• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Interview with Yuval Noah Harari on Nexus

Navigating the Ethical Crossroads of Humanity's Future

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-4o

Me to ChatGPT:

• Please interview Harari about his new book Nexus, in a balanced but critical way, for a large national newspaper.

Interviewer: Professor Harari, your new book Nexus continues your exploration of the intersection between technology, humanity, and history. What drove you to write this particular book?

Yuval Noah Harari

Harari: Nexus is born out of a concern that the world is accelerating towards a point where technology and biology are merging at an unprecedented pace. The word “Nexus” itself reflects this intersection. While I have explored similar themes in my previous works, such as Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Nexus focuses on how this merging could radically redefine what it means to be human in the coming decades. I wanted to bring attention to the ethical questions we must ask now, before these technologies become too integrated into our lives.

Interviewer: Your work has always been ambitious, and you often grapple with big questions about the future of humanity. Do you worry about oversimplifying complex debates? For instance, in Nexus, there's a lot of discussion about AI and biotechnology, but some critics might argue that your take leans toward a dystopian narrative. Is that intentional?

Harari: I'm aware of the criticism that I sometimes paint a more dystopian or alarmist picture of the future. But I believe we must confront the potential dangers as directly as possible. If I focus on dystopia, it's not because I want to scare people—it's because I want to prepare them. Technologies like AI, genetic engineering, or neural interfaces aren't inherently good or bad. They have the potential to transform society for the better, but without proper regulation or ethical reflection, they could deepen inequalities, erode privacy, and even undermine democracy. So while my tone can sometimes seem stark, I aim to provoke a sense of urgency, not fatalism.

Interviewer: In Nexus, you introduce the idea of a "post-human" future. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that and why you think it's important for readers to consider this possibility?

Harari: The concept of "post-human" refers to a future where the boundaries between humans and machines become blurred—where technologies like brain-computer interfaces or genetic modifications enable us to surpass biological limitations. In Nexus, I ask whether we are approaching a moment where human beings, as we currently understand them, may no longer exist. This isn't some far-off science fiction scenario—these technologies are already in development. So, the question is not just can we become post-human, but should we? And if we do, how will it affect our social structures, our identities, and our relationships?

Interviewer: Some critics of your previous works, and perhaps now of Nexus as well, argue that you place too much weight on technological determinism. They suggest that culture, politics, and human agency are often secondary to technological evolution in your narratives. How would you respond to that?

Harari: It's a valid point, and it's something I've thought about. Technology isn't the only driving force of change—culture, politics, and human agency play critical roles. But I think it's important to recognize how technology shapes these other domains. The political landscape of the 20th century was deeply influenced by industrial technology and the rise of mass communication. Similarly, the technologies of the 21st century—AI, digital surveillance, bioengineering—are already reshaping political power and individual agency. I don't believe in pure technological determinism, but I do think we need to understand how potent these forces are, and how they might limit or expand our choices in the future.

Interviewer: Your call for global cooperation on issues like AI regulation is clear in Nexus, yet we live in an increasingly fragmented world with rising nationalism. How realistic do you think global governance is, especially given the current geopolitical landscape?

Harari: This is one of the most challenging aspects of our time. The fragmentation we're seeing makes it much harder to tackle global problems that don't respect national borders. Climate change, AI development, and pandemics all require cooperation on a global scale, but nationalism and short-term political interests often get in the way. However, I don't think we have the luxury of dismissing global cooperation as unrealistic. It's an existential necessity. If we don't find ways to work together, we risk creating a future where technology exacerbates divisions instead of bridging them.

Interviewer: Your books have reached a massive global audience, but there's also a sense among some scholars that you reduce complex historical and philosophical ideas for mass consumption. Do you see that as a necessary trade-off in order to reach a wider public?

Harari: That's a criticism I've heard before, and I take it seriously. There's always a risk of oversimplifying complex ideas when writing for a broad audience. My goal is to make these important discussions accessible without losing nuance. Sometimes that means using metaphors or generalizations that some scholars may find reductive. But I believe it's crucial that we engage as many people as possible in these debates. The future of humanity isn't something that should be left to academics and technocrats. We all have a stake in these issues.

Interviewer: Let's talk about your views on privacy and surveillance, which you discuss extensively in Nexus. You've warned about the dangers of biometric surveillance and the loss of privacy. Yet, many people seem more concerned about convenience than privacy. How do you convince people that this is an urgent issue?

Harari: I think we're in a moment where convenience has become almost a form of currency. People are willing to give up extraordinary amounts of personal data in exchange for convenience, whether it's unlocking their phone with a fingerprint or using personalized AI assistants. But this is a slippery slope. The more data we give away, the more we risk losing control over our lives. In Nexus, I argue that privacy isn't just a personal issue—it's a political one. A society where a few corporations or governments have access to the intimate details of our lives is a society at risk of authoritarianism. We need to ask hard questions about what kind of world we're building and whether the trade-off is worth it.

Interviewer: You paint a rather stark picture of the future in Nexus, but what gives you hope? Are there examples today of technological or societal trends that you think are leading us in a positive direction?

Harari: There are certainly reasons to be hopeful. We've seen remarkable innovations in areas like renewable energy, which could help mitigate climate change, and in healthcare, where technologies like CRISPR have the potential to cure genetic diseases. There's also a growing awareness of the need for ethical frameworks around AI and biotech, with international discussions beginning to take shape. I also see hope in the rising engagement of younger generations—they are more tech-savvy, more globally connected, and often more concerned with issues like climate change and social justice than previous generations. If we can channel that energy and awareness into meaningful action, we might avoid some of the dystopian outcomes I warn about in Nexus.

Interviewer: Finally, what do you want readers to take away from Nexus?

Harari: I want readers to leave Nexus with a sense of both possibility and responsibility. The future is still unwritten, and while the technologies I discuss can be disruptive, they can also be harnessed for the common good. But this will require us to be vigilant, thoughtful, and engaged. We can't afford to be passive bystanders in this transformation. Each of us has a role to play in shaping the future.

Interviewer's conclusion: Nexus is a thought-provoking, urgent reflection on the ethical crossroads we face in the age of rapid technological advancement. Harari's perspective is compelling, if at times stark, yet his call for global cooperation and individual engagement feels both necessary and daunting in today's fragmented world. While the risks Harari outlines are real, his optimism that we can still shape our future remains a powerful counterbalance to the dystopian undercurrents in his work. The challenge he poses to readers is clear: Are we ready to face the implications of our technological choices?

Interviewer: Professor Harari, you've written extensively about the power of myths in shaping human societies, from religion to nationalism. Given the current wars in Ukraine and Gaza, how do you see myths playing a role in these conflicts, especially when combined with modern technologies?

Harari: Myths are always deeply intertwined with conflicts, whether we're talking about ancient wars or modern ones. In both Ukraine and Gaza, you can see how national, religious, and historical myths are used to justify actions, rally people, and solidify group identities. These myths often provide a sense of meaning and purpose to what otherwise might seem like senseless violence. In Ukraine, for instance, the Russian invasion is partly fueled by myths of historical unity between Russia and Ukraine, which are used to deny Ukraine's sovereignty and independence. In Gaza, both Israelis and Palestinians draw upon powerful narratives—Zionism, the right of return, religious promises—myths that shape how each side views the conflict as existential.

But what's different today is the way technology amplifies and spreads these myths. Social media, AI-generated propaganda, and digital surveillance tools are being weaponized in ways that weren't possible in the past. In Ukraine, we've seen how technology has become a battlefield in itself, with cyber-attacks, drone warfare, and even the manipulation of information through deepfakes. The war is fought not just on the ground but also in the digital realm, where controlling the narrative can be as important as controlling territory.

In Gaza, technology also plays a role in the asymmetry of the conflict. Israel's technological advantage—its use of surveillance, precision strikes, and even AI—gives it a powerful edge militarily, while the Palestinians rely on more rudimentary forms of resistance, which are often framed through the lens of heroism and martyrdom. Here, too, myths of resistance against an occupying force are crucial in sustaining the conflict, even as technology shifts the balance of power.

Interviewer: Given the rise of technologies that allow for rapid dissemination of misinformation and propaganda, do you see this as a major complicating factor in resolving conflicts like these?

Harari: Absolutely. One of the most troubling aspects of today's conflicts is how hard it is to discern truth from fiction. The internet and social media platforms were supposed to democratize information, but they've also created an environment where misinformation and propaganda thrive. In wars like those in Ukraine and Gaza, it's not just about physical violence—it's about controlling how that violence is perceived. When one side can manipulate images or videos to fit a narrative, and AI tools can generate convincing fakes, the ability to understand what's really happening becomes compromised.

This creates a situation where the myth-making process is accelerated, and people become trapped in echo chambers that reinforce their own beliefs, regardless of the facts. It becomes harder to foster dialogue or compromise because both sides are operating from different realities. So yes, technology is complicating peace efforts, not just through weaponry, but through the very stories and myths that fuel these conflicts.

Interviewer: In both of these wars, technology is playing an unprecedented role. Do you think there is a way to harness technology to reduce conflict, rather than exacerbate it?

Harari: That's the critical question. Technology in itself isn't inherently violent—it can be used to enhance conflict or to promote peace, depending on how we choose to use it. In the case of Ukraine and Gaza, much of the technology has been used to deepen divisions and escalate violence. But the same technologies could be used to foster understanding, build bridges, and find solutions—if there's the political will to do so.

For example, digital platforms could be designed to foster dialogue between communities, rather than amplifying division. AI could be used to analyze patterns in peace negotiations to find common ground. But these are ideal scenarios. In reality, the incentives are often geared toward conflict because conflict is profitable, both politically and economically, for certain actors. Until we address those incentives, it's hard to see technology playing a purely positive role.

However, there are glimmers of hope. In Ukraine, for instance, we've seen how technology has allowed ordinary people to document war crimes in real-time, creating a record that can be used for future accountability. This kind of transparency is something new, and it could play a role in post-conflict justice. So, while I'm cautious about technology's role in exacerbating wars, I do believe it can be part of the solution if we consciously direct it toward peace-building.

Interviewer's conclusion: Harari's insights into the roles of myths and technology in the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts offer a sobering reminder of how deeply these forces shape modern warfare. His analysis points to a dual reality: while myths continue to fuel division, technology—far from a neutral tool—amplifies both the violence and the stories that justify it. Yet Harari leaves room for hope, suggesting that if harnessed correctly, the same tools that spread conflict could one day help foster peace. The challenge, as he frames it, is not in the technology itself, but in our ability to rethink how we wield it.

Interviewer: Professor Harari, one of the major themes in your earlier work is the tension between globalism and nationalism. Today, we see a growing wave of populistic nationalism challenging globalist ideas, from Brexit to the rise of leaders like Trump and others across Europe. How do you see this strife playing out in the current global landscape?

Harari: The tension between globalism and nationalism has become one of the defining conflicts of our time. It reflects a deeper anxiety about identity, control, and change. For decades, globalism has been the dominant ideology, especially after the end of the Cold War. It's brought significant benefits—economic growth, technological innovation, and cooperation on issues like trade and climate change. However, it has also created inequalities and left many people feeling disconnected from the benefits of globalization. Populist nationalism is, in part, a reaction to that. It speaks to people who feel they've been left behind, whose identities are threatened by rapid social and economic changes.

What makes this strife so complicated today is that we live in an interconnected world where you can't completely untangle yourself from global systems. Nationalist movements often promise to "take back control" or reassert sovereignty, but the reality is that even if you close borders, you can't fully insulate yourself from global forces—whether it's the economy, climate change, pandemics, or digital networks.

Interviewer: You often advocate for global cooperation, especially when dealing with issues like climate change, AI regulation, or pandemics. How realistic do you think that is when nationalism seems to be gaining ground in so many parts of the world?

Harari: It's certainly a more difficult task now than it was a few decades ago. The rise of nationalism makes global cooperation more challenging because it often frames international agreements as threats to national sovereignty. But the fact remains that the problems we're facing—climate change, artificial intelligence, pandemics—are global in nature. No country can deal with these alone, no matter how powerful or self-sufficient it thinks it is.

We're seeing this clearly with climate change. Despite all the nationalistic rhetoric, no country can escape the impact of rising global temperatures or extreme weather events. We also saw it with COVID-19—viruses don't respect borders, and no amount of nationalism can prevent a pandemic from spreading. In this sense, nationalism might be gaining ground politically, but it's fundamentally ill-equipped to address the most pressing challenges of the 21st century.

However, global cooperation doesn't necessarily mean erasing national identities. It's about finding a balance where countries can maintain their unique cultures and identities while also working together to solve shared problems. Unfortunately, at the moment, political leaders are exploiting fears around globalism to push inward-looking agendas, which only make these global challenges harder to manage.

Interviewer: Populist leaders often frame globalism as a threat to cultural identity and national sovereignty. How do you see this dynamic evolving, especially as technology continues to break down borders and create more interconnectedness?

Harari: This is the paradox of our time. On the one hand, technology is accelerating globalization. The internet, AI, supply chains—these things make us more interconnected than ever before. On the other hand, there's a growing demand to protect local cultures, economies, and identities from what people see as the homogenizing forces of globalism. Populist leaders are very skilled at tapping into these anxieties, framing globalization as something that erodes national identity and sovereignty.

But it's important to recognize that globalism and cultural identity don't have to be at odds. The issue is that many people feel powerless in the face of these global forces. They feel that decisions affecting their lives are being made far away, by multinational corporations or international organizations, without their input. That's why nationalism is so appealing—it promises to return power to the people, to protect their way of life. But in reality, many of the problems people face—like economic inequality or job loss—are more the result of domestic policy failures than globalism itself.

What we need is a rethinking of how globalization works. It shouldn't just benefit the elite or multinational corporations. We need to find ways to make sure that globalization also works for ordinary people, by creating stronger safety nets, investing in education and training, and ensuring that the benefits of technological advancements are more evenly distributed. If we can do that, the appeal of populist nationalism may start to wane.

Interviewer: It seems that part of the challenge is the speed of change. People are facing rapid technological and economic shifts, and populist movements capitalize on this sense of uncertainty. Do you think globalist institutions are equipped to respond to these concerns in a meaningful way?

Harari: I think this is one of the key reasons populism has gained so much traction—globalist institutions have struggled to keep pace with the rapid changes that are happening. Whether it's the rise of automation, artificial intelligence, or the effects of global trade, many people feel overwhelmed by how fast the world is changing. Populist movements offer simple answers to these complex problems, often by promising to turn back the clock to a time when things felt more stable and predictable.

The problem is that there's no going back. The world will continue to change, and the pace of technological advancement is only going to increase. What globalist institutions need to do is not just push forward with abstract policies, but really engage with the local impacts of these changes. They need to offer more tangible solutions to the economic and social dislocation that many people are feeling. That means investing in retraining programs for workers displaced by automation, creating more inclusive economic policies, and ensuring that technological advancements benefit more than just the top 1%.

If globalist institutions don't adapt, they risk losing legitimacy. People will turn to populist leaders who offer clear, albeit flawed, alternatives. So, the question is not whether globalism can be reformed, but whether it will be reformed quickly enough to address the concerns of those who feel left behind.

Interviewer: Do you think there's a potential for reconciliation between the globalist vision and the nationalist movements, or are we headed toward a prolonged period of conflict between these ideologies?

Harari: It's possible, but it will require a major shift in how both sides approach the conversation. Right now, much of the conflict is driven by mutual misunderstanding and fear. Globalists often dismiss nationalists as backward or reactionary, while nationalists portray globalists as elitist and out of touch with ordinary people. This kind of polarization only deepens the divide.

For reconciliation to happen, we need to move away from the extremes. Globalists need to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of people who feel that their identities and livelihoods are under threat. They need to show that globalization doesn't have to mean losing control, and that it can be compatible with protecting local cultures and national sovereignty. At the same time, nationalists need to recognize that retreating into isolation isn't a viable solution in an interconnected world. They need to engage with global challenges like climate change, which can't be solved by any one nation acting alone.

Ultimately, it's about finding a middle path—a form of global cooperation that respects national differences and local autonomy, while also addressing the very real global challenges we all face. Whether we can find that path remains to be seen, but it's crucial if we want to avoid prolonged conflict between these two forces.

Interviewer's conclusion: Harari's perspective on the current strife between globalism and populistic nationalism highlights the deep complexities at play in today's geopolitical landscape. He sees the rise of nationalism as a reaction to the failures of globalization, especially when it comes to addressing economic inequality and cultural anxiety. Yet, Harari insists that nationalism alone cannot solve the global problems we face—only through a rethinking of globalist principles, in a way that includes and addresses the concerns of ordinary people, can we hope to reconcile these opposing forces. The path forward, as he outlines, is challenging but not impossible.

Interviewer: In Nexus, you use the example of the Soccer World Championships as a metaphor for how global rules can coexist with fierce nationalism. Could you elaborate on that idea, and how it applies to the broader tension between globalism and nationalism?

Harari: Yes, I think the Soccer World Championships—or any major international sports tournament—offers a useful way to think about this tension. On the one hand, the tournament operates under a strict set of global rules. Every team plays by the same regulations, regardless of where they come from, and the competition only works because of this shared framework. Without it, there would be chaos. On the other hand, the championships are also a stage for intense nationalism. People rally behind their national teams with deep passion and pride, sometimes to the point of fierce rivalry. But the global rules allow these expressions of nationalism to coexist peacefully, or at least within the confines of the game.

This is a microcosm of how globalism and nationalism could potentially work together in the wider world. Just as the World Cup relies on a global framework to function, so does our interconnected world. Whether it's international trade, climate agreements, or technological standards, we need global rules to ensure that countries can engage with each other productively. But within this global framework, there is still room for national pride, local identity, and cultural uniqueness. In fact, the competition between national teams in the World Cup makes the event more compelling—just as the diversity of cultures and perspectives in the world can make global cooperation richer and more meaningful.

Interviewer: That's an interesting analogy. But sports have clear boundaries and rules, while global challenges like climate change or AI don't always follow such clear-cut lines. How can we translate the balance you describe in sports to the more complex realities of international politics?

Harari: You're right—sports are a simplified, controlled environment. In the real world, things are much messier, and the stakes are much higher. But the principle is what matters. The key takeaway from the World Cup analogy is that global cooperation doesn't have to mean the erasure of national identities or interests. Just as teams fiercely defend their national colors on the soccer field, countries can pursue their own interests and identities while still playing by global rules.

The challenge, as you point out, is that in areas like climate change or AI, we don't yet have fully established global rules that everyone agrees to. And unlike a soccer match, the consequences of breaking the rules can be catastrophic. What we need is to build those rules—international agreements that are enforceable and fair, that recognize the different capabilities and needs of various countries while still ensuring that everyone works toward common goals.

It won't be easy, but I think the World Cup shows that it's possible to have both strong national identities and robust global cooperation. It's a reminder that the two aren't inherently at odds—they can, under the right conditions, complement each other.

Interviewer: In sports, there's also a clear referee to enforce the rules, which we don't necessarily have on the global stage. How do you think we can ensure that global rules are respected in a world where national interests often dominate?

Harari: That's one of the biggest challenges. In sports, the referee enforces the rules impartially, and all teams agree to respect their authority. In international politics, there's no equivalent—no impartial, universally respected body that can enforce global rules. Institutions like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization attempt to play this role, but they often lack the authority or the support they need to enforce rules effectively, especially when powerful nations decide to act unilaterally.

What we need is a combination of stronger global institutions and greater accountability mechanisms. That could mean reforming existing organizations to make them more representative and effective, or creating new bodies that are better equipped to handle the complexities of modern global challenges. But it also requires a shift in mindset. Countries need to recognize that, in a highly interconnected world, pursuing purely national interests at the expense of global rules can backfire. If everyone disregards the global framework, the system breaks down—and that harms everyone in the long run.

In Nexus, I argue that while nationalism is a powerful force, it needs to be balanced by a commitment to global cooperation. The alternative is a world where short-term, nationalistic decisions lead to long-term global crises. Just like in sports, you can't have a fair game if one side refuses to follow the rules.

Interviewer's conclusion: Harari's analogy of the Soccer World Championships as a model for balancing global rules with nationalism offers a compelling framework for thinking about how these forces can coexist. While the real world is far more complex than a sports match, the principle remains: strong national identities can thrive within a global framework, as long as there are fair and enforceable rules. Harari's call for both stronger global institutions and a shift in mindset is a reminder that the path forward requires cooperation, not isolation, even in a world where nationalism is on the rise.

Interviewer: As we look toward the upcoming U.S. presidential elections, it's clear that the outcome will have a significant impact on global affairs, especially on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Could you clarify how you see the U.S. election shaping these conflicts?

Harari: The U.S. presidential election will indeed have a profound effect on both the Ukraine war and the conflict in Gaza, primarily because the U.S. is a major global power whose policies deeply influence these regions. In Ukraine, the U.S. has been one of the most significant supporters of Kyiv, providing military aid, financial support, and diplomatic backing. The current administration has framed this support as part of a broader effort to defend democracy against authoritarian aggression. However, this stance is not universally supported in the U.S., and the election could bring a shift in policy.

If a more isolationist or nationalist administration comes into power, we could see a significant reduction in U.S. aid to Ukraine, which would likely weaken its position in the war and embolden Russia. On the other hand, a continuation of current U.S. policies might lead to prolonged support, giving Ukraine the resources it needs to maintain its defense, or even push for a stronger negotiation position. So the outcome of the election could either reinforce or dramatically weaken the current global effort to support Ukraine.

In Gaza, U.S. policy is similarly critical. The U.S. has long been one of Israel's key allies, providing military aid and diplomatic cover in international forums. But the way the U.S. engages with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict varies depending on who is in power. A more hawkish administration might give Israel even broader support in its military campaigns, which could prolong the conflict or intensify the violence. On the other hand, a different administration might push harder for a ceasefire or peace negotiations, applying more pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians to come to the table.

What's also important is the broader ideological approach. If the election leads to a more nationalist, isolationist administration, we might see a retreat from international diplomacy and global cooperation, which could make conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza even more difficult to resolve. Conversely, an administration that prioritizes multilateralism and diplomacy could engage more deeply in peace-building efforts.

Ultimately, the U.S. election isn't just a domestic affair—it will shape the strategies and fates of these conflicts in very real ways.

Interviewer: As a Jewish historian, the Middle East conflict, particularly the war in Gaza, must resonate with you on a personal and professional level. How do you feel about this war, given its deep historical roots?

Harari: The Middle East conflict is incredibly complex, deeply rooted in history, religion, identity, and politics. As a historian, I try to take a long-term view, understanding the layers of history that have contributed to the situation we face today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just a modern political issue—it taps into centuries of historical trauma, land disputes, and competing narratives about identity and belonging. Both Israelis and Palestinians draw on their respective histories to justify their claims, which makes finding a resolution so difficult.

As a Jew, it's painful to see the suffering on both sides, especially knowing the deep historical wounds that fuel the violence. For Jews, the experience of persecution, exile, and the Holocaust plays a significant role in the national consciousness, and Israel represents not just a political state, but a refuge and a symbol of survival. For Palestinians, the Nakba—the displacement that accompanied the creation of Israel—is a similar wound that fuels their fight for self-determination and justice.

It's easy to fall into a cycle of historical justification—both sides have legitimate historical grievances—but that won't lead to peace. What we need is to recognize the humanity on both sides, to acknowledge the suffering of both peoples, and to understand that the future cannot be built solely on the past. As a historian, I believe that while history shapes the present, it doesn't have to dictate the future. The challenge is finding a way out of the entrenched narratives that keep this conflict alive.

There is no easy solution. But I think it's essential for both sides to recognize that continuing down the current path only leads to more violence, suffering, and loss. Understanding the history is important, but we must also find ways to transcend it, to create new stories of coexistence rather than conflict. As difficult as that may seem, it's the only way forward.

Interviewer: You've spoken often about the power of myths in shaping human societies. Is there a modern myth or narrative that could, in your view, unite both Israelis and Palestinians, despite the deep historical divisions between them?

Harari: A modern myth that could unite Israelis and Palestinians would likely need to transcend the divisive elements of their national and religious identities and focus on shared humanity and mutual aspirations. One potential myth could be built around the land itself—seeing it not just as a battleground for competing national stories, but as a shared homeland for two peoples with intertwined destinies.

Imagine a narrative where Israelis and Palestinians see the land they both call home not as something to be owned or dominated, but as a common space of deep historical and spiritual significance. The land could be framed as a "living legacy," a place that has witnessed countless civilizations rise and fall, and that now demands care and stewardship from all its inhabitants. This myth could emphasize that both peoples have ancient roots in this land, and their futures are inseparably linked.

In this myth, rather than focusing on historical grievances or exclusive claims, the story would center on their shared responsibility to protect the land for future generations. The myth might present Israelis and Palestinians as partners in a new chapter of the land's history, where both contribute to its flourishing—culturally, ecologically, and economically. It would be a vision of coexistence, where the land itself becomes the unifying symbol, revered by both sides as something greater than their individual national identities.

This kind of narrative would require a shift in how people view their history—not as a zero-sum game of winners and losers, but as a story that's still being written, with a potential ending that benefits everyone. Myths can be incredibly powerful when they create a sense of shared purpose, and in this case, the myth of a shared future, built on mutual care for the land and each other, could offer a way out of the cycles of violence and retribution.

Of course, myths alone aren't enough. They need to be supported by concrete actions, policies, and leadership that reflect this vision. But a new shared narrative could help change the way people think about the conflict, creating space for dialogue and, hopefully, for peace.

Interviewer: You've just released Nexus, and it's already generating significant discussion. Do you have any future writing projects in store? What can readers expect next from you?

Harari: Yes, I'm always thinking about future projects, though the focus often evolves as the world changes. One area I'm particularly interested in exploring further is the intersection of artificial intelligence and human identity. We've entered a time where AI isn't just a tool—it's starting to shape our societies, economies, and even our understanding of what it means to be human. I believe we're only scratching the surface of how profoundly AI will change the world in the coming decades.

In addition to that, I'm considering a project that looks more closely at the history and future of knowledge—how humans have built vast systems of information over millennia and how those systems are now being transformed, challenged, or even undermined in the digital age. It's a topic that feels especially urgent today, given the rise of misinformation, the changing nature of education, and the way we interact with knowledge through the internet.

As always, I like to keep a broad perspective, so my next work will likely continue to tie historical analysis to future trends. But as with everything I write, I let the process unfold as I dive into the research. Readers can expect it to tackle big questions about our future, in a similar spirit to my previous books, but with a focus on how we navigate the next technological and intellectual shifts.

Interviewer: That sounds exciting, especially the focus on AI and human identity. Will you be revisiting some of the themes from your earlier books like Homo Deus in this new work, or are you taking it in a different direction?

Harari: There will definitely be some thematic overlap, especially with Homo Deus, where I explored the future trajectory of humanity and our relationship with technology. But the way AI is developing, I think it warrants a deeper dive, particularly into the ethical and philosophical questions it raises. In Homo Deus, I was more focused on the distant future—what humanity might become in the next century or beyond. Now, I'm more concerned with the near future, say the next 10 to 20 years, and how AI will redefine jobs, politics, and personal identities.

I also think the social and psychological implications of AI—how it influences our behavior, our sense of meaning, and even our mental health—deserve more attention. In a sense, this new project would take a more human-centered approach, focusing not just on where we're going, but how individuals and societies are adapting to these profound changes. So while there's a connection to my earlier work, this would be a more grounded exploration of the here and now, rather than speculative futurism.