Work #1160 · Mid period

21 Lessons for the 21st Century

Yuval Noah Harari's 2018 essays on the political-technological challenges of the contemporary moment

Yuval Noah Harari · 2018 · English · Political-philosophical essays

Tradition: Big-history / Popular political-technological essay

Harari's 2018 essays — 21 contemporary challenges from artificial intelligence to nationalism to terrorism

21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018) is Yuval Noah Harari's essay collection completing the trilogy begun with Sapiens (past) and Homo Deus (future). Where the earlier books treated the deep past and the long-term future, 21 Lessons addresses the contemporary moment: artificial intelligence and the future of work, biotechnology and inequality, nationalism and global cooperation, religion and secularism, immigration, terrorism, war, and the proper response of education to these challenges.

Author

Editions cited

  • 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (Spiegel & Grau / Jonathan Cape, 2018)

School Embodiments

Naturalism · 15%
Critical Theory · 20%
Cosmopolitanism · 20%
Liberalism · 10%
Transhumanism / Posthumanism · 15%
Evolutionary Psychology · 5%
Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism · 10%

Continued naturalist framework — humans as biological organisms confronting biological-technological challenges.

"In the twenty-first century, the merger of biotech and infotech has created the possibility of hacking the human organism itself; this is the central political-philosophical fact of our moment." (21 Lessons)

Critical-theoretical work on contemporary political-technological challenges.

"The political-philosophical work of the twenty-first century cannot be done with the categories of the twentieth; new categories are needed for new problems." (21 Lessons)

Strong cosmopolitan-political framework — global challenges requiring global-political response.

"Climate change, biotechnology, artificial intelligence — these are global challenges; no nation-state can address them alone." (21 Lessons)

Defends and complicates liberal-democratic-political tradition.

"Liberalism in its twentieth-century form is inadequate to the twenty-first century's challenges; what comes next is the question." (21 Lessons)

Engages — though does not endorse — the transhumanist political-technological prospects.

"The technical possibility of 'upgrading' the human organism is not the question; the political-philosophical question is what kind of upgrades, for whom." (21 Lessons)

Continued cognitive-evolutionary framing.

"Our cognitive evolution prepared us for the African savannah; the twenty-first century's challenges are mismatched to our evolved cognitive equipment." (21 Lessons)

Engages mainstream analytic-philosophical-political-ethical work.

"What we owe each other across nations and across species is the proper subject of the political-philosophical work the century requires." (21 Lessons)

Internal Tensions

The book has been variously assessed — defenders see proper popular-philosophical engagement with contemporary issues, critics see Davos-friendly technocratic sensibility.

I. Time

The 2018 contemporary moment of late-2010s political-technological crisis.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

The global political-technological setting.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-Local

III. Matter

The embodied global human population facing biological-political-technological challenges.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-Local

IV. Observer

The macro-historical-philosophical popular-essayist as proper observer.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Partial Knowledge Retainment: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

The political-technological energies of the contemporary moment.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

The 21 essays' political-philosophical content.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Variable Personal Conservation: Variable Granularity: Discrete

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How 21 Lessons for the 21st Century resolves each dilemma

43 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 6 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 14 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
On this view, time itself is finite — the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Heat death (or whatever the actual end-state turns out to be) is a real horizon, structurally implied by the kind of cosmos we live in.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
On this view, the cosmos is bounded in both time and matter; resources are categorically not renewable beyond what cosmic processes provide. Practical limits and metaphysical limits coincide. Living well means living within limits, not engineering around them.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it.
On this view, the cosmos has limits; the obligation to future people is real but cannot exceed what the limits allow. The categorical worry about owing the impossible doesn't arise: the limits bound the asking. Ethics within a created or bounded order is the only …
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible. (15%)
6 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) · No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) · Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
On this view, experience comes in discrete units defined by the substrate: information-theoretic phi-units, computational frames, discrete neural events. There is no further metaphysical agency that knits them; the appearance of a stream is the way many discrete events present to introspection.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) · No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (37%) · Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Engrams and traces — or continuous re-narration each time you remember? The cognitive-science debate has a theological cousin: divine memory holding each hair, or the ancestors' continuous remembering.
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
On this view, memory is the readout of discrete information stored in the substrate: engrams, synaptic weights, file-like records. Reconstruction at retrieval is real but secondary; without the stored bits there would be nothing to reconstruct from.
Roads not taken Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. (44%) · Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. (37%) · Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units. (6%)
24 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30%
10 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1159 Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind All Works #1161 Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks →