He isn't by himself, but his thoughts are the philosophical foundation for the Great Reset, to the extent that it has a philosophical foundation. It is they-- the Reseters-- who wish to impose their vision, with moral justification provided by Harari's pseudo-philosophy.
Well, we have a right to reject technological control. We can opt fo…
He isn't by himself, but his thoughts are the philosophical foundation for the Great Reset, to the extent that it has a philosophical foundation. It is they-- the Reseters-- who wish to impose their vision, with moral justification provided by Harari's pseudo-philosophy.
Well, we have a right to reject technological control. We can opt for a world of people aided by technology, and reject a world of technology aided by people.
You are wrong, I have heard where he says with arrogance that it is ridiculous for people to believe in God! He says believing in God is a ridiculous notion! Does that sound familiar PrSmith you Substack imposter? If you look at history every Marxist, Communist regime's first order of business including the CCP of China is to get rid of God and Christianity because why? They want to replace God; so don't spout off with your Gaslighting coverup and put a sweet coating as to what is going on; my choices a.) Listen to a crazed homosexual like Harari who is headed straight for hell if he does not repent and ask Jesus for forgiveness or b.) continue to stay in the word of God and listen and discern the truth from the Bible!; Let's see that is a no Brainer it is Choice B.
Belief in god is a personal decision. Atheists have been a thing at least since the first Century. I don't see any link between Harari's religious faith and his prognostications. If that's uncomfortable for you, then move along and find somebody you like. No harm, no foul.
Basically Harari is suggesting that humans can be hacked and therefore should be hacked to improve the species, so there's an "ought" in there-- a moral term. Not that I agree that anything about it is moral, but in the minds of the Reseters there are all kinds of things they "should" (another moral word) do. For example, we should work to stop CO2 catastrophe. Of course there is no CO2 catastrophe, which brings us to the main point that all of their thinking and analysis is confused and most likely is designed to deceive us, so that we'll give them power over us "for the greater good."
Regarding technological control, as we become more aware of the harms of the so-called therapeutic measures (i.e., Covid vaccines) they're trying to push on us, of course we can reject these. We can reject CBDCs. Technology will advance but I think we need some sort of technological bill of rights, stating such things as technology may not be used to control, abuse, or surveil the population or to despoil the commons (air, water, land.) Such a bill of rights, or even thinking about it by the general population, is long overdue.
I disagree completely. There is no ought either expressed or implied nor do humans have to be hacked. He is merely reading history and current events and projecting a likely outcome, a dearth of productive jobs that aren't done by AI/robotics...an outcome with which I agree. When there are no productive jobs for 75+% of humanity, we'll have a lot of people knitting, water coloring and playing the guitar...and fishing and playing baseball and football. That whole paragraph is out of left field...though the left likely wishes for that.
Sure, we can reject CBDC...but we won't. 'We' will demand it just as we demand that we support Ukraine and Israel and that we protect the world's shipping and that we upgrade and expand our electrical grid and on and on it goes. Heck, people have already bought into CBDC, I'll bet you carry a debit card in your wallet and that you write checks or use EFT for your bills. When our banks fail (or should I say continue to fail) and people can't get to their money, CBDC will sound great to them because they don't know the control they'll be giving up. There are forces out there trying to destroy the value of the dollar and it's working. My fear is that we'll never get to find out if AI/robotics is friend or foe because we'll be living in the 17th or 18th Century again. Maybe that's preferable.
A 'bill of rights' written by who? Enforced by who? This is not a US problem, this is a world problem and those who control the world, quite indifferent to our concerns or desires, are well on their way to a tyranny of the elite...the 'useful eaters'. If there is a bill of rights it is being expressed by the UN and by the WHO both of which, I believe, are being driven by 'higher powers'.
There are definitely plans but you and I aren't in it and I am pessimistic that we can stop it...as is Harari.
You misunderstand me, and I think the nature of ethical philosophy as well. I don't agree with Harari, but they definitely have ideas about what "ought" to be done.
We, the people, have to think about and come up with our own bill of rights regarding technology, just as was done during the original framing of the bill of rights. Otherwise we're in for surveillance and control. Why in God's name leave it up to the WHO or UN, both of which should be abolished.?
If you say we can't stop it, then I hope you hadn't already given up. We need everyone doing every little thing they can to put sand in their tanks.
He isn't by himself, but his thoughts are the philosophical foundation for the Great Reset, to the extent that it has a philosophical foundation. It is they-- the Reseters-- who wish to impose their vision, with moral justification provided by Harari's pseudo-philosophy.
Well, we have a right to reject technological control. We can opt for a world of people aided by technology, and reject a world of technology aided by people.
I do not see where Harari has provided any moral justification. There is nothing moral about what Harari suggests and he knows it.
How do you propose we go about "rejecting technological control"? It is already here. It has been here for a long time. It is growing exponentially.
Harari uses the 'we' pronoun too much. I wonder if he's aware of it...or if it's actually deliberate?
You are wrong, I have heard where he says with arrogance that it is ridiculous for people to believe in God! He says believing in God is a ridiculous notion! Does that sound familiar PrSmith you Substack imposter? If you look at history every Marxist, Communist regime's first order of business including the CCP of China is to get rid of God and Christianity because why? They want to replace God; so don't spout off with your Gaslighting coverup and put a sweet coating as to what is going on; my choices a.) Listen to a crazed homosexual like Harari who is headed straight for hell if he does not repent and ask Jesus for forgiveness or b.) continue to stay in the word of God and listen and discern the truth from the Bible!; Let's see that is a no Brainer it is Choice B.
Belief in god is a personal decision. Atheists have been a thing at least since the first Century. I don't see any link between Harari's religious faith and his prognostications. If that's uncomfortable for you, then move along and find somebody you like. No harm, no foul.
This would make for a long discussion ....
Basically Harari is suggesting that humans can be hacked and therefore should be hacked to improve the species, so there's an "ought" in there-- a moral term. Not that I agree that anything about it is moral, but in the minds of the Reseters there are all kinds of things they "should" (another moral word) do. For example, we should work to stop CO2 catastrophe. Of course there is no CO2 catastrophe, which brings us to the main point that all of their thinking and analysis is confused and most likely is designed to deceive us, so that we'll give them power over us "for the greater good."
Regarding technological control, as we become more aware of the harms of the so-called therapeutic measures (i.e., Covid vaccines) they're trying to push on us, of course we can reject these. We can reject CBDCs. Technology will advance but I think we need some sort of technological bill of rights, stating such things as technology may not be used to control, abuse, or surveil the population or to despoil the commons (air, water, land.) Such a bill of rights, or even thinking about it by the general population, is long overdue.
I disagree completely. There is no ought either expressed or implied nor do humans have to be hacked. He is merely reading history and current events and projecting a likely outcome, a dearth of productive jobs that aren't done by AI/robotics...an outcome with which I agree. When there are no productive jobs for 75+% of humanity, we'll have a lot of people knitting, water coloring and playing the guitar...and fishing and playing baseball and football. That whole paragraph is out of left field...though the left likely wishes for that.
Sure, we can reject CBDC...but we won't. 'We' will demand it just as we demand that we support Ukraine and Israel and that we protect the world's shipping and that we upgrade and expand our electrical grid and on and on it goes. Heck, people have already bought into CBDC, I'll bet you carry a debit card in your wallet and that you write checks or use EFT for your bills. When our banks fail (or should I say continue to fail) and people can't get to their money, CBDC will sound great to them because they don't know the control they'll be giving up. There are forces out there trying to destroy the value of the dollar and it's working. My fear is that we'll never get to find out if AI/robotics is friend or foe because we'll be living in the 17th or 18th Century again. Maybe that's preferable.
A 'bill of rights' written by who? Enforced by who? This is not a US problem, this is a world problem and those who control the world, quite indifferent to our concerns or desires, are well on their way to a tyranny of the elite...the 'useful eaters'. If there is a bill of rights it is being expressed by the UN and by the WHO both of which, I believe, are being driven by 'higher powers'.
There are definitely plans but you and I aren't in it and I am pessimistic that we can stop it...as is Harari.
You misunderstand me, and I think the nature of ethical philosophy as well. I don't agree with Harari, but they definitely have ideas about what "ought" to be done.
We, the people, have to think about and come up with our own bill of rights regarding technology, just as was done during the original framing of the bill of rights. Otherwise we're in for surveillance and control. Why in God's name leave it up to the WHO or UN, both of which should be abolished.?
If you say we can't stop it, then I hope you hadn't already given up. We need everyone doing every little thing they can to put sand in their tanks.