobar razlog da smatramo

we are the most intelligent of the whole bunch.

kako smo najinteligentniji od svih.

But when it comes to sentience,

Međutim, kad se radi o svesti,

to say that humans are more sentient than whales,

reći da su ljudi svesniji od kitova

or more sentient than baboons or more sentient than cats,

ili svesniji od babuna ili svesniji od mačaka,

I see no evidence for that.

ne vidim dokaze za to.

So first step is, you go in that direction, expand.

Dakle, prvi korak je ići u tom smeru, proširiti to.

And then the second question of what is it for,

A potom je drugo pitanje šta je svrha toga,

I would reverse it

ja bih ga preokrenuo

and I would say that I don't think sentience is for anything.

i rekao bih kako smatram da svesnost nema svrhu.

I think we don't need to find our role in the universe.

Mislim da ne moramo da otkrijemo našu ulogu u univerzumu.

The really important thing is to liberate ourselves from suffering.

Istinski važna stvar je da se oslobodimo patnje.

What characterizes sentient beings

Ono što karakteriše svesna bića

in contrast to robots, to stones,

nasuprot robotima, kamenju,

to whatever,

bilo čemu

is that sentient beings suffer, can suffer,

je da svesna bića pate, mogu da pate,

and what they should focus on

a trebalo bi da se usredsrede,

is not finding their place in some mysterious cosmic drama.

ne na traženje svog mesta u nekakvoj tajanstvenoj kosmičkoj drami.

They should focus on understanding what suffering is,

Trebalo bi da se usredsrede na razumevanje patnje,

what causes it and how to be liberated from it.

šta je uzrokuje i kako da je se oslobode.

CA: I know this is a big issue for you, and that was very eloquent.

KA: Znam da je ovo za tebe veliko pitanje i bio si veoma rečit.

We're going to have a blizzard of questions from the audience here,

Imaćemo navalu pitanja od prisutne publike,

and maybe from Facebook as well,

a možda i sa Fejsbuka,

and maybe some comments as well.

a možda i neke komentare.

So let's go quick.

Pa požurimo.

There's one right here.

Imamo jedno baš ovde.

Keep your hands held up at the back if you want the mic,

Vi iza, držite ruke podignute, ako želite mikrofon

and we'll get it back to you.

i mi ćemo vam ga dodati.

Question: In your work, you talk a lot about the fictional stories

Pitanje: U svom radu, mnogo govorite o fiktivnim pričama

that we accept as truth,

koje prihvatamo kao istinu,

and we live our lives by it.

a po njima živimo naše živote.

As an individual, knowing that,

Kao pojedinac, znajući to,

how does it impact the stories that you choose to live your life,

kako to utiče na vaše priče prema kojima živite svoj život,

and do you confuse them with the truth, like all of us?

i da li ih mešate sa istinom, poput svih nas?

YNH: I try not to.

JNH: Trudim se da ne mešam.

I mean, for me, maybe the most important question,

Mislim, za mene je najvažnije pitanje,

both as a scientist and as a person,

kao za naučnika i osobu,

is how to tell the difference between fiction and reality,

jeste kako razlikovati fikciju od stvarnosti

because reality is there.

jer stvarnost postoji.

I'm not saying that everything is fiction.

Ne govorim da je sve fikcija.

It's just very difficult for human beings to tell the difference

Samo je veoma teško za ljudska bića da vide razliku

between fiction and reality,

između fikcije i stvarnosti,

and it has become more and more difficult as history progressed,

i bivalo je sve teže i teže kako je istorija napredovala

because the fictions that we have created --

jer su fikcije koje smo stvorili -

nations and gods and money and corporations --

nacije, bogovi, novac i korporacije -

they now control the world.

one sada upravljaju svetom.

So just to even think,

Pa je sama pomisao:

"Oh, this is just all fictional entities that we've created,"

"Eh, to su samo fiktivni entiteti koje smo stvorili",

is very difficult.

je veoma komplikovana.

But reality is there.

Međutim, stvarnost postoji.

For me the best ...

Za mene najbolji...

There are several tests

Postoji nekoliko testova

to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

za razlikovanje fikcije od stvarnosti.

The simplest one, the best one that I can say in short,

Najjednostavniji, najbolji koji mogu ukratko da sročim

is the test of suffering.

je test patnje.

If it can suffer, it's real.

Ako može da pati, stvarno je.

If it can't suffer, it's not real.

Ako ne može da pati, nije stvarno.

A nation cannot suffer.

Nacija ne može da pati.

That's very, very clear.

To je veoma, veoma jasno.

Even if a nation loses a war,

Čak iako nacija izgubi rat,

we say, "Germany suffered a defeat in the First World War,"

kažemo: "Nemačka je pretrpela poraz u Prvom svetskom ratu",

it's a metaphor.

to je metafora.

Germany cannot suffer. Germany has no mind.

Nemačka ne može da pati. Nemačka nema razum.

Germany has no consciousness.

Nemačka nema svesnost.

Germans can suffer, yes, but Germany cannot.

Nemci mogu da pate, da, ali Nemačka ne može.

Similarly, when a bank goes bust,

Slično, kada banka bankrotira,

the bank cannot suffer.

banka ne može da pati.

When the dollar loses its value, the dollar doesn't suffer.

Kada dolar izgubi vrednost, dolar ne pati.

People can suffer. Animals can suffer.

Ljudi mogu da pate. Životinje mogu da pate.

This is real.

To je stvarno.

So I would start, if you really want to see reality,

Pa bih počeo, ako zaista želite da vidite stvarnost,

I would go through the door of suffering.

prošao bih kroz vrata patnje.

If you can really understand what suffering is,

Ako zaista možete da razumete šta je patnja,

this will give you also the key

to će vam takođe dati ključ

to understand what reality is.

za razumevanje stvarnosti.

CA: There's a Facebook question here that connects to this,

KA: Imamo pitanje sa Fejsbuka koje je s tim u vezi

from someone around the world in a language that I cannot read.

od nekoga iz sveta na jeziku koji ne mogu da čitam.

JNH: Oh, na hebrejskom je. KA: Hebrejski. Ti pročitaj.

YNH: Oh, it's Hebrew. CA: Hebrew. There you go.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Can you read the name?

Možeš li da pročitaš ime?

YNH: Or Lauterbach Goren.

JNH: Or Lauterbah Goren.

CA: Well, thank you for writing in.

KA: Pa, hvala što ste pisali.

The question is: "Is the post-truth era really a brand-new era,

Pitanje glasi: "Da li je postčinjenična era zaista sasvim nova era

or just another climax or moment in a never-ending trend?

ili samo još jedan klimaks ili trenutak u beskrajnom trendu?

YNH: Personally, I don't connect with this idea of post-truth.

JNH: Iskreno, ne mogu da se saživim sa tom idejom postčinjeničnosti.

My basic reaction as a historian is:

Moja osnovna reakcija kao istoričara glasi:

If this is the era of post-truth, when the hell was the era of truth?

ako je ovo postčinjenična era, kad je, dovraga, bila era istine?

CA: Right.

KA: Baš tako.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

YNH: Was it the 1980s, the 1950s, the Middle Ages?

JNH: Da li je to bilo 1980-ih, 1950-ih, u srednjem veku?

I mean, we have always lived in an era, in a way, of post-truth.

Mislim, uvek smo živeli u eri, koja je na neki način postčinjenična.

CA: But I'd push back on that,

KA: Tome bih protivrečio

because I think what people are talking about

jer mislim da ljudi govore

is that there was a world where you had fewer journalistic outlets,

kako smo imali svet u kom smo imali manje novinskih listova,

where there were traditions, that things were fact-checked.

u kom smo imali tradiciju, gde su činjenice proveravane.

It was incorporated into the charter of those organizations

U povelji tih organizacija je bilo ugrađeno

that the truth mattered.

to da je istina važna.

So if you believe in a reality,

Zato, ako verujete u stvarnost,

then what you write is information.

onda pišete informacije.

There was a belief that that information should connect to reality in a real way,

Imali smo verovanje da informacije treba da su pravilno povezane sa stvarnošću,

and if you wrote a headline, it was a serious, earnest attempt

a ako biste napisali naslov, to je bio ozbiljan, iskren pokušaj

to reflect something that had actually happened.

da se predstavi nešto što se stvarno desilo.

And people didn't always get it right.

A ljudi nisu uvek uspevali u tome.

But I think the concern now is you've got

No mislim da je trenutno problem to što imamo

a technological system that's incredibly powerful

tehnološki sistem koji je neverovatno moćan

that, for a while at least, massively amplified anything

da, bar neko vreme, uveliko naglašava bilo šta

with no attention paid to whether it connected to reality,

bez obraćanja pažnje da li ima veze sa stvarnošću,

only to whether it connected to clicks and attention,

samo je važno da ima veze sa klikovima i pažnjom,

and that that was arguably toxic.

a pretpostavlja se da je to zarazno.

That's a reasonable concern, isn't it?

To je briga s razlogom, zar ne?

YNH: Yeah, it is. I mean, the technology changes,

JNH: Da, jeste. Mislim, tehnologija se menja

and it's now easier to disseminate both truth and fiction and falsehood.

i danas je lakše širiti i istinu i fikciju i neistine.

It goes both ways.

Ide u oba smera.

It's also much easier, though, to spread the truth than it was ever before.

Takođe je mnogo lakše, pak, širiti istinu nego što je bilo ikad pre.

But I don't think there is anything essentially new

Ali mislim da se ništa suštinski novo nije desilo

about this disseminating fictions and errors.

kod širenja fikcija i zabluda.

There is nothing that -- I don't know -- Joseph Goebbels, didn't know

Nema tu ništa što - ne znam - Jozef Gebels nije znao

about all this idea of fake news and post-truth.

o svim tim zamislima lažnih vesti i post-činjenica.

He famously said that if you repeat a lie often enough,

Čuvena je njegova misao da ako ponovljate laž dovoljno često,

people will think it's the truth,

ljudi će da misle da je istinita,

and the bigger the lie, the better,

a što je veća laž, to je bolje

because people won't even think that something so big can be a lie.

jer ljudi neće čak ni da pomisle da nešto toliko veliko može da bude laž.

I think that fake news has been with us for thousands of years.

Mislim da su lažne vesti sa nama već hilljadama godina.

Just think of the Bible.

Samo se setite Biblije.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

CA: But there is a concern

KA: Ali postoji zabrinutost

that the fake news is associated with tyrannical regimes,

da su lažne vesti povezane sa tiranskim režimima

and when you see an uprise in fake news

i kada primetite uspon lažnih vesti

that is a canary in the coal mine that there may be dark times coming.

da je to kanarinac u rudniku koji nagoveštava dolazak mračnih vremena.

YNH: Yeah. I mean, the intentional use of fake news is a disturbing sign.

JNH: Da. Mislim, namerno korišćenje lažnih vesti je uznemirujući znak.

But I'm not saying that it's not bad, I'm just saying that it's not new.

Međutim, ne govorim da to nije loše, samo govorim da nije novo.

CA: There's a lot of interest on Facebook on this question

KA: Vlada veliko interesovanje na Fejsbuku za ovo pitanje

about global governance versus nationalism.

o globalnoj vladavini nasuprot nacionalizmu.

Question here from Phil Dennis:

Pitanje od Fila Denisa:

"How do we get people, governments, to relinquish power?

"Kako da navedemo ljude, vlade da se odreknu moći?

Is that -- is that -- actually, the text is so big

Da li je to - da li je to - zapravo, tekst je predugačak,

I can't read the full question.

ne mogu da pročitam celo pitanje.

But is that a necessity?

Ali da li je to nužnost?

Is it going to take war to get there?

Da li je potreban rat da se stigne dotle?

Sorry Phil -- I mangled your question, but I blame the text right here.

Izvini, File - iskasapio sam ti pitanje, ali krivim tekst koji je ovde.

YNH: One option that some people talk about

JNH: Jedna mogućnost, koju neki ljudi pominju

is that only a catastrophe can shake humankind

je da samo katastrofa može da uzdrma ljudski rod

and open the path to a real system of global governance,

i da prokrči stazu istinskom sistemu globalne vladavine

and they say that we can't do it before the catastrophe,

i kažu da ne možemo to da uradimo pre katastrofe,

but we need to start laying the foundations

ali moramo da počnemo da izlivamo temelje

so that when the disaster strikes,

kako bi kad se desi nedaća

we can react quickly.

mogli brzo da reagujemo.

But people will just not have the motivation to do such a thing

Međutim, ljudi prosto neće imati motivaciju da urade nešto tako

before the disaster strikes.

pre nego što se desi katastrofa.

Another thing that I would emphasize

Naglasio bih još jednu stvar,

is that anybody who is really interested in global governance

a to da bilo ko, ko je zaista zainteresovan za globalnu vladavinu,

should always make it very, very clear

bi trebalo da uvek bude veoma, veoma jasan

that it doesn't replace or abolish local identities and communities,

da ona ne menja, niti ukida lokalne identitete i zajednice,

that it should come both as --

da bi trebalo da dolazi i kao -

It should be part of a single package.

trebalo bi da dolazi u jednom paketu.

CA: I want to hear more on this,

KA: Želim da čujem više o tome

because the very words "global governance"

jer same reči "globalna vladavina"

are almost the epitome of evil in the mindset of a lot of people

su trenutno skoro ovaploćenje zla u mentalnom sklopu mnogih ljudi

on the alt-right right now.

sa alternativne desnice.

It just seems scary, remote, distant, and it has let them down,

Prosto se čine strašnim, udaljenim, dalekim i izneverilo ih je,

and so globalists, global governance -- no, go away!

stoga globalisti, globalna vladavina - ne, neka nestanu!

And many view the election as the ultimate poke in the eye

A mnogi vide izbore kao krajnji šamar u lice

to anyone who believes in that.

svima koji veruju u to.

So how do we change the narrative

Pa, kako da promenimo narativ

so that it doesn't seem so scary and remote?

kako ne bi izgledao tako zastrašujući i dalek?

Build more on this idea of it being compatible

Da nadogradimo ovu zamisao o njegovoj kompatibilnosti

with local identity, local communities.

sa lokalnim identitetima, lokalnim zajendicama.

YNH: Well, I think again we should start

JNH: Pa, mislim da bi ponovo trebalo da počnemo

really with the biological realities

zaista sa biološkom stvarnošću

of Homo sapiens.

Homo sapijensa.

And biology tells us two things about Homo sapiens

A biologija nam govori dve stvari o Homo sapijensu

which are very relevant to this issue:

koje su veoma bitne za ovo pitanje:

first of all, that we are completely dependent

pre svega, da smo potpuno zavisni

on the ecological system around us,

od ekološkog sistema oko nas

and that today we are talking about a global system.

i da danas govorimo o globalnom sistemu.

You cannot escape that.

Ne možete to da izbegnete.

And at the same time, biology tells us about Homo sapiens

A istovremeno, biologija nam govori o Homo sapijensu

that we are social animals,

da smo društvene životinje,

but that we are social on a very, very local level.

ali da smo društveni na veoma, veoma lokalnom nivou.

It's just a simple fact of humanity

To je prosta činjenica o čovečanstvu

that we cannot have intimate familiarity

da ne možemo da imamo prisnost

with more than about 150 individuals.

sa više od oko 150 pojedinaca.

The size of the natural group,

Veličina prirodne grupe,

the natural community of Homo sapiens,

prirodne zajednice Homo sapijensa

is not more than 150 individuals,

nije veća od 150 pojedinaca,

and everything beyond that is really based on all kinds of imaginary stories

a sve mimo toga je zaista zasnovano na raznim vrstama izmišljenih priča

and large-scale institutions,

i institucija velikih razmera

and I think that we can find a way,

i mislim da možemo da pronađemo način,

again, based on a biological understanding of our species,

opet, na osnovu biološkog razumevanja naše vrste,

to weave the two together

da upletemo to dvoje zajedno

and to understand that today in the 21st century,

i da razumemo da nam je danas u XXI veku

we need both the global level and the local community.

potreban i globalni nivo i lokalna zajednica.

And I would go even further than that

A išao bih i dalje od toga

and say that it starts with the body itself.

i rekao bih da počinje sa samim telom.

The feelings that people today have of alienation and loneliness

Osećanja otuđenosti i usamljenosti, koja današnji ljudi imaju

and not finding their place in the world,

i nemogućnost pronalaženja mesta u svetu,

I would think that the chief problem is not global capitalism.

mišljenja sam da glavni problem nije globalni kapitalizam.

The chief problem is that over the last hundred years,

Glavni problem je da su tokom poslednjih stotinu godina

people have been becoming disembodied,

ljudi se sve više odvajali od tela,

have been distancing themselves from their body.

udaljavali su se od svog tela.

As a hunter-gatherer or even as a peasant,

Kao lovac i sakupljač ili čak kao seljak,

to survive, you need to be constantly in touch

kako biste preživeli, morali ste stalno da budete u dodiru

with your body and with your senses,

sa svojim telom i svojim čulima,

every moment.

svakog trena.

If you go to the forest to look for mushrooms

Ako pođete u šumu da tražite pečurke

and you don't pay attention to what you hear,

i ne obratite pažnju na ono što čujete,

to what you smell, to what you taste,

ono što namirišete, ono što okusite,

you're dead.

mrtvi ste.

So you must be very connected.

Pa ste morali da budete veoma povezani.

In the last hundred years, people are losing their ability

U poslednjih stotinu godina, ljudi gube svoju sposobnost

to be in touch with their body and their senses,

da budu u dodiru sa svojim telom i svojim čulima,

to hear, to smell, to feel.

sa sluhom, mirisom, osećanjima.

More and more attention goes to screens,

Sve više pažnje se usmerava na ekrane,

to what is happening elsewhere,

na ono što se dešava drugde,

some other time.

u nekom drugom vremenu.

This, I think, is the deep reason

Ovo je, mislim, suštinski razlog

for the feelings of alienation and loneliness and so forth,

za osećanja otuđenosti, usamljenosti i tako dalje,

and therefore part of the solution

i stoga deo rešenja

is not to bring back some mass nationalism,

nije u vraćanju nekakvog masovnog nacionalizma,

but also reconnect with our own bodies,

već u povezivanju sa našim telima,

and if you are back in touch with your body,

a ako ste ponovo u dodiru sa svojim telom,

you will feel much more at home in the world also.

takođe ćete se osećati daleko prijatnije u svetu.

CA: Well, depending on how things go, we may all be back in the forest soon.

KA: Pa, u zavisnosti kako sve bude išlo, možda se uskoro svi vratimo u šume.

We're going to have one more question in the room

Imaćmo još jedno pitanje iz prostorije

and one more on Facebook.

i još jedno sa Fejsbuka.

Ama Adi-Dako: Hello. I'm from Ghana, West Africa, and my question is:

Ama Adi-Dako: Zdravo. Ja sam iz Gane, Zapadna Afrika, i moje pitanje je:

I'm wondering how do you present and justify the idea of global governance

pitam se kako da predstavite i opravdate ideju globalne vladavine

to countries that have been historically disenfranchised

zemljama koje su istorijski bile obespravljene

by the effects of globalization,

zbog efekata globalizacije

and also, if we're talking about global governance,

kao i, ako govorimo o globalnoj vladavini,

it sounds to me like it will definitely come from a very Westernized idea

meni zvuči kao da će definitivno da potiče iz krajnje zapadne ideje

of what the "global" is supposed to look like.

toga kako bi "globalno" trebalo da izgleda.

So how do we present and justify that idea of global

Pa, kako predstaviti i opravdati ideju globalnog

versus wholly nationalist

nasuprot krajnjem nacionalizmu

to people in countries like Ghana and Nigeria and Togo

ljudima u zemljama, poput Gane, Nigerije i Togoa

and other countries like that?

i drugim sličnim zemljama?

YNH: I would start by saying that history is extremely unfair,

JNH: Započeću rečima da je istorija izuzetno nepravedna

and that we should realize that.

i da bi trebalo to da shvatimo.

Many of the countries that suffered most

Mnoge od zemalja koje su najviše ispaštale

from the last 200 years of globalization

u poslednjih 200 godina globalizacije,

and imperialism and industrialization

imperijalizma i industrijalizacije

are exactly the countries which are also most likely to suffer most

su upravo one zemlje koje će najverovatnije najviše ispaštati

from the next wave.

u sledećem talasu.

And we should be very, very clear about that.

I trebalo bi to da nam bude veoma, veoma jasno.

If we don't have a global governance,

Ako nemamo globalnu vladavinu,

and if we suffer from climate change,

a ispaštamo zbog klimatskih promena,

from technological disruptions,

tehnološkog raskola,

the worst suffering will not be in the US.

neće SAD najviše da ispašta.

The worst suffering will be in Ghana, will be in Sudan, will be in Syria,

Najviše će da ispašta Gana, Sudan, Sirija,

will be in Bangladesh, will be in those places.

Bangladeš i takva mesta.

So I think those countries have an even greater incentive

Zato smatram da te države imaju čak i veći podsticaj

to do something about the next wave of disruption,

da urade nešto povodom sledećeg talasa raskola,

whether it's ecological or whether it's technological.

bilo da se radi o ekološkom ili tehnološkom.

Again, if you think about technological disruption,

Opet, ako razmišljate o tehnološkom raskolu,

so if AI and 3D printers and robots will take the jobs

dakle, ako će VI i 3D štampači i roboti da oduzmu poslove

from billions of people,

milijardama ljudi,

I worry far less about the Swedes

daleko sam manje zabrinut za Šveđane

than about the people in Ghana or in Bangladesh.

nego za ljude u Gani ili u Bangladešu.

And therefore, because history is so unfair

I, stoga, zato što je istorija nepravedna

and the results of a calamity

i posledice bede

will not be shared equally between everybody,

neće podjednako snositi svi,

as usual, the rich will be able to get away

kao i obično, bogati će uspeti da se izvuku

from the worst consequences of climate change

od najgorih posledica klimatskih promena

in a way that the poor will not be able to.

na način na koji siromašni neće moći.

CA: And here's a great question from Cameron Taylor on Facebook:

KA: Evo sjajnog pitanja sa Fejsbuka od Kamerona Tejlora:

"At the end of 'Sapiens,'"

"Na kraju knjige 'Sapijens',

you said we should be asking the question,

rekli ste da bi trebalo da se zapitamo:

'What do we want to want?'

'Šta želimo da želimo?'

Well, what do you think we should want to want?"

Pa, šta vi smatrate da bi trebalo da želimo da želimo?"

YNH: I think we should want to want to know the truth,

JNH: Mislim da bi trebalo da želimo da želimo da znamo istinu,

to understand reality.

da razumemo stvarnost.

Mostly what we want is to change reality,

Mi uglavnom želimo da promenimo stvarnost,

to fit it to our own desires, to our own wishes,

kako bi se uklopila u naše žudnje, u naše sopstvene želje,

and I think we should first want to understand it.

a ja mislim da bi prvo trebalo da želimo da je razumemo.

If you look at the long-term trajectory of history,

Ako pogledate dugoročnu putanju istorije,

what you see is that for thousands of years

vidite da smo hiljadama godina

we humans have been gaining control of the world outside us

mi ljudi sticali kontrolu nad svetom oko nas

and trying to shape it to fit our own desires.

i pokušavali smo da ga oblikujemo kako bi se uklopio s našim žudnjama.

And we've gained control of the other animals,

I stekli smo kontrolu nad drugim životinjama,

of the rivers, of the forests,

rekama, šumama

and reshaped them completely,

i potpuno ih preoblikovali,

causing an ecological destruction

uzrokujući ekološku katastrofu,

without making ourselves satisfied.

a da pritom nismo sebe zadovoljili.

So the next step is we turn our gaze inwards,

Pa bi sledeći korak bio da okrenemo pogled ka unutra

and we say OK, getting control of the world outside us

i kažemo, u redu, ovladavanje svetom izvan nas

did not really make us satisfied.

nas zaista nije zadovoljilo.

Let's now try to gain control of the world inside us.

Hajde da sad pokušamo da ovladamo svetom unutar nas.

This is the really big project

Ovo je uistinu veliki projekat

of science and technology and industry in the 21st century --

nauke i tehnologije i industrije u XXI veku -

to try and gain control of the world inside us,

pokušaj ovladavanja svetom unutar nas,

to learn how to engineer and produce bodies and brains and minds.

spoznaja kako da izgradimo i proizvedemo tela i mozgove i umove.

These are likely to be the main products of the 21st century economy.

To će najverovatnije da budu glavni proizvodi ekonomije XXI veka.

When people think about the future, very often they think in terms,

Kad ljudi razmišljaju o budućnosti prečesto razmišljaju u smislu:

"Oh, I want to gain control of my body and of my brain."

"Oh, želim da ovladam telom i mozgom."

And I think that's very dangerous.

A ja smatram da je to veoma opasno.

If we've learned anything from our previous history,

Ako smo nešto naučili iz istorije

it's that yes, we gain the power to manipulate,

to je da, da, stekli smo kontrolu zarad manipulisanja,

but because we didn't really understand the complexity

međutim kako zaista nismo razumeli složenost

of the ecological system,

ekološkog sistema,

we are now facing an ecological meltdown.

trenutno se suočavamo sa ekološkom tragedijom.

And if we now try to reengineer the world inside us

A ako sada pokušamo da nanovo izgradimo svet unutar nas

without really understanding it,

a da ga u potpunosti ne razumemo,

especially without understanding the complexity of our mental system,

naročito bez razumevanja složenosti našeg mentalnog sistema,

we might cause a kind of internal ecological disaster,

mogli bismo da uzrokujemo nekakvu unutrašnju ekološku katastrofu

and we'll face a kind of mental meltdown inside us.

i suočićemo se sa nekakvim mentalnim slomom unutar nas.

CA: Putting all the pieces together here --

KA: Da sklopimo sve delove ovde -

the current politics, the coming technology,

trenutna politika, nadolazeća tehnologija,

concerns like the one you've just outlined --

brige poput ove koju si upravo istakao -

I mean, it seems like you yourself are in quite a bleak place

mislim, izgleda da si ti sam na prilično mračnom mestu

when you think about the future.

kad razmišljaš o budućnosti.

You're pretty worried about it.

Veoma si zabrinut zbog nje.

Is that right?

Je li tako?

And if there was one cause for hope, how would you state that?

A ako bi postojao jedan razlog za nadu, kako bi ga formulisao?

YNH: I focus on the most dangerous possibilities

JNH: Usredsređujem se na najopasnije mogućnosti,

partly because this is like my job or responsibility

delimično jer mi je to u opisu posla ili odgovornosti

as a historian or social critic.

kao istoričara i društvenog kritičara.

I mean, the industry focuses mainly on the positive sides,

Mislim, industrija se uglavnom usredsređuje na pozitivne strane,

so it's the job of historians and philosophers and sociologists

te je posao istoričara i filozofa i sociologa

to highlight the more dangerous potential of all these new technologies.

da istaknu opasniji potencijal sve te nove tehnologije.

I don't think any of that is inevitable.

Ne smatram da je bilo šta od ovoga neizbežno.

Technology is never deterministic.

Tehnologija nikad nije deterministična.

You can use the same technology

Možete da koristite istu tehnologiju

to create very different kinds of societies.

da stvorite veoma različite tipove društva.

If you look at the 20th century,

Ako pogledate XX vek,

so, the technologies of the Industrial Revolution,

dakle, tehnologiju Industrijske revolucije,

the trains and electricity and all that

vozove i struju i sve to

could be used to create a communist dictatorship

je moglo da se iskoristi da se stvori komunistička diktatura

or a fascist regime or a liberal democracy.

ili fašistički režim ili liberalna demokratija.

The trains did not tell you what to do with them.

Vozovi vam ne govore šta da radite s njima.

Similarly, now, artificial intelligence and bioengineering and all of that --

Slično, sada, veštačka inteligencija i bioinženjering i sve to -

they don't predetermine a single outcome.

oni unapred ne određuju samo jedan ishod.

Humanity can rise up to the challenge,

Čovečanstvo može da doraste izazovu,

and the best example we have

a najbolji primer

of humanity rising up to the challenge of a new technology

kada je čovečanstvo doraslo izazovu nove tehnologije

is nuclear weapons.

je nuklearno oružje.

In the late 1940s, '50s,

Kasnih 1940-ih, '50-ih,

many people were convinced

mnogi ljudi su bili ubeđeni

that sooner or later the Cold War will end in a nuclear catastrophe,

da će se pre ili kasnije Hladni rat završiti nukleranom katastrofom,

destroying human civilization.

koja će da uništi ljudsku civilizaciju.

And this did not happen.

A to se nije desilo.

In fact, nuclear weapons prompted humans all over the world

Zapravo, nuklearno oružje je navelo ljude širom sveta

to change the way that they manage international politics

da promene to kako vode međunarodnu politiku

to reduce violence.

kako bi umanjili nasilje.

And many countries basically took out war

I mnoge države su u suštini uklonile rat

from their political toolkit.

iz svog političkog alata.

They no longer tried to pursue their interests with warfare.

Više nisu pokušavali da ostvaruju svoje interese putem rata.

Not all countries have done so, but many countries have.

Nisu sve države tako uradile, ali mnoge jesu.

And this is maybe the most important reason

A to je možda najvažniji razlog

why international violence declined dramatically since 1945,

zašto je međunarodno nasilje drastično opalo od 1945.

and today, as I said, more people commit suicide

i, danas, kao što sam rekao, više ljudi izvrši samoubistvo

than are killed in war.

nego što pogine u ratu.

So this, I think, gives us a good example

Pa nam ovo, mislim, daje dobar primer

that even the most frightening technology,

da čak i kod najstrašnije tehnologije

humans can rise up to the challenge

ljudi mogu da dorastu izazovu

and actually some good can come out of it.

i da zapravo nešto dobro može da proizađe iz toga.

The problem is, we have very little margin for error.

Problem je što imamo veoma malo prostora za grešku.

If we don't get it right,

Ako ne postupimo kako treba,

we might not have a second option to try again.

možda nećemo imati drugu priliku da pokušamo ponovo.

CA: That's a very powerful note,

KA: To je veoma snažna poruka

on which I think we should draw this to a conclusion.

kojom ćemo ovo da privedemo kraju.

Before I wrap up, I just want to say one thing to people here

Pre nego što sve sumiram, samo želim jedno da kažem ljudima ovde

and to the global TED community watching online, anyone watching online:

i globalnoj TED zajednici, gledaocima na internetu, bilo kome ko nas gleda:

help us with these dialogues.

pomozite nam s ovim dijalozima.

If you believe, like we do,

Ako verujete, poput nas,

that we need to find a different kind of conversation,

da moramo da pronađemo drugačiji vid razgovora,

now more than ever, help us do it.

sad više nego bilo kad pre, pomozite nam u tome.

Reach out to other people,

Posegnite ka drugim ljudima,

try and have conversations with people you disagree with,

pokušajte da razgovarate s ljudima s kojima se ne slažete,

understand them,

da ih razumete,

pull the pieces together,

da sklopite kocke

and help us figure out how to take these conversations forward

i pomognete nama da shvatimo kako da iskoraknemo s ovim razgovorima

so we can make a real contribution

kako bi napravili istinski doprinos

to what's happening in the world right now.

onome što se dešava trenutno u svetu.

I think everyone feels more alive,

Mislim da se svako oseća življe,

more concerned, more engaged

zabrinutije, angažovanije

with the politics of the moment.

kada je trenutna politika u pitanju.

The stakes do seem quite high,

Ulog se čini prilično visokim,

so help us respond to it in a wise, wise way.

zato nam pomozite da odgovorimo na mudar, mudar način.

Yuval Harari, thank you.

Juval Harari, hvala ti.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)