You are misrepresenting Harari. He is an evolutionary humanist as you point out, but not in the same way as Nazi-ism. His moral ontology is much different and he values individual human life and freedom. Not all possible futures are bad but indeed some are. We shouldn't prematurely conclude that becoming these technological god-men will be a ultimately bad. In fact we already have become that and more of us live good lives with more purpose than in the past. You seem frightened of the future and in turn you disparage Harari. What alternative perspective is more convincing for you? Evolutionary humanism won't get us to heaven or some other wishful happy place, but that doesn't mean we should reject it. The universe doesn't exist for your wishful thinking nor does it care if consciousness will continue in the future. We should accept this and move on or provide a more convincing theory.
If I am misrepresenting Hariri, I would love to know how! It was certainly my impression from his own writing that his intent was to represent authoritarian technocratic rule as the best path forward, and he himself explicitly used Nazi Germany as an example of something close to what he meant.
I am not in fact frightened of the future. I simply reject paths towards it that willfully ignore what we know of human nature, the nature of evil, and the metaphysical reality of the world. I reject naturalism, as it seems to not accord with the data I see in the world.
Harari is for the people and for democratic rule. I've read Homo Deus, Sapiens, 21 Lessons, and Nexus and I've never encountered any evidence that Harari supports authoritarian rule. He makes many references to WW2 and to Nazi Germany to elucidate his points. He warns us about such authoritarian rule and gives many examples of how destructive it was and how much more destructive a technocratic version of Nazi Germany would be. However, Harari is not a spiritual literalist (he doesn't believe in a literal God from one of the monotheistic traditions), perhaps you are and that's why you don't like him. Don't misrepresent him just because you don't like what he says. You should directly quote from his work and then explain why you disagree.
You're correct that Harari and I differ on metaphysics, which you'll see if you read the above essay. And perhaps to clear things up, the coinage Space Nazi that I'm using is less strictly about utilitarian government and more in reference to a concept present in C.S. Lewis' writings where he warns about the dangers of science separated from morality.
Hariri is overtly critical of the idea that human beings can articulate a moral system. He then argues that we should use science to police each other anyway. My argument is that this is morally insane. I do not dislike Hariri (only) because I am a spiritual literalist. I dislike him because I believe his ideas to be morally insane.
1. Harari denies the existence of immaterial reality or a moral soul, reducing humanity to biological algorithms. I believe Harari would agree with that.
2. Without spiritual literalism (my framing) then Harari cannot definitively condemn Nazis and other atrocities (might makes right). This is where we could have a good discussion I think.
3. Harari's vision of an evolving "dataist" future and possible techno-human elites are, in your view, similar to evolutionary ideologies like Nazism. Again I think we all agree here. However Harari isn't suggesting that this is the way to go. He's warning us.
4. A general claim of that Harari's logic is unsupported, or inconsistent/naive leading to "moral insanity". Here we don't agree.
Harari writes as a historian and social commentator. He describes historical events and belief systems and possible futures without providing a blueprint for how humanity should respond. In his books he is describing scenarios past and present but he isn't endorsing them. He doesn't celebrate Naziism or claim it is morally good, he is drawing the reader's attention to the contingencies and complexities within these moral frameworks.
I agree with you that Harari is skeptical of traditional moral absolutes that are grounded in religion/spirituality but that does not mean that he endorses a kind of moral nihilism that you are attributing to him. The same kind of thinking that led to Naziism ("might makes right" from evolutionary biology). His questioning of moral values is not the same as a rejection of said values.
Harari's speculations about technology and techno-humanity are cautionary. He's not advocating for them.
Harari is not morally empty as you seem to claim. It is surprising that you came to this conclusion after reading some of his work. It makes me wonder if you were being genuine in trying to understand what he is saying. Or if something else prompted you to read Harari in a negative light. I find his writing style to be very clear. Harari's central theme throughout his recent books has been to alert readers to the fragility of current moral orders. He is urging us to critically consider what comes next without actually telling us what he endorses himself. None of his works are personal manifestos about what he thinks should be or what we all should believe.
You are misrepresenting Harari. He is an evolutionary humanist as you point out, but not in the same way as Nazi-ism. His moral ontology is much different and he values individual human life and freedom. Not all possible futures are bad but indeed some are. We shouldn't prematurely conclude that becoming these technological god-men will be a ultimately bad. In fact we already have become that and more of us live good lives with more purpose than in the past. You seem frightened of the future and in turn you disparage Harari. What alternative perspective is more convincing for you? Evolutionary humanism won't get us to heaven or some other wishful happy place, but that doesn't mean we should reject it. The universe doesn't exist for your wishful thinking nor does it care if consciousness will continue in the future. We should accept this and move on or provide a more convincing theory.
If I am misrepresenting Hariri, I would love to know how! It was certainly my impression from his own writing that his intent was to represent authoritarian technocratic rule as the best path forward, and he himself explicitly used Nazi Germany as an example of something close to what he meant.
I am not in fact frightened of the future. I simply reject paths towards it that willfully ignore what we know of human nature, the nature of evil, and the metaphysical reality of the world. I reject naturalism, as it seems to not accord with the data I see in the world.
Harari is for the people and for democratic rule. I've read Homo Deus, Sapiens, 21 Lessons, and Nexus and I've never encountered any evidence that Harari supports authoritarian rule. He makes many references to WW2 and to Nazi Germany to elucidate his points. He warns us about such authoritarian rule and gives many examples of how destructive it was and how much more destructive a technocratic version of Nazi Germany would be. However, Harari is not a spiritual literalist (he doesn't believe in a literal God from one of the monotheistic traditions), perhaps you are and that's why you don't like him. Don't misrepresent him just because you don't like what he says. You should directly quote from his work and then explain why you disagree.
You're correct that Harari and I differ on metaphysics, which you'll see if you read the above essay. And perhaps to clear things up, the coinage Space Nazi that I'm using is less strictly about utilitarian government and more in reference to a concept present in C.S. Lewis' writings where he warns about the dangers of science separated from morality.
Hariri is overtly critical of the idea that human beings can articulate a moral system. He then argues that we should use science to police each other anyway. My argument is that this is morally insane. I do not dislike Hariri (only) because I am a spiritual literalist. I dislike him because I believe his ideas to be morally insane.
Your essay seems to claim that:
1. Harari denies the existence of immaterial reality or a moral soul, reducing humanity to biological algorithms. I believe Harari would agree with that.
2. Without spiritual literalism (my framing) then Harari cannot definitively condemn Nazis and other atrocities (might makes right). This is where we could have a good discussion I think.
3. Harari's vision of an evolving "dataist" future and possible techno-human elites are, in your view, similar to evolutionary ideologies like Nazism. Again I think we all agree here. However Harari isn't suggesting that this is the way to go. He's warning us.
4. A general claim of that Harari's logic is unsupported, or inconsistent/naive leading to "moral insanity". Here we don't agree.
Harari writes as a historian and social commentator. He describes historical events and belief systems and possible futures without providing a blueprint for how humanity should respond. In his books he is describing scenarios past and present but he isn't endorsing them. He doesn't celebrate Naziism or claim it is morally good, he is drawing the reader's attention to the contingencies and complexities within these moral frameworks.
I agree with you that Harari is skeptical of traditional moral absolutes that are grounded in religion/spirituality but that does not mean that he endorses a kind of moral nihilism that you are attributing to him. The same kind of thinking that led to Naziism ("might makes right" from evolutionary biology). His questioning of moral values is not the same as a rejection of said values.
Harari's speculations about technology and techno-humanity are cautionary. He's not advocating for them.
Harari is not morally empty as you seem to claim. It is surprising that you came to this conclusion after reading some of his work. It makes me wonder if you were being genuine in trying to understand what he is saying. Or if something else prompted you to read Harari in a negative light. I find his writing style to be very clear. Harari's central theme throughout his recent books has been to alert readers to the fragility of current moral orders. He is urging us to critically consider what comes next without actually telling us what he endorses himself. None of his works are personal manifestos about what he thinks should be or what we all should believe.