This makes me think about the modern role of cryptography and blockchain technologies. Specifically the role of a 'trustless' decentralized future or, trust being cryptographically proven.
Its more than just an "accident of history" the phrase " Every great fortune was built upon anothers great misfortune" which is a nice way of saying most wealth was taken via the suffering and or slaughter of others.
That can be true, but often not. There are win-win situations, where technology can change the human condition, whether it was the first guy to start farming to starting Microsoft. It's not all just rape and pillaging.
Not often? Human history is stuffed full of all the horrible stuff we have done to each other and thats just the famous documented stuff, then there is what was done quietly behind closed doors. Where do you think all this insane wealth the elites have came from, it came from the inherited wealth passed down to them from their ancestors.
@@yanstev Actually, whether the Agricultural Revolution was a good thing is a point to be contested. For instance, the quality of people's nutrition used to be better when they were hunter-gatherers. By switching to farming, they were able to produce more and control their food supply, but the quality and range of what they produced diminished. Not to mention it put more strain on the soil.
Indeed. I mean none of us were there, so who can say for sure. But I think it's a safe bet. And not much has changed. I guess we have a minimum wage now....
the "monopoly of violence" is the purest form of "absolute power" just like how the government has its right to rule or how the U.S.A. is the Global Hegemon
There's no force in Western society. Just a conniving, Corporate BS-ing lamestream media and gullible dumbed down hairless apes addicted to Reality TV shows.
Myth making needs free time. Due to the lack of real social responsibilities, like raising a child, man had more time to weave up stories that caused huge human networks as civilization. Man had the control over the stories, so had control over the larger society in civilization.
Men had just as much social responsibilities as woman but were also expected to give their life to protect that society. Feminism has rotted your brain.
"The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king."
@@avadakedavra80 "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!”
These days: basic control is automatic but backed by violent intervention if deemed necessary. The automatic part is achieved by having a money creation system built on debt-based, compound-interest money attached to capital. Debt or the fear of it enables our socio-economic system to function automatically through cooperative exploitation and abuse.
Personally I think in today's society control is applied much more subtly yet much more completely. Most of the people in western society either don't realise just how much of their lives are controlled by the state, or accept it, like good little citizens.
Yep, very succinct. You have a monopoly on (non)lethal force (which is of course required at the end of the day as your final backstop on having actual real power), and then you control the social networks/groups at the very top of that chain. Design the system to reliably keep those general groups in power (2 party democratic systems, for example), and make sure the important parts of your economy are mostly owned (and will continue to be owned) by the groups you want (decrease the leverage of labour"in being able to act collectively, and increase the importance/power of capital, which is easy to control). This is only going to be exponentially more the case in the future, where AI (another form of capital, basically), has the potential to totally wreck any remainders of economic value that 99% of "labour" has.
Nothing changes . Throughout history the story repeats itself so no one can be surprised at same behavioural in 2024. And it will continue as greed and a feel of power never ceases.
Thank you🙏 In regard to the power of women in society, it seems this has been affected by several developments in history, among which - (1) the former role of men as predators (still prevalent in many misogynistic societies and by certain powerful men, who don’t know better), (2) the submissive role of women as depicted in a number of sacred religious works (which may have been “tweaked” by powerful men in the past) and (3) suppression, public humiliation and shaming since centuries in regard to matters related to romance and sex or “the marital embrace”. Had Adam grabbed the Apple, our lives would have been different today. And so I believe we should detach from anything that holds us back, and dare to think anew, creatively,- let’s look at the suffering in this world - this is where all of us are needed.”, and in particular women, for we are born to nurture happiness. That should be our moral compass.
Nicely spoken. Thanks for that. I believe the biggest social change was the introduction of wide spread availability of birth control technology. Unfortunately in societies where birth control systems have been repressed, this social change for the betterment of women hasn't happened. What an incredible waste to deny access to 50% of the population,s intelligence.
If women would NOT support the w r o n g (materialsitic) men (wars ! ) our world would be a better place. . . men do everything just to please women . . . thats our cardinal fault (imho) !
I like the way Yuval thinks and uses the knowledge available to us from a deep look at society and our history over centuries. I find many people now days take a position on a topic, without understanding what the history is behind a decision that has become a common understanding, so they struggle to look beyond that decision.
@@MendeMaria-ej8bf Don't think so. I'm seventy years old, been researching for over thirty years plus. Probably longer than you have been alive, so don't flatter yourself. The reason I'm not going to give examples to you is because you most likely would not understand. Also, you would just argue the examples given to you. I have been down that road countless times with people like you so therefore it would be a waste of my time. As I already wrote, do YOUR OWN research instead of writing silly comments.
This order man over women was set up in the ancient times. And at that times physical strength was very, very important. To fight animals, to build a cottage, to cut trees, to fight in the battle. Today the physical power is not so important, there are other skills, which are much more valuable and in big demand. Also technical skills were very important in the bygone days - building towns, to mak tools, in the army etc. You develop your skills by doing something, practising. What kind of technical skills do you want to develop taking care od 10-15 children all day? Today it is different, but this man/woman order was established in the ancient times and was inherited by generations.
The slaves were kept in check by threats of punishment and death. The ideology mattered for the plantation owners, and the legal, political, and cultural institutions. As for India, I suspect the lower classes were kept in check largely by institutional barriers, and the religious "belief" perhaps softened the indignity. People are attracted to beliefs which glorify them, not which subjugate them.
Why don't you give the link to the entire conversation? It is rather annoying to pass through cut out pueces of various discussions in search of the complete videos.
In this clip from our 2015 session ‘The Myths We Need To Survive’, historian Yuval Noah Harari engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Intelligence Squared. Literally the first line of the description.
Regarding the question of the status of women, just this week I heard a fascinating podcast in which a researcher of the relationship between economy and culture was interviewed, and he cited a study that showed a connection between the types of agricultural plowing in certain areas and gender perceptions. It is hypothesized that when using a plow with an ox, stronger physical strength of the upper body is required + it is work over long distances which makes it difficult to supervise children while doing it + it is a more dangerous environment for children. The result is that in these societies norms were established that men work in the fields and women look after the children, then institutions and laws were established around these norms and over time the perceptions and culture were drawn from this situation. it probably not all the answer, but maybe one aspect.
Wolfgang Pauli's famous criticism of one of his undergrad's attempts at a paper on Quantum Mechanics: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" or "This is not only not correct; it is also not even wrong."
What is being described here is politics. Any system regardless of size or placement or gender or color has a form of politics. Politics is the path to power and gains in wealth. The process is enabled or disabled by many things. Physical strength or military power and knowledge of how to use it, access to and availability of resources, available resources of time to learn and prepare and create a plan, access to human capital to provide a more powerful force, ability to operate without constraints, access to a greater knowledge base. A stay at home cave woman with offspring is limited in all areas as with woman today. Men as the primary leaders is not some intrinsic deficit within women. Once the politics shut you out it is difficult to access power and become a political figure in any system. It is played out in exactly this way each and every day in all kinds of in your face situations. Interesting that you do not see it.
He has always got an answer for everything, a talker, he is high up there among the spiritualist or super mega millionaires without executing anything with what he knows. Leaves no room for the uncertainty principle, he knows. He is compared to Freud or Jung. Clever, just clever authoritarian
This guy is dangerous to the West. He is a puppet sent to grab gullible people by their lazy minds bc they can’t reach the conclusion that he is dangerous for our culture. He is a super annoying guy.
No. He openly admits he does no know the answer to the question of why women don’t rule in human societies. E.g. shortly after 7min59sec he says “ as I said, it is just a theory worth examining it’s not the answer”. I don’t think he is an authoritarian. He is warning us about future scenarios where many people have no economic role, that doesn’t mean that he likes the fact that the world could evolve in that direction.
funny how "look, 300 years ago, my great great great grandfather had a horse, so now you must all obey me - it wouldn't convince anybody" turns into "look, 3000 years ago, my ancestors were promised this land, so now you must all obey me - it's just my right" real easy
Just to clarify what Harari said about Socialism because some might get the wrong idea. Socialism has been around for millennia as a concept or practice to a small extent. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto because it was commissioned to them by some already existing Socialists in Europe. Their book didn't create the idea of Socialism or Communism. But it was at the right time because the Industrial Revolution enabled capitalism to replace feudalism and when the proletariat were dissatisfied with their working conditions under the bourgeousie. Communism was pitched as the solution for the working class.
> when the proletariat were dissatisfied with their working conditions under the bourgeousie. This is the content of the unfocused mind, w/no more realism than Santa Claus or unicorns.
That is a smart way to change the narrative for stupid audience. Consequently, the focus of the discussion shifts from the topic of gender inequality to the merits of the societal hierarchy. The answer to this is in effect quite simple, i.e., testosterone. No need to overwhelm the audience with excessive information.
The Fed has the asset of public lands in the US as one example...also by fostering a larger GDP over time, they secure a larger tax base which in turn promotes investments in future technological infrastructure.
Yes. And it is largely because the very wealthy (in fact the top 8% of the population) have pretty much come to own the governmental structures and those in it for a very long time. Perhaps for the majority of our country's existence judging by policies and actions taken since roughly the last 150 or so years. This is part of what he means when he suggests that wealth takes generations to create. Wealth is synonymous with power as the two are expressions of each other. Just as in the last three decades the wealthy have effectively cinched the sack over our heads having been slowly weaving the cloth of the sack for generations. Consider also what a generation is. In the modern era a generation is twenty years. If you are twenty-five or even thirty today, how much do you really remember and fully understand about the world or the nation twenty years ago, other than your own personal life itself.@@JAAB9296
@@WinstonMaraj-gx8sm nah, fr look it up. Says out loud certain people in these poorer countries will become useless. Says it over and over in the video. Then goes on to say the only way for them to find meaning should be an implementation of drugs and computer games. 🤷♂️
@DarkSkay Why so difficult to imagine, just consider, Queen Boudicca, Queen Hatshepsut, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth 1, Nzinga of Ndongo, Isabella 1, Tomoe Gozen, Artemisia of Turkey, Margaret Corbin, Airforce Gen Lori Robinson, Anne Dunwoody, Golda Meir, just to name a few. I could name many more, all real female military leaders from past and fairly contemporary history who led mostly male military combatants.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Duality, a partnership, the Devine is a combination of both male and female. Neither being superior nor inferior but a complementary partnership. That’s the way I read it.
@@Hels-kw5td Think should be humankind rather than mankind.. what if said womankind ? How easily we become accustomed to words… The very idea of ruling over every species certainly is another ego boosting statement, all things being equal, duality seems far from equality
If politicians can wear badges like racecar drivers to see who their sponsor are, and same to yuval. He has a point about what he's saying, and I don't care about all type of religious beliefs and who's correct and who not, cause it's upon your belief, your consciousness and will. But would like to see the sponsor inside yuvals brain neuron
to me its the reason females are less dominant in job high places, is because of history's momentum. because everyone is used to such social/job hirarchy, it seems "off" to hire a women for the gig. its a momentum built of decades, if not tens of thousand of years, or more. so this is kinda built in. and perhaps that's the reason.
Entrepreneurs are obsessed with how to get rewarded quickly. While this seems to be an attractive tactic, it often short lived. The intuition to get more as quickly as possible is being exploited through the usage of AI tools. AI provides a freedom of choice, the ability to share information, make unilateral decisions and purchases. With AI, we can choose what information we would like to disclose and spread some false information. But all of these “advantages” are miniscule compared with what a venture based on an unmet need can achieve. If you want to succeed, develop a product idea that fulfills unmet needs.
He refers to great civilisations of the past and says throughout history none have been matriarchal; but given the fact that most great civilisations we know of today are founded on looting, conquest and subduing neighbours, I would really question the validity of this approach. Perhaps no civilisations have been female-driven because women aren't interested in looting, conquest and affirming their ego by saying "I have burned cities to the ground, I pillaged, I took goats, and cows, and slaves, I made a pile of dead bodies", the way so many rulers have throughout history.
@@dianahill5116 That depends... usually a cult refers to a small number of 'believers-followers'. Cults are what most people would call sects.. Religion is larger, it comes from the Latin word 'religare' which means connecting..connecting people together is what religion does. Cults connect few people, are often based on existing religions but have different rituals. Cults can grow out of a religion such as the veneration of holy figures such as the virgin Mary, St Anthony, Padre Pio, etc..in the roman catholic church but I think the Vatican prefers that people remain more Christo centric instead of giving too much attention to holy figures.. So it depends on what you want and consider important I suppose.?
The speaker's biggest error is in not seeing the primary difference between the "power" of women vs. men in the social structure. Men in the outside business world are much more concerned with the outcome of their actions producing financial gain, be it assets or money, and thereby, their own continued ascention. Women, as compared by the speaker, are involved with more internal business, that of raising children and caring for the household. As such, women are much more concerned with producing exceptional children for society and assuring a pleasant home environment - this outcome has a totally different "gain" then that of men. Men may be much more aggressive in their endeavors, and are indeed encouraged to be so; Women are encouraged and rewarded for being much more nurturing and silent in their endeavors as this accomplishes their goals much better. So, it is not that men are more socially adept in the corporate world than women because they lead, and women are more socially adept than men in the home world because they nurture and need the help of men; it is because these structures were set up as the most advantageous to achieve results man, many years ago. While they are still followed, modern technology has all but proven this proposal by the speaker as not necessarily so.
Non-detected systemic nonsense gives an early advantage to one set of people over the other - and that nonsense is not 'myth', that is indeed the 'myth' because myths are non-apparent truth, not non-apparent nonsense.
There's no riddle it's all the same just different years. The rich are the same as all of history. People are just more distracted by their phones and online games and television.
Yuval, like many males thinks there is one primary reason for the prevalence of women’s inequality across cultures. His reason, that women don’t have the ability to negotiate large, impersonal systems and only have superior social skills in small communities is absurd. The widespread availability of birth control (which in my lifetime was illegal for unmarried women) is the reason women have been able to seriously commit to professional careers. Unfortunately this happened after males were entrenched in the political power hierarchy. Women, now, are out performing men in college degrees. Women are almost equal in number in medicine and law. They will be equal in number in politics in my daughter’s lifetime. Men are, unfortunately, now falling behind, socially and academically as they have lost the unconditional support of women.
Have you actually listened what he said before starting on your ideologie? And he clearly says that it's a Theorie that isn't yet backed by enough data while he explains why reproduction is an too easy explanation. He also makes the point that cooperating better in large societies isn't necessarily something good as it involves inventing stories that are harmful to many
He didn't have a good answer, and he admitted that. He debunked a few and gave a tepid hypothesis, but said there isn't strong evidence for the idea. Pre-agricultural societies were / are more egalitarian and less hierarchical. Compared to other apes, homo species have less sexual dimorphism, meaning men and women are not as different in size. Humans depended on technologies like cooking and weapons like spears and arrows, etc. If someone was a bully, the others could leave or kill the bully, or drive the bully out. Several modern hunter-gatherer groups today are said to be fiercely egalitarian. And anthropologists generally believe that was the norm of society before agriculture and herding. But sometimes groups of mostly men get together to form temporary hunting parties. If human societies grow larger, or become more attached to a herd of animals or crops, the hunting parties become war parties. If this goes on long enough, the war parties becomes a warrior society. Warrior societies became more patriarchal when the men started to control the resources and the warriors. They started to make rules that were hierarchical and patriarchal. Which they also enforced with marriage customs and violence. An example of marriage custom would be the practice of sending the women out of the tribe to marry a man in another tribe. So the women are more isolated from each other while the men are more deeply bonded.
@@AWildBard what you describe is only true for chimpanzees but not for Bonobos. I recommend the works of Robert Sapolski on that topic. And the idea that men are more willing to accept a hirachie based on a shared belief is pretty good IMHO. In a lot of agricultural cultures women do most of the work on the fields despite having children. And culture develops strongly different depending on if humans are Nomads with heads or farmers. There isn't any easy explanation why only in small societies we have examples of matriarchy
Oooooo, very suspect, i smell an evil conspiracy here! so what's say boys, is he illuminati? which Heeb cabal is he behind? is he even a human, and what is his sexual orientation, i think he might be a perv.
So, because women have to "feel" trust more in relationships, i.e., for help with own children, they are not so susceptible to "superficial" relationships, which are conversely necessary for career advancements, as historically men have...?
It has been determined that there are many kinds of intelligence. We used to measure a successful valuable person by their IQ as the only kind of intelligence. I wanted to know how your theories fit that model. I was alarmed that you would designate people as a useless group who are not employed. As AI takes a hold on the economy, referring to those who lose their job due to automation now according to you are placed in the 'useless' category. I find your designations of many groups of people de-valuing and dishonest. You leave out details that create a bigger picture. You are an eloquent speaker and very good at creating what looks like Think Tank propaganda. Do you Think Tank for a living?
Maybe the question is the other way around. Why do we now all of a sudden have trouble explaining a gender hierarchy which has always existed throughout all peoples? What is wrong with us ?
Colonization, massacre, and slavery: I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. -- Winston Churchill 1937.
2:18 _“In your book you show that so many cultures -geographically spread around the world, temporally spread across history - have prioritized men over women and you struggle to offer - as everyone does - a convincing explanation for why that is…”_ - Maybe because that isn’t actually the case. Shout out to Occam's razor!
Yeah, women control from behind the scene - ask a married man. Thats why in social/Military conflicts, there exist no such thing as 'innocent' Women: stalin, the Mullahs, taliban, obn, jdb they all had a mother who was the crucial reference during their upbringing. Dont fool yourself.
@@escamoteur I suppose the argument could be more clear as to what is meant by _“…prioritized men over women.”_ One assumes this follows the feminist concept of so-called “patriarchy theory” - the idea that men as a group benefit at the expense of women as a group - however, if what is meant includes how men are “prioritized” to die in wars so that women may benefit from male sacrifice it isn’t so clear.
@@TheParadox_ I would argue that men don't sacrifice in wars but fall victim to the ability to be more willing to accept hirachie based on some stories. The same ability that kept men in power over centuries
Doesn't take generations to build wealth. I from a childhood of duch poverty, that out family ly of 8 lived in 400 sq ft, and i remember not having enough to eat. My daughter whose in-laws came from poverty also. Now my grandchildren are in private school where the fees are more than double my retirement income. We educated our daughter and she married a good ambitious man. Our other daughter is similarly situated. So this is a bit hard for me to agree...as much as i love Yuval.
It may very well be that he is speaking of wealth that exceeds your idea of it. Being upper middle class or even in the top 15 percentile of wealth is not what he is talking about. But remember something we learn in statistics 101. You cannot use personal experience, or the existence of exceptions to either prove a statistical average false, or even place doubt on it. Because if anything, what we know as exceptions (especially the ridiculous practice so many try to use to disprove averages as personal anecdotes) is that they're exceptions. They're the little, small areas of a bell curve chart on each end. Where the numbers descend almost to zero. Of which there are far far few of within the bell itself.
@@JAAB9296 Maybe he is, based on this talk its impossible to know what kind of elite he is. You can tell what kind of elite someone may be by how bothered they become when addressing risks of stability within their home government. The top tier elites are less bothered by the risks to their rights and freedoms declining in their home state because their rights havent been determined by a government for decades if ever. They buy them and others And they can always relocate. In contrast - I would be devastated if my home country's democratic ideals was to decline because my quality of life is no substantially tied to how much privilige I can buy but what someone else decides is fair. I am not an elite. There are multi-layered definitions of what an elite is, so its impossible to determine who is and who isnt on a yt video
@@ryanwporter Well, guess what? I have known of this guy for about 9 years give or take. HE is a very dangerous person and wants (if not is) to be part of the "powers that be" that will absolutely control every aspect of our lives. So be very careful.
Ok, then why are Bonobos matriarchal? The males could enforce patriarchy there too, but they don't. Same with other higher mammals, e.g. orcas, elephants…
@@zxbc1My comments keep getting deleted. I'll try again.... Bonobos live in small pods. As the other commenter said, the males COULD take over, but they don't. It's rule by consent and matriarchy is an easy way of describing that ('female dominant' is the correct term, but some primatologists are guilty of calling it a matriarchy becayuse it sells books and publishes papers). It's worth remembering that not all bonobo groups operate this way. Some rule jointly, some are male dominated. Modern humans COULD live in tiny groups - but we don't. At scale, enforcement is needed and that's a boy's job. Some creatures DO have female enforcers (several spiders, etc.) and males are often rendered insignificant. That doesn't make it better though. Unless you want to be somebody's lunch? Anthropomorphising nature is useful to compare and contrast different kinds of behaviours, biologies and chemistries. It's not for mimicry. You wouldn't suggest that a cat should live like a frog. Saying "bonobos do it" is as meaningless as saying "why aren't we wasps?"
Harari ignores some of the simplers explanations for why pre-industrial cultures were male dominated but that only increases the feminist critique of patriarchy. He makes the point that a system established centuries ago by accidental possession of a critical resource/asset can survive to this day, but does not apply that to the male-female hierarchy dynamics.
"Das eine Gruppe von Leuten, Bsp. Pferdebesitzer die sich an der Spitze der Finanzhierarchie BRD befinden (Bsp.Springer Erbin - aber meine Urgrossmutter hatte ein Pferd....) Kleine Assoziation aus der BRD
There is a theory - impossible to prove empirically - that male dominate fiemale because of the risk taking. It is a longer and more complicated explanation but ... risk pays for men and not so much for women ... biologically - hence ... social consequences
What does it even mean - "risk pays for men and not for women"? What kind of risk? in what areas? pays in what way? I've read that risk taking differs between genders. The article I read maintained that people tend to take more risks in areas where they feel they have good skills. Women perceive themselves to have good social skills, so they are more likely to take risks in that area. Men are more likely to risk their lives physically or to take financial risks.
Competition occurs mostly intra-sexually where males outcompete/dominate other males; females compete with other females. Those males who successfully outcompete other males then have greater access to females. The idea that males dominate females is a feminist fabricated narrative.
Chimps don't have private property, neither do hunter gatherers. Gender inequality is the result of the agricultural revolution and private property ownership. The Mosuo pass property mother to daughter and there is a high degree of equality. This can be seen in Martin Luther's commentary on the Genesis fall, and in Genesis itself. Yuval doesn't seem to know much about hunter gatherers.
The Abrahamic Religions, Judaeism in particular, make claim to Palestine because it was once 'owned' by Abraham. The Chinese make a similar claim over Tibet, 'First Nations[ make a similar claim, 'We were here first so it belongs to us'. @@jadonlawrence4909
The guy is clueless . The stories are used to justify the social hierarchy but not to create the hierarchy. Debt is used to create the hierarchy and then we use stories to justify the oppression. Stories are also used to break free form the oppression . The story of Jesus is the most powerful story to break the captives free . Martin Luther King Jr used it to free the blacks , Mahatma Gandhi used a similar story to liberate India without the use of violence . The story of Jews is the worst because it perpetuates oppression without hope for oppressed . Could explain why Jews are one of the most persecuted people in history
Why do you think Christianity would help "to break the captives free"? It is the clergy that legitimizes the monarchs with their idea of 'divine birthright', with their claim to be the rightful representatives of the God(s). The alliance between clergy and aristocracy was nearly unsurmountable, imposed strict authority over life and afterlife, consolidated serfdom for centuries. Nietzsche goes even farther, characterizing Christianity as a "Sklavenmoral", which can be translated as "morality for slaves". In some countries simply owning a bible can get somebody into prison - in those places it's an act of resistance, yes. But in general the transformative political potential of the book, which praises sheep quite a lot, appears limited. Also, monotheism is usually preferred by raison d'état. Not least for the practical reason that after conquest and burying old local Gods, only one temple has to be erected in the city center, to signal who has the ultimate say now.
So what? If you ever started listening you would understand that he explains why there is no piece in the middle east and that the separation between Israelis and Palestinians is just another one of the stories of power he talks of. I m so sick of such ignorant comments
India has no such myths. Inadequate research into the Varna system going into these theories. In reality, the Indian Varna system was no different than any other civilisation. Would wish for a little more and broader thinking.
Anthropology 101 -- The reason that men now dominate women and the world is actually pretty obvious...perhaps too obvious to be recognized like the proverbial "elephant in the room". I'm not going to tell you because may write a book about it someday so you'll just have to figure it out on your own. This I recommend because I tend to be a procrastinator.
“If you have trust you can monetize it into almost anything” should be the motto of any successful business
This makes me think about the modern role of cryptography and blockchain technologies. Specifically the role of a 'trustless' decentralized future or, trust being cryptographically proven.
It's horrible.
@@haredog6072😊
Thanks!
note this video is from 2015. how intelligent this guy is
This guy is stupid.
An evil intelligence.
@@moinhakak8077 -> projection ! Envy !
@@McD-j5r And why the heck should he support then the mob (aka "cattle") ? Makes no sense . . .
@@McD-j5r At least he's got some, Rain Man.
Its more than just an "accident of history" the phrase " Every great fortune was built upon anothers great misfortune" which is a nice way of saying most wealth was taken via the suffering and or slaughter of others.
That can be true, but often not. There are win-win situations, where technology can change the human condition, whether it was the first guy to start farming to starting Microsoft. It's not all just rape and pillaging.
Not often? Human history is stuffed full of all the horrible stuff we have done to each other and thats just the famous documented stuff, then there is what was done quietly behind closed doors. Where do you think all this insane wealth the elites have came from, it came from the inherited wealth passed down to them from their ancestors.
That is only true if there is no economic growth. So it was probably more true 300 years ago than now, when there was much less economic growth.
@@yanstev Actually, whether the Agricultural Revolution was a good thing is a point to be contested. For instance, the quality of people's nutrition used to be better when they were hunter-gatherers. By switching to farming, they were able to produce more and control their food supply, but the quality and range of what they produced diminished. Not to mention it put more strain on the soil.
Indeed. I mean none of us were there, so who can say for sure. But I think it's a safe bet. And not much has changed. I guess we have a minimum wage now....
At the end of the day, power is based on force. As Alan Greenspan once said, at the bottom of this pile of contracts is a pistol.
the "monopoly of violence" is the purest form of "absolute power" just like how the government has its right to rule or how the U.S.A. is the Global Hegemon
And he was a member of the Bilderberg Group
@@Yes-bk9cl And a close friend of AYN RAND !
There's no force in Western society. Just a conniving, Corporate BS-ing lamestream media and gullible dumbed down hairless apes addicted to Reality TV shows.
Myth making needs free time. Due to the lack of real social responsibilities, like raising a child, man had more time to weave up stories that caused huge human networks as civilization. Man had the control over the stories, so had control over the larger society in civilization.
makes sense
Men had just as much social responsibilities as woman but were also expected to give their life to protect that society.
Feminism has rotted your brain.
"The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king."
Those are great stories though.
What was the peasant’s glorious reply to that? It was a good movie!
@@avadakedavra80 "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!”
@@AngloSaks666 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@AngloSaks666 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
These days: basic control is automatic but backed by violent intervention if deemed necessary. The automatic part is achieved by having a money creation system built on debt-based, compound-interest money attached to capital. Debt or the fear of it enables our socio-economic system to function automatically through cooperative exploitation and abuse.
Personally I think in today's society control is applied much more subtly yet much more completely.
Most of the people in western society either don't realise just how much of their lives are controlled by the state, or accept it, like good little citizens.
there are a few benefits to the system as well though
Yep, very succinct. You have a monopoly on (non)lethal force (which is of course required at the end of the day as your final backstop on having actual real power), and then you control the social networks/groups at the very top of that chain. Design the system to reliably keep those general groups in power (2 party democratic systems, for example), and make sure the important parts of your economy are mostly owned (and will continue to be owned) by the groups you want (decrease the leverage of labour"in being able to act collectively, and increase the importance/power of capital, which is easy to control).
This is only going to be exponentially more the case in the future, where AI (another form of capital, basically), has the potential to totally wreck any remainders of economic value that 99% of "labour" has.
workers of the world, unite!
And yet, very curiously, productivity is extremely high.
Nothing changes . Throughout history the story repeats itself so no one can be surprised at same behavioural in 2024. And it will continue as greed and a feel of power never ceases.
Thank you🙏
In regard to the power of women in society, it seems this has been affected by several developments in history, among which - (1) the former role of men as predators (still prevalent in many misogynistic societies and by certain powerful men, who don’t know better), (2) the submissive role of women as depicted in a number of sacred religious works (which may have been “tweaked” by powerful men in the past) and (3) suppression, public humiliation and shaming since centuries in regard to matters related to romance and sex or “the marital embrace”.
Had Adam grabbed the Apple, our lives would have been different today.
And so I believe we should detach from anything that holds us back, and dare to think anew, creatively,- let’s look at the suffering in this world - this is where all of us are needed.”, and in particular women, for we are born to nurture happiness. That should be our moral compass.
Nicely spoken. Thanks for that. I believe the biggest social change was the introduction of wide spread availability of birth control technology. Unfortunately in societies where birth control systems have been repressed, this social change for the betterment of women hasn't happened. What an incredible waste to deny access to 50% of the population,s intelligence.
If women would NOT support the w r o n g (materialsitic) men (wars ! ) our world would be a better place. . . men do everything just to please women . . . thats our cardinal fault (imho) !
I like the way Yuval thinks and uses the knowledge available to us from a deep look at society and our history over centuries. I find many people now days take a position on a topic, without understanding what the history is behind a decision that has become a common understanding, so they struggle to look beyond that decision.
Sadly, it is merely an opinion.
Thank you both very good questions and very good insightful answers
A brilliant prediction of the imminent future, by Yuval Noah Hariri.
People need to believe in something, no matter how the world around them evolves.
I appreciate Yuval Noah Harari as a historian and thinker.
The guy is a wolf in sheep clothing, do not be fooled by this guy.
@@JAAB9296 He doesn't look like a wolf. Why do you judge him like this? What are your arguments?
@@MendeMaria-ej8bf Do your own research and learn how to think for yourself.
@@MendeMaria-ej8bf Don't think so. I'm seventy years old, been researching for over thirty years plus. Probably longer than you have been alive, so don't flatter yourself.
The reason I'm not going to give examples to you is because you most likely would not understand. Also, you would just argue the examples given to you. I have been down that road countless times with people like you so therefore it would be a waste of my time.
As I already wrote, do YOUR OWN research instead of writing silly comments.
@@MendeMaria-ej8bfJust a troll. Don't feed them.
This order man over women was set up in the ancient times. And at that times physical strength was very, very important. To fight animals, to build a cottage, to cut trees, to fight in the battle. Today the physical power is not so important, there are other skills, which are much more valuable and in big demand. Also technical skills were very important in the bygone days - building towns, to mak tools, in the army etc. You develop your skills by doing something, practising. What kind of technical skills do you want to develop taking care od 10-15 children all day? Today it is different, but this man/woman order was established in the ancient times and was inherited by generations.
Related question for Harari - how did Israel get its territories in the past (and present)
Through violence. First they xerminated the Phoenicians and Caananites, then now the Palestinians.
@@orunabho You forgot that they kicked out or killed a bunch when Israel was formed.
The group that can divide all others groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others.
The slaves were kept in check by threats of punishment and death. The ideology mattered for the plantation owners, and the legal, political, and cultural institutions. As for India, I suspect the lower classes were kept in check largely by institutional barriers, and the religious "belief" perhaps softened the indignity. People are attracted to beliefs which glorify them, not which subjugate them.
Why don't you give the link to the entire conversation? It is rather annoying to pass through cut out pueces of various discussions in search of the complete videos.
ruclips.net/video/UTchioiHM0U/видео.htmlsi=QyvlGOkidolyiZt9
It’s in the description
ruclips.net/video/UTchioiHM0U/видео.htmlsi=VxjT_hyeBM-C9XUc
In this clip from our 2015 session ‘The Myths We Need To Survive’, historian Yuval Noah Harari engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Intelligence Squared.
Literally the first line of the description.
You watched half of the talk for free, and now demand the other half? You could just buy and read the books of Harari to get the entire story
I always enjoy his talks. Smart guy. I did read two of his books.
He's evil asf wym
@@PDaddy0120 Not more than any average guy (imho) !
Regarding the question of the status of women, just this week I heard a fascinating podcast in which a researcher of the relationship between economy and culture was interviewed, and he cited a study that showed a connection between the types of agricultural plowing in certain areas and gender perceptions. It is hypothesized that when using a plow with an ox, stronger physical strength of the upper body is required + it is work over long distances which makes it difficult to supervise children while doing it + it is a more dangerous environment for children. The result is that in these societies norms were established that men work in the fields and women look after the children, then institutions and laws were established around these norms and over time the perceptions and culture were drawn from this situation. it probably not all the answer, but maybe one aspect.
Wolfgang Pauli's famous criticism of one of his undergrad's attempts
at a paper on Quantum Mechanics:
"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" or
"This is not only not correct; it is also not even wrong."
Listening to Harari is real bliss.
What is being described here is politics. Any system regardless of size or placement or gender or color has a form of politics. Politics is the path to power and gains in wealth. The process is enabled or disabled by many things. Physical strength or military power and knowledge of how to use it, access to and availability of resources, available resources of time to learn and prepare and create a plan, access to human capital to provide a more powerful force, ability to operate without constraints, access to a greater knowledge base. A stay at home cave woman with offspring is limited in all areas as with woman today. Men as the primary leaders is not some intrinsic deficit within women. Once the politics shut you out it is difficult to access power and become a political figure in any system. It is played out in exactly this way each and every day in all kinds of in your face situations. Interesting that you do not see it.
He has always got an answer for everything, a talker, he is high up there among the spiritualist or super mega millionaires without executing anything with what he knows. Leaves no room for the uncertainty principle, he knows. He is compared to Freud or Jung. Clever, just clever authoritarian
This guy is dangerous to the West. He is a puppet sent to grab gullible people by their lazy minds bc they can’t reach the conclusion that he is dangerous for our culture. He is a super annoying guy.
No. He openly admits he does no know the answer to the question of why women don’t rule in human societies. E.g. shortly after 7min59sec he says “ as I said, it is just a theory worth examining it’s not the answer”. I don’t think he is an authoritarian. He is warning us about future scenarios where many people have no economic role, that doesn’t mean that he likes the fact that the world could evolve in that direction.
funny how "look, 300 years ago, my great great great grandfather had a horse, so now you must all obey me - it wouldn't convince anybody" turns into "look, 3000 years ago, my ancestors were promised this land, so now you must all obey me - it's just my right" real easy
Just to clarify what Harari said about Socialism because some might get the wrong idea. Socialism has been around for millennia as a concept or practice to a small extent. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto because it was commissioned to them by some already existing Socialists in Europe. Their book didn't create the idea of Socialism or Communism. But it was at the right time because the Industrial Revolution enabled capitalism to replace feudalism and when the proletariat were dissatisfied with their working conditions under the bourgeousie. Communism was pitched as the solution for the working class.
Now we have corporate neo-feudalism.
> when the proletariat were dissatisfied with their working conditions under the bourgeousie.
This is the content of the unfocused mind, w/no more realism than Santa Claus or unicorns.
That is a smart way to change the narrative for stupid audience. Consequently, the focus of the discussion shifts from the topic of gender inequality to the merits of the societal hierarchy. The answer to this is in effect quite simple, i.e., testosterone.
No need to overwhelm the audience with excessive information.
Where does he talk about any merits of that?
@@escamoteur aren't you supposed to be on your honeymoon with your husband yuval harari 🤔?????
@@matthewlogan4267 oh, you are going even lower. Seems you are just not able to follow Yuval's reasoning. Poor guy
@@escamoteur I'm sorry yuval left you for another man dont worry there plenty of other men in the gat sea for you sweetheart 😘
@@escamoteur like I said there is plenty of other men in the gay sea for you
The Fed has the asset of public lands in the US as one example...also by fostering a larger GDP over time, they secure a larger tax base which in turn promotes investments in future technological infrastructure.
Lol. What a pipe dream.
The key is that it’s a powerful story. They sometimes live up to it but not necessarily all the time
Yes. And it is largely because the very wealthy (in fact the top 8% of the population) have pretty much come to own the governmental structures and those in it for a very long time. Perhaps for the majority of our country's existence judging by policies and actions taken since roughly the last 150 or so years. This is part of what he means when he suggests that wealth takes generations to create. Wealth is synonymous with power as the two are expressions of each other. Just as in the last three decades the wealthy have effectively cinched the sack over our heads having been slowly weaving the cloth of the sack for generations. Consider also what a generation is. In the modern era a generation is twenty years. If you are twenty-five or even thirty today, how much do you really remember and fully understand about the world or the nation twenty years ago, other than your own personal life itself.@@JAAB9296
This guy from Israel has a better understanding of Indian society than Indians living in India
Im really impressed by him. As a descendant of slaves,
Frankly speaking,EVERY single human had an ancestor who was a slave in their culture,space, or history..
He's a wolf in sheeps clothing easy to see.. Even admits it
@@PDaddy0120 Maybe your eyes nedmeds to be changed.
@@WinstonMaraj-gx8sm nah, fr look it up. Says out loud certain people in these poorer countries will become useless. Says it over and over in the video. Then goes on to say the only way for them to find meaning should be an implementation of drugs and computer games. 🤷♂️
@@WinstonMaraj-gx8sm ruclips.net/video/Ex3_brOUdpA/видео.htmlsi=U8DF6Umtks8SMTk8
Difficult to imagine a matriarchal empire or queendom commanding a patriarchal military.
Do you watch movies ever? It's basically the same as it's now, but the person ordering others has a different reproductive organ.
@DarkSkay Why so difficult to imagine, just consider, Queen Boudicca, Queen Hatshepsut, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth 1, Nzinga of Ndongo, Isabella 1, Tomoe Gozen, Artemisia of Turkey, Margaret Corbin, Airforce Gen Lori Robinson, Anne Dunwoody, Golda Meir, just to name a few. I could name many more, all real female military leaders from past and fairly contemporary history who led mostly male military combatants.
@@raewynannbenten1385 those are exceptions; the rule is male dominance, over millions of years
@@ireneuszpyc6684 You wrote "a matriarchal " meaning "one". twelve were given. Ergo. it is not so difficult to imagine.
@@MrCyclist biology doesn't care about your imagination;
BTW, a third of Africa is ruled by military juntas - when will matriarchy triumph there?
This man is absolutely brilliant!! ❤
Once announced the Godhead, the creator of all creation was a male… God the Father.. women obviously became secondary…
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Duality, a partnership, the Devine is a combination of both male and female. Neither being superior nor inferior but a complementary partnership. That’s the way I read it.
@@Hels-kw5td
Think should be humankind rather than mankind.. what if said womankind ? How easily we become accustomed to words…
The very idea of ruling over every species certainly is another ego boosting statement, all things being equal, duality seems far from equality
The new religion is already here, it's called Cyberpunk, and Motoko is our high priestess!
If politicians can wear badges like racecar drivers to see who their sponsor are, and same to yuval. He has a point about what he's saying, and I don't care about all type of religious beliefs and who's correct and who not, cause it's upon your belief, your consciousness and will. But would like to see the sponsor inside yuvals brain neuron
to me its the reason females are less dominant in job high places, is because of history's momentum. because everyone is used to such social/job hirarchy, it seems "off" to hire a women for the gig. its a momentum built of decades, if not tens of thousand of years, or more. so this is kinda built in. and perhaps that's the reason.
Money is not based on trust but on the force which is able to tax the population.
Trust makes it easier though.
I would say it is absolutely based on trust ! But much better are collateral objects ! They do n o t vanish if a currency fails ! !
@@ahmadisrar9446 Absolutely !
Entrepreneurs are obsessed with how to get rewarded quickly. While this seems to be an attractive tactic, it often short lived. The intuition to get more as quickly as possible is being exploited through the usage of AI tools. AI provides a freedom of choice, the ability to share information, make unilateral decisions and purchases. With AI, we can choose what information we would like to disclose and spread some false information. But all of these “advantages” are miniscule compared with what a venture based on an unmet need can achieve. If you want to succeed, develop a product idea that fulfills unmet needs.
He refers to great civilisations of the past and says throughout history none have been matriarchal; but given the fact that most great civilisations we know of today are founded on looting, conquest and subduing neighbours, I would really question the validity of this approach. Perhaps no civilisations have been female-driven because women aren't interested in looting, conquest and affirming their ego by saying "I have burned cities to the ground, I pillaged, I took goats, and cows, and slaves, I made a pile of dead bodies", the way so many rulers have throughout history.
If given a chanxe and power in future women also can do it
Any society ruled by women would eventually be taken over by one ruled by men. Let's not be naive.
surely a high enough percentage of womenfolk push their menfolk to attain such cruel achievements.
e.g. Daniella weiss
Thank you Yuval, my teacher! 🙏
Man no wonder why you flunked kindergarten
No wonder why you flunked kindergarten
The abuse of religion, cults and the use of violence...
The words cult and religion are synonymous.
Christopher Hitchens: Religion is manmade.
@@dianahill5116
That depends... usually a cult refers to a small number of 'believers-followers'.
Cults are what most people would call sects..
Religion is larger, it comes from the Latin word 'religare' which means connecting..connecting people together is what religion does.
Cults connect few people, are often based on existing religions but have different rituals.
Cults can grow out of a religion such as the veneration of holy figures such as the virgin Mary, St Anthony, Padre Pio, etc..in the roman catholic church but I think the Vatican prefers that people remain more Christo centric instead of giving too much attention to holy figures..
So it depends on what you want and consider important I suppose.?
Like the zi 0 nist cult.
@@voncarlowitz3506that is mere semantics and does not invalidate the comment
The speaker's biggest error is in not seeing the primary difference between the "power" of women vs. men in the social structure. Men in the outside business world are much more concerned with the outcome of their actions producing financial gain, be it assets or money, and thereby, their own continued ascention. Women, as compared by the speaker, are involved with more internal business, that of raising children and caring for the household. As such, women are much more concerned with producing exceptional children for society and assuring a pleasant home environment - this outcome has a totally different "gain" then that of men. Men may be much more aggressive in their endeavors, and are indeed encouraged to be so; Women are encouraged and rewarded for being much more nurturing and silent in their endeavors as this accomplishes their goals much better. So, it is not that men are more socially adept in the corporate world than women because they lead, and women are more socially adept than men in the home world because they nurture and need the help of men; it is because these structures were set up as the most advantageous to achieve results man, many years ago. While they are still followed, modern technology has all but proven this proposal by the speaker as not necessarily so.
Capitalism has turned trust into a vice, and paranoia into a virtue.
Why yes ! Hence it is doomed anyway . . . just a few months ->
Has he debated Peterson?
On Point
Non-detected systemic nonsense gives an early advantage to one set of people over the other - and that nonsense is not 'myth', that is indeed the 'myth' because myths are non-apparent truth, not non-apparent nonsense.
There's no riddle it's all the same just different years. The rich are the same as all of history. People are just more distracted by their phones and online games and television.
Yuval, like many males thinks there is one primary reason for the prevalence of women’s inequality across cultures. His reason, that women don’t have the ability to negotiate large, impersonal systems and only have superior social skills in small communities is absurd. The widespread availability of birth control (which in my lifetime was illegal for unmarried women) is the reason women have been able to seriously commit to professional careers. Unfortunately this happened after males were entrenched in the political power hierarchy. Women, now, are out performing men in college degrees. Women are almost equal in number in medicine and law. They will be equal in number in politics in my daughter’s lifetime. Men are, unfortunately, now falling behind, socially and academically as they have lost the unconditional support of women.
Have you actually listened what he said before starting on your ideologie? And he clearly says that it's a Theorie that isn't yet backed by enough data while he explains why reproduction is an too easy explanation. He also makes the point that cooperating better in large societies isn't necessarily something good as it involves inventing stories that are harmful to many
He didn't have a good answer, and he admitted that. He debunked a few and gave a tepid hypothesis, but said there isn't strong evidence for the idea.
Pre-agricultural societies were / are more egalitarian and less hierarchical. Compared to other apes, homo species have less sexual dimorphism, meaning men and women are not as different in size. Humans depended on technologies like cooking and weapons like spears and arrows, etc. If someone was a bully, the others could leave or kill the bully, or drive the bully out. Several modern hunter-gatherer groups today are said to be fiercely egalitarian. And anthropologists generally believe that was the norm of society before agriculture and herding.
But sometimes groups of mostly men get together to form temporary hunting parties. If human societies grow larger, or become more attached to a herd of animals or crops, the hunting parties become war parties. If this goes on long enough, the war parties becomes a warrior society. Warrior societies became more patriarchal when the men started to control the resources and the warriors. They started to make rules that were hierarchical and patriarchal. Which they also enforced with marriage customs and violence. An example of marriage custom would be the practice of sending the women out of the tribe to marry a man in another tribe. So the women are more isolated from each other while the men are more deeply bonded.
@@AWildBard what you describe is only true for chimpanzees but not for Bonobos. I recommend the works of Robert Sapolski on that topic. And the idea that men are more willing to accept a hirachie based on a shared belief is pretty good IMHO.
In a lot of agricultural cultures women do most of the work on the fields despite having children. And culture develops strongly different depending on if humans are Nomads with heads or farmers. There isn't any easy explanation why only in small societies we have examples of matriarchy
@@escamoteur If he’s speculating, why not include more plausible theories?
@thomasburkhart5078 yuval eats ass and Harry sacks
“Look, 2,000 years ago, my ancestors had hoses! Bullet hoses!”
“Do you still have them?”
“We got better ones.”
“Can we have some …?”
“… … no.”
I think male leadership is based on economics not parenting.
Yuval Harari, right-hand man of WEF puppet master Klauss Schwab.
He referred to humans as "they". Not "us". Interesting.
He's an alien.
@@deeplearningpartnership he's Klaus Schwab's personal advisor, so he can't be human, whether literally or figuratively
Oooooo, very suspect, i smell an evil conspiracy here! so what's say boys, is he illuminati? which Heeb cabal is he behind? is he even a human, and what is his sexual orientation, i think he might be a perv.
What about the black slave owners who justified their black plantation slaves?
Only a former slave craves to become master of slaves, irrespective of the colour of their skin.
So, because women have to "feel" trust more in relationships, i.e., for help with own children, they are not so susceptible to "superficial" relationships, which are conversely necessary for career advancements, as historically men have...?
Put it differently. Men are more willing to accept a hirachie without questioning it
He has no idea what he is talking about. His views on the caste system are so coarse that it is meaningless.
Not sure about faith leaders - why else would they be wearing those hats if not for protection.
Noah is very popular among the educated in Iran.
Hierarchy of men and women is based off the evolution of the ego.
It has been determined that there are many kinds of intelligence. We used to measure a successful valuable person by their IQ as the only kind of intelligence. I wanted to know how your theories fit that model. I was alarmed that you would designate people as a useless group who are not employed. As AI takes a hold on the economy, referring to those who lose their job due to automation now according to you are placed in the 'useless' category. I find your designations of many groups of people de-valuing and dishonest. You leave out details that create a bigger picture. You are an eloquent speaker and very good at creating what looks like Think Tank propaganda. Do you Think Tank for a living?
You don't get that he doesn't mean useless as his point of view but that of the system we are creating
Maybe the question is the other way around. Why do we now all of a sudden have trouble explaining a gender hierarchy which has always existed throughout all peoples? What is wrong with us ?
Colonization, massacre, and slavery:
I do not admit ... for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. -- Winston Churchill 1937.
Another poppet of the cabal 👿
CONSUMO ERGO SUM ? 🤔
Its testosterone. Makes males more aggressive and persistent.
. . . to successfully defend the family unit !
'2000 years ago some tribe from central Asia invaded Ganges valley and subjugated local population, this is why we have caste system ' mirchi lagi
Poor understanding of Indian history
2:18 _“In your book you show that so many cultures -geographically spread around the world, temporally spread across history - have prioritized men over women and you struggle to offer - as everyone does - a convincing explanation for why that is…”_
- Maybe because that isn’t actually the case. Shout out to Occam's razor!
Yeah, women control from behind the scene - ask a married man.
Thats why in social/Military conflicts, there exist no such thing as 'innocent' Women: stalin, the Mullahs, taliban, obn, jdb they all had a mother who was the crucial reference during their upbringing. Dont fool yourself.
Show one example that this is false
@@escamoteur I suppose the argument could be more clear as to what is meant by _“…prioritized men over women.”_ One assumes this follows the feminist concept of so-called “patriarchy theory” - the idea that men as a group benefit at the expense of women as a group - however, if what is meant includes how men are “prioritized” to die in wars so that women may benefit from male sacrifice it isn’t so clear.
@@TheParadox_ I would argue that men don't sacrifice in wars but fall victim to the ability to be more willing to accept hirachie based on some stories. The same ability that kept men in power over centuries
@@escamoteur "nen?" "hirachie?"
Although he himself knows these stories to be false ,he is participant in these stories, in his life.
Wow
They have power today through debt slavery.
If "cherry picking facts to fit the conclusion" has a face.
Doesn't take generations to build wealth. I from a childhood of duch poverty, that out family ly of 8 lived in 400 sq ft, and i remember not having enough to eat. My daughter whose in-laws came from poverty also. Now my grandchildren are in private school where the fees are more than double my retirement income. We educated our daughter and she married a good ambitious man. Our other daughter is similarly situated. So this is a bit hard for me to agree...as much as i love Yuval.
It may very well be that he is speaking of wealth that exceeds your idea of it. Being upper middle class or even in the top 15 percentile of wealth is not what he is talking about. But remember something we learn in statistics 101. You cannot use personal experience, or the existence of exceptions to either prove a statistical average false, or even place doubt on it. Because if anything, what we know as exceptions (especially the ridiculous practice so many try to use to disprove averages as personal anecdotes) is that they're exceptions. They're the little, small areas of a bell curve chart on each end. Where the numbers descend almost to zero. Of which there are far far few of within the bell itself.
is that why south africa is doing so well now that they kicked off all the dutch farmers? or are they falling apart?
Down with the Elites :D
He is one of them.
@@JAAB9296 Maybe he is, based on this talk its impossible to know what kind of elite he is. You can tell what kind of elite someone may be by how bothered they become when addressing risks of stability within their home government. The top tier elites are less bothered by the risks to their rights and freedoms declining in their home state because their rights havent been determined by a government for decades if ever. They buy them and others And they can always relocate.
In contrast - I would be devastated if my home country's democratic ideals was to decline because my quality of life is no substantially tied to how much privilige I can buy but what someone else decides is fair. I am not an elite.
There are multi-layered definitions of what an elite is, so its impossible to determine who is and who isnt on a yt video
@@ryanwporter Well, guess what? I have known of this guy for about 9 years give or take. HE is a very dangerous person and wants (if not is) to be part of the "powers that be" that will absolutely control every aspect of our lives. So be very careful.
Productive or political?
@@TeaParty1776 Both. Think about it.
The fellow knows nothing about India and its scriptures , he quotes the same leftist BS that is all over
Yuval has reached his "Use by Date".
Men can cooperate in large groups for long periods of time, women cannot.
Good social skills will get you far, but force always wins. Men are the enforcers. It's not that complicated.
Ok, then why are Bonobos matriarchal? The males could enforce patriarchy there too, but they don't. Same with other higher mammals, e.g. orcas, elephants…
@@vauchomarx6733 Yes, we should live like Bonobos. You go first.
@@_uncredited But you just dodged the question, why isn't force winning in Bonobos' society? Red herring doesn't count as argument.
@@zxbc1My comments keep getting deleted. I'll try again....
Bonobos live in small pods. As the other commenter said, the males COULD take over, but they don't. It's rule by consent and matriarchy is an easy way of describing that ('female dominant' is the correct term, but some primatologists are guilty of calling it a matriarchy becayuse it sells books and publishes papers). It's worth remembering that not all bonobo groups operate this way. Some rule jointly, some are male dominated. Modern humans COULD live in tiny groups - but we don't. At scale, enforcement is needed and that's a boy's job.
Some creatures DO have female enforcers (several spiders, etc.) and males are often rendered insignificant. That doesn't make it better though. Unless you want to be somebody's lunch? Anthropomorphising nature is useful to compare and contrast different kinds of behaviours, biologies and chemistries. It's not for mimicry. You wouldn't suggest that a cat should live like a frog. Saying "bonobos do it" is as meaningless as saying "why aren't we wasps?"
@@zxbc1 It would appear this 'intelligent' channel has deleted my responses. Sorry.
Harari ignores some of the simplers explanations for why pre-industrial cultures were male dominated but that only increases the feminist critique of patriarchy. He makes the point that a system established centuries ago by accidental possession of a critical resource/asset can survive to this day, but does not apply that to the male-female hierarchy dynamics.
We could apply Herodoto s story in the New World Order
You become pope by your church hoarding all the wealth and defending it, often with force
"Das eine Gruppe von Leuten, Bsp. Pferdebesitzer die sich an der Spitze der Finanzhierarchie BRD befinden (Bsp.Springer Erbin - aber meine Urgrossmutter hatte ein Pferd....) Kleine Assoziation aus der BRD
Yes, he's right. Israel 🇮🇱 wouldn't be butchering and oppressing Palestinians 🇵🇸 without religious stories and claims of racial superiority.
By being WEF Members. Next Question.
how yuval noah justifies the establishment of state of israil?
There is a theory - impossible to prove empirically - that male dominate fiemale because of the risk taking. It is a longer and more complicated explanation but ... risk pays for men and not so much for women ... biologically - hence ... social consequences
What does it even mean - "risk pays for men and not for women"? What kind of risk? in what areas? pays in what way? I've read that risk taking differs between genders. The article I read maintained that people tend to take more risks in areas where they feel they have good skills. Women perceive themselves to have good social skills, so they are more likely to take risks in that area. Men are more likely to risk their lives physically or to take financial risks.
Competition occurs mostly intra-sexually where males outcompete/dominate other males; females compete with other females. Those males who successfully outcompete other males then have greater access to females. The idea that males dominate females is a feminist fabricated narrative.
simple minded scholar ...
Chimps don't have private property, neither do hunter gatherers. Gender inequality is the result of the agricultural revolution and private property ownership. The Mosuo pass property mother to daughter and there is a high degree of equality. This can be seen in Martin Luther's commentary on the Genesis fall, and in Genesis itself. Yuval doesn't seem to know much about hunter gatherers.
5,000 years ago Abraham had a horse.
In principle yes, but it wasn't horse but a goat and it had only 3 legs 😂
What do you mean?
The Abrahamic Religions, Judaeism in particular, make claim to Palestine because it was once 'owned' by Abraham. The Chinese make a similar claim over Tibet, 'First Nations[ make a similar claim, 'We were here first so it belongs to us'. @@jadonlawrence4909
When you talk but really shout out is really hard to listen.
WOW! Is he a genius or what? If he would lose that accent, I could listen to him talk all day!
Or you could perhaps, just maybe, out of shear respect, learn his native language. Not everyone had to bow down and learn English just to reach you.
The Indian invasion theory and the caste examples are based on poor evidence..
What about the irish slavery that the English done to them back in the day
Testosteron !!! Men are more driven, competitive and hungry by nature.
The guy is clueless . The stories are used to justify the social hierarchy but not to create the hierarchy. Debt is used to create the hierarchy and then we use stories to justify the oppression. Stories are also used to break free form the oppression . The story of Jesus is the most powerful story to break the captives free . Martin Luther King Jr used it to free the blacks , Mahatma Gandhi used a similar story to liberate India without the use of violence .
The story of Jews is the worst because it perpetuates oppression without hope for oppressed . Could explain why Jews are one of the most persecuted people in history
Why do you think Christianity would help "to break the captives free"? It is the clergy that legitimizes the monarchs with their idea of 'divine birthright', with their claim to be the rightful representatives of the God(s). The alliance between clergy and aristocracy was nearly unsurmountable, imposed strict authority over life and afterlife, consolidated serfdom for centuries. Nietzsche goes even farther, characterizing Christianity as a "Sklavenmoral", which can be translated as "morality for slaves".
In some countries simply owning a bible can get somebody into prison - in those places it's an act of resistance, yes. But in general the transformative political potential of the book, which praises sheep quite a lot, appears limited.
Also, monotheism is usually preferred by raison d'état. Not least for the practical reason that after conquest and burying old local Gods, only one temple has to be erected in the city center, to signal who has the ultimate say now.
Starting, the speaker is an Israeli
So what? If you ever started listening you would understand that he explains why there is no piece in the middle east and that the separation between Israelis and Palestinians is just another one of the stories of power he talks of. I m so sick of such ignorant comments
India has no such myths. Inadequate research into the Varna system going into these theories. In reality, the Indian Varna system was no different than any other civilisation. Would wish for a little more and broader thinking.
Anthropology 101 -- The reason that men now dominate women and the world is actually pretty obvious...perhaps too obvious to be recognized like the proverbial "elephant in the room". I'm not going to tell you because may write a book about it someday so you'll just have to figure it out on your own. This I recommend because I tend to be a procrastinator.
🤣🤣🤣
I hope indian upper caste watching this …
This same guy said people were useless… nothing but a evil person