Why fascism is so tempting -- and how your data could power it

In a profound talk about technology and power, author and historian Yuval Noah Harari explains the important difference between fascism and nationalism -- and what the consolidation of our data means for the future of democracy. Appearing as a hologram live from Tel Aviv, Harari warns that the greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy is that the revolution in information technology will make dictatorships more efficient and capable of control. "The enemies of liberal democracy hack our feelings of fear and hate and vanity, and then use these feelings to polarize and destroy," Harari says. "It is the responsibility of all of us to get to know our weaknesses and make sure they don't become weapons." (Followed by a brief conversation with TED curator Chris Anderson)

Hello, everyone.

It's a bit funny, because I did write
that humans will become digital,

but I didn't think it will happen so fast

and that it will happen to me.

But here I am, as a digital avatar,

and here you are, so let's start.

And let's start with a question.

How many fascists are there
in the audience today?

(Laughter)

Well, it's a bit difficult to say,

because we've forgotten what fascism is.

People now use the term "fascist"

as a kind of general-purpose abuse.

Or they confuse fascism with nationalism.

So let's take a few minutes
to clarify what fascism actually is,

and how it is different from nationalism.

The milder forms of nationalism
have been among the most benevolent

of human creations.

Nations are communities
of millions of strangers

who don't really know each other.

For example, I don't know
the eight million people

who share my Israeli citizenship.

But thanks to nationalism,

we can all care about one another
and cooperate effectively.

This is very good.

Some people, like John Lennon,
imagine that without nationalism,

the world will be a peaceful paradise.

But far more likely,

without nationalism,
we would have been living in tribal chaos.

If you look today at the most prosperous
and peaceful countries in the world,

countries like Sweden
and Switzerland and Japan,

you will see that they have
a very strong sense of nationalism.

In contrast, countries that lack
a strong sense of nationalism,

like Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan,

tend to be violent and poor.

So what is fascism, and how
is it different from nationalism?

Well, nationalism tells me
that my nation is unique,

and that I have special obligations
towards my nation.

Fascism, in contrast, tells me
that my nation is supreme,

and that I have exclusive
obligations towards it.

I don't need to care about anybody
or anything other than my nation.

Usually, of course,
people have many identities

and loyalties to different groups.

For example, I can be a good patriot,
loyal to my country,

and at the same time,
be loyal to my family,

my neighborhood, my profession,

humankind as a whole,

truth and beauty.

Of course, when I have different
identities and loyalties,

it sometimes creates conflicts
and complications.

But, well, who ever told you
that life was easy?

Life is complicated.

Deal with it.

Fascism is what happens when people try
to ignore the complications

and to make life too easy for themselves.

Fascism denies all identities
except the national identity

and insists that I have obligations
only towards my nation.

If my nation demands
that I sacrifice my family,

then I will sacrifice my family.

If the nation demands
that I kill millions of people,

then I will kill millions of people.

And if my nation demands
that I betray truth and beauty,

then I should betray truth and beauty.

For example, how does
a fascist evaluate art?

How does a fascist decide whether a movie
is a good movie or a bad movie?

Well, it's very, very, very simple.

There is really just one yardstick:

if the movie serves
the interests of the nation,

it's a good movie;

if the movie doesn't serve
the interests of the nation,

it's a bad movie.

That's it.

Similarly, how does a fascist decide
what to teach kids in school?

Again, it's very simple.

There is just one yardstick:

you teach the kids whatever serves
the interests of the nation.

The truth doesn't matter at all.

Now, the horrors of the Second World War
and of the Holocaust remind us

of the terrible consequences
of this way of thinking.

But usually, when we talk
about the ills of fascism,

we do so in an ineffective way,

because we tend to depict fascism
as a hideous monster,

without really explaining
what was so seductive about it.

It's a bit like these Hollywood movies
that depict the bad guys --

Voldemort or Sauron
or Darth Vader --

as ugly and mean and cruel.

They're cruel even
to their own supporters.

When I see these movies,
I never understand --

why would anybody be tempted to follow
a disgusting creep like Voldemort?

The problem with evil
is that in real life,

evil doesn't necessarily look ugly.

It can look very beautiful.

This is something that
Christianity knew very well,

which is why in Christian art,
as [opposed to] Hollywood,

Satan is usually depicted
as a gorgeous hunk.

This is why it's so difficult
to resist the temptations of Satan,

and why it is also difficult
to resist the temptations of fascism.

Fascism makes people see themselves

as belonging to the most beautiful
and most important thing in the world --

the nation.

And then people think,

"Well, they taught us
that fascism is ugly.

But when I look in the mirror,
I see something very beautiful,

so I can't be a fascist, right?"

Wrong.

That's the problem with fascism.

When you look in the fascist mirror,

you see yourself as far more beautiful
than you really are.

In the 1930s, when Germans
looked in the fascist mirror,

they saw Germany as the most
beautiful thing in the world.

If today, Russians look
in the fascist mirror,

they will see Russia as the most
beautiful thing in the world.

And if Israelis look
in the fascist mirror,

they will see Israel as the most
beautiful thing in the world.

This does not mean that we are now
facing a rerun of the 1930s.

Fascism and dictatorships might come back,

but they will come back in a new form,

a form which is much more relevant

to the new technological realities
of the 21st century.

In ancient times,

land was the most important
asset in the world.

Politics, therefore,
was the struggle to control land.

And dictatorship meant that all the land
was owned by a single ruler

or by a small oligarch.

And in the modern age,
machines became more important than land.

Politics became the struggle
to control the machines.

And dictatorship meant

that too many of the machines
became concentrated

in the hands of the government
or of a small elite.

Now data is replacing
both land and machines

as the most important asset.

Politics becomes the struggle
to control the flows of data.

And dictatorship now means

that too much data is being concentrated
in the hands of the government

or of a small elite.

The greatest danger
that now faces liberal democracy

is that the revolution
in information technology

will make dictatorships
more efficient than democracies.

In the 20th century,

democracy and capitalism
defeated fascism and communism

because democracy was better
at processing data and making decisions.

Given 20th-century technology,

it was simply inefficient to try
and concentrate too much data

and too much power in one place.

But it is not a law of nature

that centralized data processing
is always less efficient

than distributed data processing.

With the rise of artificial intelligence
and machine learning,

it might become feasible to process
enormous amounts of information

very efficiently in one place,

to take all the decisions in one place,

and then centralized data processing
will be more efficient

than distributed data processing.

And then the main handicap
of authoritarian regimes

in the 20th century --

their attempt to concentrate
all the information in one place --

it will become their greatest advantage.

Another technological danger
that threatens the future of democracy

is the merger of information technology
with biotechnology,

which might result
in the creation of algorithms

that know me better than I know myself.

And once you have such algorithms,

an external system, like the government,

cannot just predict my decisions,

it can also manipulate
my feelings, my emotions.

A dictator may not be able
to provide me with good health care,

but he will be able to make me love him

and to make me hate the opposition.

Democracy will find it difficult
to survive such a development

because, in the end,

democracy is not based
on human rationality;

it's based on human feelings.

During elections and referendums,

you're not being asked,
"What do you think?"

You're actually being asked,
"How do you feel?"

And if somebody can manipulate
your emotions effectively,

democracy will become
an emotional puppet show.

So what can we do to prevent
the return of fascism

and the rise of new dictatorships?

The number one question that we face
is: Who controls the data?

If you are an engineer,

then find ways to prevent too much data

from being concentrated in too few hands.

And find ways to make sure

the distributed data processing
is at least as efficient

as centralized data processing.

This will be the best
safeguard for democracy.

As for the rest of us
who are not engineers,

the number one question facing us

is how not to allow
ourselves to be manipulated

by those who control the data.

The enemies of liberal democracy,
they have a method.

They hack our feelings.

Not our emails, not our bank accounts --

they hack our feelings of fear
and hate and vanity,

and then use these feelings

to polarize and destroy
democracy from within.

This is actually a method

that Silicon Valley pioneered
in order to sell us products.

But now, the enemies of democracy
are using this very method

to sell us fear and hate and vanity.

They cannot create
these feelings out of nothing.

So they get to know our own
preexisting weaknesses.

And then use them against us.

And it is therefore
the responsibility of all of us

to get to know our weaknesses

and make sure that they
do not become a weapon

in the hands of the enemies of democracy.

Getting to know our own weaknesses

will also help us to avoid the trap
of the fascist mirror.

As we explained earlier,
fascism exploits our vanity.

It makes us see ourselves
as far more beautiful than we really are.

This is the seduction.

But if you really know yourself,

you will not fall
for this kind of flattery.

If somebody puts a mirror
in front of your eyes

that hides all your ugly bits
and makes you see yourself

as far more beautiful
and far more important

than you really are,

just break that mirror.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Chris Anderson: Yuval, thank you.

Goodness me.

It's so nice to see you again.

So, if I understand you right,

you're alerting us
to two big dangers here.

One is the possible resurgence
of a seductive form of fascism,

but close to that, dictatorships
that may not exactly be fascistic,

but control all the data.

I wonder if there's a third concern

that some people here
have already expressed,

which is where, not governments,
but big corporations control all our data.

What do you call that,

and how worried should we be about that?

Yuval Noah Harari: Well, in the end,
there isn't such a big difference

between the corporations
and the governments,

because, as I said, the questions is:
Who controls the data?

This is the real government.

If you call it a corporation
or a government --

if it's a corporation
and it really controls the data,

this is our real government.

So the difference
is more apparent than real.

CA: But somehow,
at least with corporations,

you can imagine market mechanisms
where they can be taken down.

I mean, if consumers just decide

that the company is no longer
operating in their interest,

it does open the door to another market.

It seems easier to imagine that

than, say, citizens rising up
and taking down a government

that is in control of everything.

YNH: Well, we are not there yet,

but again, if a corporation really
knows you better than you know yourself --

at least that it can manipulate
your own deepest emotions and desires,

and you won't even realize --

you will think this is
your authentic self.

So in theory, yes, in theory,
you can rise against a corporation,

just as, in theory, you can rise
against a dictatorship.

But in practice,
it is extremely difficult.

CA: So in "Homo Deus," you argue
that this would be the century

when humans kind of became gods,

either through development
of artificial intelligence

or through genetic engineering.

Has this prospect of political
system shift, collapse

impacted your view on that possibility?

YNH: Well, I think it makes it
even more likely,

and more likely
that it will happen faster,

because in times of crisis,
people are willing to take risks

that they wouldn't otherwise take.

And people are willing to try

all kinds of high-risk,
high-gain technologies.

So these kinds of crises
might serve the same function

as the two world wars in the 20th century.

The two world wars greatly accelerated

the development of new
and dangerous technologies.

And the same thing might happen
in the 21st century.

I mean, you need to be
a little crazy to run too fast,

let's say, with genetic engineering.

But now you have more
and more crazy people

in charge of different
countries in the world,

so the chances are getting
higher, not lower.

CA: So, putting it all together, Yuval,
you've got this unique vision.

Roll the clock forward 30 years.

What's your guess --
does humanity just somehow scrape through,

look back and say, "Wow,
that was a close thing. We did it!"

Or not?

YNH: So far, we've managed
to overcome all the previous crises.

And especially if you look
at liberal democracy

and you think things are bad now,

just remember how much worse
things looked in 1938 or in 1968.

So this is really nothing,
this is just a small crisis.

But you can never know,

because, as a historian,

I know that you should never
underestimate human stupidity.

(Laughter) (Applause)

It is one of the most powerful forces
that shape history.

CA: Yuval, it's been an absolute delight
to have you with us.

Thank you for making the virtual trip.

Have a great evening there in Tel Aviv.

Yuval Harari!

YNH: Thank you very much.

(Applause)