16 February 2021 ~ 51 Comentarios

Las razones ocultas del segundo impeachment contra Donald Trump

51 Responses to “Las razones ocultas del segundo impeachment contra Donald Trump”

  1. Orlando 16 February 2021 at 12:38 pm Permalink

    Un error de los demócratas. Trump salió fortalecido

  2. Orlando 16 February 2021 at 1:00 pm Permalink

    Me da risa la felicitación que me envió mí hermana. Copio:

    FELICIDADES EN TU CUMPLE QUE LO PASES HACIENDO LO QUE MAS TE GUSTE Y TE DIVIERTAS.

    Jajaja.

  3. joseluis 16 February 2021 at 1:12 pm Permalink

    El bla, bla, la vuelta cansona, el cansancio del paliqueo( palique) el estirar la oración y no decir casi nada, bueno para mi nada de importancia.

  4. Orlando 16 February 2021 at 3:00 pm Permalink

    Han presentado otra demanda contra Trump acusándolo de haber planeado la revuelta. Ya eso cansa, tanto, como la cantaleta de que hubo un fraude generalizado.

  5. Nicolás Águila 16 February 2021 at 3:05 pm Permalink

    CAM sigue en su obstinada oposición a Trump. Él y sus jefes de la CNN o la CNÑ, que es más cutre todavía, lo que ya es decir. ¿Oposición a la oposición? En fin que continúa en la heroica tarea de rematar al mismo que fusilaban mediáticamente todos los días, hiciera lo que hiciera y dijese lo que dijese, ocultando sus indudables logros y subrayando sus yerros. Normalmente es al gobierno actual, no al anterior, al que se le planta cara, al que se le critica, al que se le viran los cañones. Pero eso no mola. Es anticuado. Se aparta de la tiranía del pensamiento único, de lo políticamente correcto y de las normas que le dicta el compañero que lo atiende, amén de otras coyundas del reseteo progre al que nuestro icónico analista se ha sometido de manera supuestamente desinteresada y como elector dizque independiente. Qué pena, andoba. A la vejez, viruela. Y en el caso de Montaner, más bien sarampión, que es la enfermedad infantil de los sociatas. Qué pena Montaner, de liberal clásico al clásico cambiacasaca.

    • Julian Perez 16 February 2021 at 3:57 pm Permalink

      Amén, Nicolás. Es super curioso es que, teniendo el senado, la casa, la presidencia, la prensa, los colleges, Hollywood y Big Tech, sigan haciéndole oposición a la oposición. Al menos, para tener un mínimo de coherencia (sé que no es fácil tratándose de ellos) deberían abstenerse de hablar tanto de que quieren unidad. A menos que se refieran a una unidad blindada de tanques para arrasar con cualquiera que diga ji.

      No puedo comentar lo que dijo Montaner esta vez porque no lo escuché.

      • Julian Perez 16 February 2021 at 4:14 pm Permalink

        ¨They don’t hate you because they hate Trump. They hate Trump because they hate you.¨ Ben Shapiro

        • Julian Perez 16 February 2021 at 5:40 pm Permalink

          Las razones ocultas del impeachment creo que se pueden resumir en algo que dijo Trump acerca del primero: “In reality they are not after me. They are after you. I’m just in the way”

          • bacu 17 February 2021 at 10:16 am Permalink

            Esa directa quedo muy bien. Trump solo esta en el camino.

  6. Juan Pueblo 16 February 2021 at 6:39 pm Permalink

    La lucha violenta por el poder es propia de fascistas y comunistas, los demócratas pierden y ganan, cuando existe la duda deciden los jueces y se llama estado de derecho.

  7. Humberto Mondejar Gonzalez 16 February 2021 at 8:34 pm Permalink

    Porque Nancy Pelosi deberia ser interrogada en el juicio Político a Trunnp?
    Algo que nos han ocultado muy bien todos los medios:
    La Responsable de la Seguridad del Capitolio es la Speaker of de House; es decir la Jefe de la Casa de los Representantes del Pueblo; claro no podía ser de otra manera y adivinen quien es esa ilustre personalidad?
    Nancy Pelosy y no Trunnp como nos han hecho creer hasta ahora.
    Trunnp es el Jefe de la Seguridad de su Casa, La Casa Blanca;… cosa hasta lógica:
    Donde estaba Pelosi, a que se dedicaba,… que descuido parte de sus Responsabilidades y permitio la intromisión de algunos ciudadanos comunes dentro de su Casa?
    https://humbertomondejargonzalez.blogspot.com/2021/01/el-6-de-enero-de-2021-el-dia-que-el.html

  8. Humberto Mondejar Gonzalez 16 February 2021 at 8:35 pm Permalink

    Pero no recuerdo que ninguno de los gerentes de la Cámara dijera una maldita cosa cuando intentaban entrar en mi casa y perseguir a [la senadora republicana] Susan Collins [de Maine] y escupirnos a todos.
    Si esto es un problema para un político dar el discurso que pronunció el presidente Trump, bueno, entonces [la vicepresidenta] Kamala Harris tiene un problema real, porque participó activamente en rescatar a los alborotadores.
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/10/lindsey-graham-house-impeachment-managers-argument-was-offensive-absurd/

  9. Humberto Mondejar Gonzalez 16 February 2021 at 8:35 pm Permalink

    ============
    Se derrumban las miles de metiras, teorías conspiranoicas y fantasías que crearon los medios sobre los que entraron al Capitolio y lo tienen que admitir investigadores pro-democráticas y medios anti-Trump.
    Mira uno de sus escritos que esta diciendo:
    Para conocer los antecedentes e ideologías de los agitadores, los investigadores de la Universidad de Chicago examinaron más de 1.500 documentos judiciales e historias de los medios de comunicación sobre 221 personas arrestadas hasta el momento.
    Encontraron que, a diferencia de la mayoría de los extremistas de derecha detenidos en los últimos cinco años, los agitadores del Capitolio conforman una multitud más vieja y mejor empleada.
    La mayoría son hombres blancos. El 76% tiene 34 años o más; El 85% tiene puestos de trabajo; El 13% son propietarios de negocios.
    Geográficamente, provienen de todo el país y no sólo de condados “republicanos” que apoyan a Trump. De hecho, más de la mitad proviene de condados que Trump perdió ante el ahora presidente Joe Biden, condados que tienden a mezclarse más racialmente con tasas de desempleo más altas, según el informe.
    “Esto será una sorpresa para muchos partidarios de Biden, que presumiblemente piensan que los insurrectos provienen de condados rojos, rurales, casi completamente blancos y con alto desempleo, lejos de los bastiones de Biden”, dijeron los investigadores.
    …………..
    Partidarios de Trump ‘normales’
    De los 221 acusados investigados por los investigadores, 198 no tenía vínculos conocidos con milicias u otros grupos de extrema derecha. Eso es alrededor del 90% del total. Los investigadores caracterizan a estos agitadores no afiliados como activistas pro-Trump “normales”.
    Hughes dijo que la mayoría de estos agitadores caen dentro de lo que él llama la categoría de “simplemente curiosos”: “gente que se toma selfies en la Rotonda del Senado”.
    El ex oficial de policía de Houston Tam Pham afirma haber sido un participante. Antes de su arresto el mes pasado, Pham dijo a los agentes del FBI que fue a la Rotonda para ver “obras de arte históricas en las paredes”.
    Brad Rukstales, un ejecutivo de negocios de Illinois, dijo en un comunicado después de su arresto junto con otros cinco agitadores que “siguió a cientos de otros a través de un conjunto abierto de puertas al edificio del Capitolio para ver lo que estaba ocurriendo dentro”.
    ……………
    Según Hughes, algunos agitadores llegaron en parejas de marido y mujer, mientras que otros trajeron a sus hijos e hijas al Capitolio. James y Chance Uptmore, padre e hijo de Texas, asistieron a la manifestación de Trump mientras estaban en un viaje de cinco días para celebrar el cumpleaños de Chance antes de irrumpir en el Capitolio, dijeron a los investigadores.
    Chance dijo que “entró en el edificio del Capitolio porque estaba atrapado entre la multitud, y porque era un evento único en la vida”, según documentos judiciales.
    Las ideologías de los agitadores varían. Lo que los unió fue la creencia de que las elecciones de noviembre fueron “robadas” y necesitaban “detenerla”, dijo Hughes.
    Afiliaciones de extrema derecha
    Hasta ahora, 23 insurrectos, o el 10% del total, han sido vinculados a varios grupos de extrema derecha, según el estudio de la Universidad de Chicago.
    Trece son presuntos miembros de los Proud Boys, un grupo pro-Trump de extrema derecha que se describe a sí mismo como un “club de beber cerveza”. El jueves, otros cinco miembros de los “Chicos Orgullosos” fueron arrestados en relación con el motín del 6 de enero. Los documentos de la corte muestran que los Proud Boys comenzaron a planear los disturbios mucho antes del 6 de enero, con su líder, Enrique Tarrio, instándolos a ir “de incógnito”.
    Tarrio fue arrestado dos días antes del motín y se le prohibió regresar a Washington. En los días posteriores, otros dos miembros prominentes del grupo, el organizador Joe Biggs, de 37 años, y el “Sargento de Armas” Ethan Nordean, de 30 años, han sido acusados por sus papeles en el motín. Es probable que se presenten cargos adicionales, dijo Hughes, señalando que se han emitido órdenes de arresto para un número de otros miembros.
    Además de los Proud Boys, nueve miembros de los Oath Keepers, o “Guardianes del Juramento” en español, y los Three Percenters (“Tres Porcentuales”), dos grupos de milicianos de extrema derecha, han sido acusados.
    El mes pasado, tres presuntos miembros de los Oath Keepers fueron acusados de múltiples cargos por delitos graves por coordinar su ataque al Capitolio. El trío documentó sus movimientos durante el motín.
    “Sí. Hoy asaltamos el Capitolio. Lágrimas, todo, 9. Empujamos hacia la Rotonda. Llegamos al Senado. La noticia es mentir (incluso la cadena de derecha, Fox News) sobre los eventos históricos que creamos hoy”, Jessica Watkins, de 38 años, una Oath Keeper y comandante de la Milicia Regular del Estado de Ohio, publicó en las redes sociales.
    Los Oath Keepers y los Three Percenters son conocidos por reclutar personal militar actual y anterior, oficiales de policía y bomberos. Según el informe, el 40% de los miembros de la milicia y otros extremistas de derecha detenidos hasta ahora tienen experiencia militar. Watkins es un veterano de la guerra en Afganistán.
    …………….
    Soporte técnico de QAnon
    Entre las imágenes más memorables del 6 de enero se encontraban los carteles de QAnon y otros recuerdos llevados por los agitadores. Pero los investigadores de la Universidad de Chicago encontraron que sólo el 8% de los arrestados hasta ahora, menos de 20 personas, han expresado su apoyo a la teoría de la conspiración de QAnon. Eso refleja en gran medida el porcentaje de adultos que dicen que la conspiración de que Trump está luchando secretamente contra una cábala de pedófilos adoradores de Satanás es al menos “algo precisa”.
    Entre los partidarios de QAnon acusados está Jacob Chansley, el llamado “chamán QAnon” también conocido como Jake Angeli, quien ganó notoriedad por asaltar el Capitolio usando cuernos, un tocado de piel de oso, y pintura facial roja, blanca y azul. Le dijo a los agentes del FBI que viajaba a Washington con otros “patriotas” de Arizona a petición de Trump.
    Otros partidarios de QAnon han llamado menos la atención pública. Henry Phillip Muntzer,propietario de una tienda de electrodomésticos de Montana, es conocido localmente por un mural de QAnon que cubre la fachada del frente de su tienda. En una publicación de Facebook que incluía un vídeo tomado en el interior del Capitolio, Muntzer escribió: “Invadimos el Capitolio en Washington DC, pudimos empujar a través de la Policía del Capitolio, y entrar en varias Salas”, según documentos judiciales.
    ……….
    Que si personas brutas, sin nivel, jóvenes aturdidos por fantacias conspiranoicas,…
    La mayoría una diversidad de personas tan normales como cualquier americano.

  10. Humberto Mondejar Gonzalez 16 February 2021 at 8:55 pm Permalink

    No entendi la tesis de Montaner, no entendi nada; esto es una cantinflada, un estira y encoje que revela el dano emocional que esta nueva derrota causa en personas que han traspasado ya los balances psicológicos.
    Trunnp tiene la propiedad de volver locos a los que lo odia y nublarse las entendedera?
    Yo veo a Trunnp como una persona normal; pero estas personas en su obsesión y odio visceral lo han catapultado a Héroe Nacional.

  11. Manuel 17 February 2021 at 4:04 am Permalink

    llegar a 8b va a tomar mas de dos años

    One reason the coronavirus will persist is that making and distributing enough vaccine to protect the world’s 7.8bn people is a Herculean task (see Graphic detail). Even Britain, which is vaccinating the population at a faster rate than any other big country, will not finish with the over-50s until May. To add to the burden, the potency of a jab may fade, making boosters necessary. Outside the rich world, 85% of countries have yet to start their vaccination programmes. Until the billions of people who live in them have felt the prick of a needle, which may not be before 2023, they will remain fuel for the virus“

  12. Manuel 17 February 2021 at 4:19 am Permalink

    How to talk about Xinjiang
    “Genocide” is the wrong word for the horrors China is inflicting on the Uyghurs
    WHEN RONALD REAGAN cried “tear down this wall”, everyone knew what he meant. There was a wall. It imprisoned East Germans. It had to come down. One day, it did.

    In the struggle between democracy and dictatorship, it is crucial that democracies tell the truth in plain language. Dictatorships will always lie and obfuscate to conceal their true nature. Democracies can tell it like it is. Bear this in mind when deciding what to call China’s persecution of the Uyghurs. On his last full day in office, Donald Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, called it “genocide”. Although Joe Biden did not use that word this week in his first talk with Xi Jinping, China’s president, his administration has repeated it (see United States section) and lawmakers in Britain are mulling it (see Britain section). But is it accurate?
    By the common understanding of the word, it is not. Just as “homicide” means killing a person and “suicide” means killing yourself, “genocide” means killing a people. China’s persecution of the Uyghurs is horrific: it has locked up perhaps 1m of them in prison camps, which it naturally mislabels “vocational training centres”. It has forcibly sterilised some Uyghur women. But it is not slaughtering them.
    econusa210213_article_011_01_01
    Calling it genocide depends on a definition rooted in a UN convention which suggests that one need not actually kill anyone to commit it. Measures “intended to prevent births”, or inflicting “serious bodily or mental harm” will suffice, if their aim is “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. How large a part is not specified. In principle it is, alas, possible to imagine the destruction of an entire people by, for example, the systematic sterilisation of all women. But if conventions are worded with unusual broadness, they must also be used with special care. Until now, America’s State Department had applied the “genocide” label only to mass slaughter, and even then it often hesitated, for fear that uttering the term would create an expectation that it would intervene. It did not call Rwanda’s genocide a genocide until it was practically over.
    America’s political rhetoric has thus undergone a dramatic shift, which has profound implications for the world’s most important bilateral relationship. By accusing China of genocide, it is sending the signal that its government has committed the most heinous of crimes. And yet at the same time it is proposing to deal with it over global warming, pandemics and trade.
    Some campaigners think the rhetorical escalation is nonetheless wise. It will stoke useful outrage, they argue, rallying companies to shun Chinese suppliers and countries to boycott next year’s Winter Olympics. On the contrary, it is more likely to be counter-productive. For a start, it accomplishes nothing to exaggerate the Communist Party’s crimes in Xinjiang. Countless true stories of families torn apart and Uyghurs living in terror appal any humane listener. When ordinary Han Chinese hear them, as a few did on Clubhouse, a new social-media platform, which China has rushed to block, they are horrified (see China section). By contrast, if America makes what sound like baseless allegations of mass killing, patriotic Chinese will be more likely to believe their government’s line, that Westerners lie about Xinjiang to tarnish a rising power.
    Democracies face an unprecedented and delicate task when they deal with China, which is both a threat to global norms and an essential partner in tackling global crises such as climate change (see Chaguan). To refuse to engage with it is to endanger the world economy and the planet.
    Mr Biden is right to decry China’s abuses, but he should do so truthfully. The country is committing crimes against humanity. By accusing it of genocide instead, in the absence of mass murder, America is diminishing the unique stigma of the term. Genocide should put a government beyond the pale; yet American officials will keep doing business with the regime they have branded genocidal. Future genocidaires will take comfort. ■

  13. Orlando 17 February 2021 at 7:29 am Permalink

    Si Cuba le compra lotes de miles de ataúdes a México,
    ?Como pudieran seguir con la mentira de que se mueren entre tres y cinco cubanos al día?
    ?O piensan almacenar cajas mortuorias para diez años?

  14. Orlando 17 February 2021 at 7:34 am Permalink

    Le doy la razón a un trumpista. Jajaja. La idea central de la entrada es ambigua

  15. Marco Castaneda 17 February 2021 at 10:23 am Permalink

    Una vez mas el señor Montaner perdió la brújula, o sera mas bien que su embarcación de plano naufrago…

    • Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 10:30 am Permalink

      Lo de perder la brujula es mas exacto. De haber naufragado permaneceria en el mismo punto, no moviendose en la direccion equivocada.

      • Manuel 17 February 2021 at 11:02 am Permalink

        se le acabo de quemar brújula and brain
        con compañeros, familiares y demás ENREDO$

      • manuel 17 February 2021 at 11:06 am Permalink

        lo gracioso es que los que le siguen y no tengan costumbre o tiempo para leer comentarios en este blog, pensaran que las decenas de comentarios, como suele suceder, son de apoyo a sus desvarios y hasta estemos todos contribuyendo, como muchos con las suculentas remesas, a que la administracion del bidet crea que hay un tremendo apoyo a las fechorias que se aprestan ejecutar en armonia con chinos, castristas y resto de disctadores de todas las calanas

        • manuel 17 February 2021 at 11:13 am Permalink

          I even do not know if I agree with Carlos Alberto Montaner in anything of the most relevant of his points in this regard,

          no me extranaria verlo ser parte de algun evento para poner fin al Embargo contra la dictadura cubana, y hacer ojo grueso de toda su defensa durante mas de 50 anos del mismo

          • manuel 17 February 2021 at 11:14 am Permalink

            el primero de esos eventos, estar de parte de bidet, hacer propaganda, publicidad televisiva por bidet, ya lo vimos

          • Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 11:58 am Permalink

            Segun mi cuenta, los deplorables estamos aqui en mayoria. Pero no tan absoluta como en el Patriot Post o el CaucusRoom 🙂

          • manuel 17 February 2021 at 3:33 pm Permalink

            la cosa se empareja aca bastante cdo golondrinos acuden en desesperadas flotas a cumplir “misiones” 😀

  16. Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 10:35 am Permalink

    “The United States is the only country in history born, not of chance and blind tribal warfare, but as a rational product of man’s mind. This country was built on the supremacy of reason.” Ayn Rand

    • razón vs instinto 17 February 2021 at 11:38 am Permalink

      Razón vs Instinto amigo Julián.
      En el fondo, el verdadero riesgo de su país está en que finalmente los instintos se impongan abandonando el legado de los padres fundadores que se esmeraron por construir un sistema en el que la razón lleve siempre las de ganar. Lamentablemente no lo consiguieron de manera absoluta. Los resquicios que dejaron están siendo abordados y tal vez pronto a ser superados.
      El resentimiento resultado de la constante e incansable acción de fuerzas instintivas provenientes de primitivos núcleos cerebrales disfrazado siempre con alguna bandera que casi siempre representa a la justicia social es el peor enemigo de los pueblos.
      Lo único que puede aplacar los daños de esta poderosa fuerza de nuestra naturaleza humana es una cultura cívica y política envidiable. Y dudo la cultura de EEUU tenga el poder necesario para aplacar los enormes daños que sobrevienen cada vez que los instintos se imponen. Los latinoamericanos conocemos esta historia a la perfección. Y cuanto más se imponen estas fuerzas primitivas, mayor el desastre a esperar. Venezuela es el ejemplo extremo y paradigmático.
      Todos los líderes y todos los seguidores que hicieron posible que llegaran al poder y luego afianzarse en ese pobre país para hacer todas las barbaridades que hicieron y hacen mientras se sacan el resentimiento enriqueciéndose a costa del sacrificio ya casi inhumano (ni los simios son capaces de dañar tanto a individuos de su especie como estos hdmilputa) de millones de conciudadanos es una prueba irrefutable del poder se los instintos.
      Irrefutable…..

  17. Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 10:48 am Permalink

    Nancy Pelosi met with the Queen of England.

    She asked, “Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give me?”

    “Well,” said the Queen, “The most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people.”

    Pelosi frowned, and then asked, “But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?”

    The Queen took a sip of tea. “Oh, that’s easy: you just ask them an intelligent riddle.” The Queen pushed a button on her intercom. “Please send Boris Johnson in here, would you?

    Boris Johnson walked into the room and said, “Yes, Your Majesty?”

    The Queen smiled and said, “Answer me this please, Boris, your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?”

    Without pausing for a moment, Boris answered, “That would be me”

    “Yes! Very good,” said the Queen.

    Pelosi went back home to ask Joe Biden, the same question. “Joe, answer this for me. “Your mother and your father have a child. It’s not your brother and it’s not your sister. Who is it?”

    “I’m not sure,” said Biden. “Let me get back to you on that one.”

    He went to his advisors and asked everyone, but none could give him an answer. Finally, Biden ran into Sarah Palin out eating one night. Biden asked, Sarah, can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it’s not your brother or your sister. Who is it?”

    Sarah Palin answered right back, “That’s easy, it’s me!”

    Biden smiled and said, “Thanks!” Then he went back to speak with Pelosi. “Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It’s Sarah Palin.”

    Pelosi got up, stomped over to Biden, and angrily yelled into his face. “No, you idiot! It’s Boris Johnson!”

    • bacu 17 February 2021 at 11:01 am Permalink

      Muy buena, jajaja. Ya me imaginaba la respuesta de los dos genios de la politica democrata. Realmente, si Biden fue capaz de recordar las repuestas y decir que era Palin, esta mejor de lo que pensaba y la Nancy con sus años y teniendo en cuenta que es “una dama” se le puede pasar la respuesta. Saludos.

    • razón vs instinto 17 February 2021 at 11:40 am Permalink

      🙂 🙂 🙂

  18. Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 12:54 pm Permalink

    Triste noticia. Rush Limbaugh falleció.

    • Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 1:15 pm Permalink

      Era sabido que en cualquier momento podía ocurrir, pues su cáncer estaba en estado avanzado, pero es triste de todas formas. Y recientemente se fueron otros dos buenos: Lloyd Marcus y Walter Williams. Que Dios los tenga en Su Gloria.

  19. Orlando 17 February 2021 at 2:40 pm Permalink

    Orl
    17 febrero 2021 – 9:09 AM
    Un cubano en Cubadebate me da la razón. No cuentan con recursos para detener la pandemia. Copio fragmentos: ?Hay disponibilidad sin restricción de precio o existencia física de los productos recomendados por la OMS? Desinfectantes alcohólicos para superficie? Gel de manos alcohólicos o jabonosos? Detergente, jabones para el lavado y aseo personal? Productos para la limpieza y desinfección necesarias en hogares e instalaciones públicas? ?Tenemos acceso sin restricción de precio o existencia física a las mascarillas recomendadas por la OMS, para poder reemplazarlas y lavarlas con una frecuencia de 4 a 8 horas? Se están usando por la población en los momentos y lugares indicados? Se han creado condiciones objetivas para que todas las actividades se desarrollen con distanciamiento social? (transporte, circulación, trabajo, servicios de educación y salud, compras, recreación) ? De forma tal que la única variable sea la disciplina? Los países o regiones que, sin estar ubicados en zonas remotas o inaccesibles, han desplegado una respuesta exitosa y eficaz ante el virus, han combinado distintos sistemas de ataque y prevención ( pesquisa, traceo, test) pero ninguno ha pasado por alto los puntos arriba mencionados. Son las únicas vías, aparte de la vacuna, de detener la propagación en Cuba y en cualquier otro lugar. La voluntad férrea de cortar caminos, etc sólo puede traducirse en acciones concretas y que estan muy definidas para lograr su objetivo. En el papel, todo es posible. Pero sin protección, salubridad y espacio personal no se va a lograr nada, sólo seguir hablando de batallas y cifras mientras aumentan los muertos y los enfermos.

  20. manuel 17 February 2021 at 3:06 pm Permalink

    un solo ejemplo, tomemos el problema con la comprension de las proporciones.

    “Los trabajos de Bosch (1994) y García (2005) muestran un conjunto de problemáticas, desde el punto de vista del saber de referencia, que pueden ser la causa de la falta de comprensión de los estudiantes con respecto a la proporcionalidad en la educación básica:

    (1) La homogeneidad de las propuestas clásicas para la enseñanza de la proporcionalidad, que centran su estudio en los ámbitos puramente numéricos, separándola de las relaciones funcionales y de otras áreas del currículo en donde la proporcionalidad podría funcionar como una herramienta potente en la solución de los problemas propuestos.

    (2) Si bien se identifican elementos praxeológicos en relación con la proporcionalidad directa, inversa y compuesta, estos no se integran en praxeologías globales con mayor coherencia teórica; esto es, se conservan como fragmentos aislados y con un bajo nivel de algebrización, perdiendo los elementos teórico-tecnológicos que permitirían su integración en praxeologías globales más estructuradas (Bolea, Bosch, & Gascon, 2001; Bosch, García, Gascón, & Higueras, 2006; García, Gascón, Higueras, & Bosch, 2006).

    Desde un punto de vista epistemológico, Hersant (2001) muestra que es necesario diferenciar dos tipos de teorías en función de los diferentes tipos de situaciones relativos a la proporcionalidad. Una de ellas permite describir la proporcionalidad en términos de razones y proporciones (perspectiva aritmética), y la otra, en términos de funciones lineales (perspectiva algebraica). La autora critica el hecho de que los modelos de aproximación que tiene la escuela hoy en día privilegien la aproximación aritmética sobre la algebraica (Hersant, 2005). Su tipología de “géneros de tarea” descansa sobre la naturaleza de las magnitudes o números implicados en la situación y, por ende, sobre la naturaleza de las relaciones entre las cantidades o magnitudes (situaciones de una relación proporcional, de varias relaciones proporcionales en paralelo, de composición de proporcionalidades, de proporcionalidad múltiple y de proporcionalidad inversa). Por su parte, los tipos de tareas se definen en términos de las acciones que debe realizar el individuo: tipo de cálculo (por ejemplo, calcular una cuarta proporcional, un porcentaje, un coeficiente de proporcionalidad; comparar dos coeficientes de proporcionalidad, dos razones; aplicar una fórmula, un teorema), los registros en que se presenta la situación (reconocer el carácter lineal de una aplicación, interpretar un coeficiente de proporcionalidad, asociar dos representaciones de una aplicación lineal, representar una aplicación lineal) y los procesos de tratamiento o conversión necesarios.

    Desde la perspectiva de las representaciones semióticas, se puede rescatar el reconocimiento de que si bien las distintas temáticas sobre las RPP abandonaron sus referentes hacia las magnitudes para centrarse en aspectos puramente numéricos (quizás por el influjo de las matemáticas modernas en los años setenta), en la actualidad aparece de nuevo un llamado a centrar el estudio de las mismas en las magnitudes, en particular, en relación al dominio de las razones (Adjiage, 2007; Adjiage & Pluvinage, 2007). Igualmente se critica la clasificación inicial de Kieren (1980, 1988) en los subconstructos de los números racionales (cociente, medida, número racional y operador multiplicativo), en tanto mezcla aspectos matemáticos y de contexto (situaciones físico-empíricas) en su realización. Así, algunos autores (Adjiage, 1999; Deliyiani, Panaoura, Elia, & Gagatsis, 2008) llaman la atención sobre la necesidad de separar, por un lado, los aspectos representacionales (lo que de hecho implica una distinción de los objetos de conocimiento implicados) relacionados con el aprendizaje de las razones y la proporcionalidad y, por el otro, los aspectos relacionados con las situaciones físico-empíricas. Su trabajo sugiere proponer a los estudiantes diferentes tipos de situaciones físico-empíricas (razones entre dos cantidades heterogéneas, medida, mezcla, frecuencia, dilataciones y cambio de unidad) a partir de marcos representacionales diversos: gráficos (lineales, bidimensionales) y notacionales (fracciones, decimales). Se busca así la integración al interior de, y entre, los marcos representacionales y situacionales para tener perspectivas más amplias con las cuales comprender los aspectos matemáticos relacionados con las razones (relación multiplicativa entre dos cantidades físicas), las proporciones y la proporcionalidad (relación lineal entre dos cantidades variables) (Adjiage, 2005; Adjiage & Pluvinage, 2007).

    Estos trabajos representan un giro importante en la investigación en didáctica, pues en aquellas investigaciones centradas en los aspectos cognitivos del desarrollo del pensamiento matemático, las variables de orden contextual no se consideraban como componentes estructurales del desarrollo, sino tan solo como catalizadores de dichos procesos, y las formas de representación no se consideraban en su perspectiva semiótico-cultural (Roth & Radford, 2011), la cual permite verlas como algo más que una externalización de los procesos mentales del individuo, para considerarlas ahora como parte integral del pensamiento; más aún, como instrumentos privilegiados del pensamiento.”
    http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1665-24362014000100004

  21. Humberto Mondejar Gonzalez 17 February 2021 at 4:43 pm Permalink

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/702375473483176/permalink/1360692000984850/

  22. Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 5:29 pm Permalink

    Un homemaje a Rush Limbaugh.

    https://patriotpost.us/articles/77824-a-fond-farewell-to-rush-limbaugh-2021-02-17

    Creo que el mismo se definio muy bien:

    “I think I just happen to be saying what a whole lot of people think and don’t have a chance to say themselves.”

  23. Julian Perez 17 February 2021 at 6:31 pm Permalink

    Panorama internacional (que me temo no va a ser muy del agrado del amigo Ramiro)

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/world_leaders_wonder_who_is_running_americas_foreign_policy.html

  24. Orlando 18 February 2021 at 1:29 am Permalink

    Edu. Es muy importante que sigas en tu blog exponiendo la realidad cubana porque últimamente hay desatada una furibunda campaña de desacreditacion mediática.

    !Han sacado una canción que está causando furor esos mercenarios que se dicen llamar artistas!

  25. Manuel 18 February 2021 at 3:32 am Permalink

    Bidet, as u can c, is “ in the pocket of “tech robber barons.”

  26. Manuel 18 February 2021 at 3:34 am Permalink

    Bidet, as u can c, is ‘in the pocket of “tech robber barons.”

  27. Manuel 18 February 2021 at 4:15 am Permalink

    Publicado hace un año,
    Antes de que hubiera covid pandemia

    ‘… Yahav follows a firm rule: “Not more than eight people.”

    For more than a decade, Harari has spent several weeks each year on a silent-meditation retreat, usually in India. At home, he starts his day with an hour of meditation; in the summer, he also swims for half an hour while listening to nonfiction audiobooks aimed at the general reader. (Around the time of my visit, he was listening to a history of the Cuban Revolution, and to a study of the culture of software engineering.) He swims the breaststroke, wearing a mask, a snorkel, and “bone conduction” headphones that press against his temples, bypassing the ears.

    When Yahav and I arrived at the house, Harari was working at the kitchen table, reading news stories from Ukraine, printed for him by an assistant. He had an upcoming speaking engagement in Kyiv, at an oligarch-funded conference. He was also planning a visit to the United Arab Emirates, which required some delicacy—the country has no diplomatic ties with Israel.

    VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER
    KenKen, a strange little math puzzle from Japan, may conquer the world.

    The house was open and airy, and featured a piano. (Yahav plays.) Harari was wearing shorts and Velcro-fastened sandals, and, as Yahav fondly observed, his swimming headphones had left imprints on his head. Harari explained to me that the device “beams sound into the skull.” Later, with my encouragement, he put on his cyborgian getup, including the snorkel, and laughed as I took a photograph, saying, “Just don’t put that in the paper, because Itzik will kill both me and you.”

    Unusually for a public intellectual, Harari has drawn up a mission statement. It’s pinned on a bulletin board in the Tel Aviv office, and begins, “Keep your eyes on the ball. Focus on the main global problems facing humanity.” It also says, “Learn to distinguish reality from illusion,” and “Care about suffering.” The statement used to include “Embrace ambiguity.” This was cut, according to one of Harari’s colleagues, because it was too ambiguous.

    One recent afternoon, Naama Avital, the operation’s C.E.O., and Naama Wartenburg, Harari’s chief marketing officer, were sitting with Yahav, wondering if Harari would accept a hypothetical invitation to appear on a panel with President Donald Trump.

    “I think that whenever Yuval is free to say exactly what he thinks, then it’s O.K.,” Avital said.

    Yahav, surprised, said that he could perhaps imagine a private meeting, “but to film it—to film Yuval with Trump?”

    A knight slays a dragon outside a princess’s window.
    “I was hoping you’d consider this a prelude to a kiss.”
    Cartoon by George Booth
    “You’d have a captive audience,” Wartenburg said.

    Avital agreed, noting, “There’s a politician, but then there are his supporters—and you’re talking about tens of millions of people.”

    “A panel with Trump?” Yahav asked. He later said that he had never accepted any speaking invitations from Israeli settlers in the West Bank, adding that Harari, although not a supporter of settlements, might have been inclined to say yes.

    Harari has acquired a large audience in a short time, and—like the Silicon Valley leaders who admire his work—he can seem uncertain about what to do with his influence. Last summer, he was criticized when readers noticed that the Russian translation of “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” had been edited to make it more palatable to Vladimir Putin’s government. Harari had approved some of these edits, and had replaced a discussion of Russian misinformation about its 2014 annexation of Crimea with a passage about false statements made by President Trump.

    Harari’s office is still largely a boutique agency serving the writing and speaking interests of one client. But, last fall, it began to brand part of its work under the heading of “Sapienship.” The office remains a for-profit enterprise, but it has taken on some of the ambitions and attributes of a think tank, or the foundation of a high-minded industrialist. Sapienship’s activities are driven by what Harari’s colleagues call his “vision.” Avital explained that some projects she was working on, such as “Sapiens”-related school workshops, didn’t rely on “everyday contact with Yuval.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Harari’s vision takes the form of a list. “That’s something I have from students,” he told me. “They like short lists.” His proposition, often repeated, is that humanity faces three primary threats: nuclear war, ecological collapse, and technological disruption. Other issues that politicians commonly talk about—terrorism, migration, inequality, poverty—are lesser worries, if not distractions. In part because there’s little disagreement, at least in a Harari audience, about the seriousness of the nuclear and climate threats, and about how to respond to them, Harari highlights the technological one. Last September, while appearing onstage with Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s President, at an “influencers’ summit” in Tel Aviv, Harari said, in Hebrew, “Think about a situation where somebody in Beijing or San Francisco knows what every citizen in Israel is doing at every moment—all the most intimate details about every mayor, member of the Knesset, and officer in the Army, from the age of zero.” He added, “Those who will control the world in the twenty-first century are those who will control data.”

    He also said that Homo sapiens would likely disappear, in a tech-driven upgrade. Harari often disputes the notion that he makes prophecies or predictions—indeed, he has claimed to do “the opposite”—but a prediction acknowledging uncertainty is still a prediction. Talking to Rivlin, Harari said, “In two hundred years, I can pretty much assure you that there will not be any more Israelis, and no Homo sapiens—there will be something else.”

    “What a world,” Rivlin said. The event ended in a hug.

    Afterward, Harari said of Rivlin, “He took my message to be kind of pessimistic.” Although the two men had largely spoken past each other, they were in some ways aligned. An Israeli President is a national figurehead, standing above the political fray. Harari claims a similar space. He speaks of looming mayhem but makes no proposals beyond urging international coöperation, and “focus.” A parody of Harari’s writing, in the British magazine Private Eye, included streams of questions: “What does the rise of Donald Trump signify? If you are in a falling lift, will it do any good to jump up and down like crazy? Why is liberal democracy in crisis? What is the state capital of Wyoming?”

    This tentativeness at first seems odd. Harari has the ear of decision-makers; he travels the world to show them PowerPoint slides depicting mountains of trash and unemployed hordes. But, like a fiery street preacher unable to recommend one faith over another, he concludes with a policy shrug. Harari emphasizes that the public should press politicians to respond to tech threats, but when I asked what that response should be he said, “I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t think it will come from me. Even if I took three years off, and just immersed myself in some cave of books and meditation, I don’t think I would emerge with the answer.”

    Harari’s reluctance to support particular political actions can be understood, in part, as instinctual conservatism and brand protection. According to “Sapiens,” progress is basically an illusion; the Agricultural Revolution was “history’s biggest fraud,” and liberal humanism is a religion no more founded on reality than any other. Harari writes, “The Sapiens regime on earth has so far produced little that we can be proud of.” In such a context, any specific policy idea is likely to seem paltry, and certainly too quotidian for a keynote speech. A policy might also turn out to be a mistake. “We are very careful, the entire team, about endorsing anything, any petition,” Harari told me.

    Harari has given talks at Google and Instagram. Last spring, on a visit to California, he had dinner with, among others, Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s co-founder and C.E.O., and Chris Cox, the former chief product officer at Facebook. It’s not hard to understand Harari’s appeal to Silicon Valley executives, who would prefer to cast a furrowed gaze toward the distant future than to rewrite their privacy policies or their algorithms. (Zuckerberg rarely responds to questions about the malign influence of Facebook without speaking of his “focus” on this or that.) Harari said of tech entrepreneurs, “I don’t try intentionally to be a threat to them. I think that much of what they’re doing is also good. I think there are many things to be said for working with them as long as it’s possible, instead of viewing them as the enemy.” Harari believes that some of the social ills caused by a company like Facebook should be understood as bugs—“and, as good engineers, they are trying to fix the bugs.” Earlier, Itzik Yahav had said that he felt no unease about “visiting Mark Zuckerberg at his home, with Priscilla, and Beast, the dog,” adding, “I don’t think Mark is an evil person. And Yuval is bringing questions.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Harari’s policy agnosticism is also connected to his focus on focus itself. The aspect of a technological dystopia that most preoccupies him—losing mental autonomy to A.I.—can be at least partly countered, in his view, by citizens cultivating greater mindfulness. He collects examples of A.I. threats. He refers, for instance, to recent research suggesting that it’s possible to measure people’s blood pressure by processing video of their faces. A government that can see your blood boiling during a leader’s speech can identify you as a dissident. Similarly, Harari has observed that, had sophisticated artificial intelligence existed when he was younger, it might have recognized his homosexuality long before he was ready to acknowledge it. Such data-driven judgments don’t need to be perfectly accurate to outperform humans. Harari argues that, though there’s no sure prophylactic against such future intrusions, people who are alert to the workings of their minds will be better able to protect themselves. Harari recently told a Ukrainian reporter, “Freedom depends to a large extent on how much you know yourself, and you need to know yourself better than, say, the government or the corporations that try to manipulate you.” In this context, to think clearly—to snorkel in the pool, back and forth—is a form of social action.

    Naama Avital, in the Tel Aviv office, told me that, on social media, fans of Harari’s books tend to be “largely male, twenty-five to thirty-five.” Bill Gates is a Harari enthusiast, but the more typical reader may be a young person grateful for permission to pay more attention to his or her needs than to the needs of others. (Not long ago, one of Harari’s YouTube admirers commented, “Your books changed my life, Yuval. Just as investing in Tesla did.”)

    Harari doesn’t dismiss more active forms of political engagement, particularly in the realm of L.G.B.T.Q. rights, but his writing underscores the importance of equanimity. In a section of “Sapiens” titled “Know Thyself,” Harari describes how the serenity achieved through meditation can be “so profound that those who spend their lives in the frenzied pursuit of pleasant feelings can hardly imagine it.” “21 Lessons” includes extended commentary on the life of the Buddha, who “taught that the three basic realities of the universe are that everything is constantly changing, nothing has any enduring essence, and nothing is completely satisfying.” Harari continues, “You can explore the furthest reaches of the galaxy, of your body, or of your mind, but you will never encounter something that does not change, that has an eternal essence, and that completely satisfies you. . . . ‘What should I do?’ ask people, and the Buddha advises, ‘Do nothing. Absolutely nothing.’ ”

    Harari didn’t learn the result of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election until five weeks after the vote. He was on a retreat, in England. In Vipassana meditation, the form that Harari practices, a retreat lasts at least ten days. He sometimes does ten-day retreats in Israel, in the role of a teaching assistant. Once a year, he goes away for a month or longer. Participants at a Vipassana center may talk to one another as they arrive—while giving up their phones and books—but thereafter they’re expected to be silent, even while eating with others.

    I discussed meditation with Harari one day at a restaurant in a Tel Aviv hotel. (A young doorman recognized him and thanked him for his writing.) We were joined by Itzik Yahav and the mothers of both men. Jeanette Yahav, an accountant, has sometimes worked in the Tel Aviv office. So, too, has Pnina Harari, a former office administrator; she has had the task of responding to the e-mail pouring into Harari’s Web site: poems, pieces of music, arguments for the existence of God.

    Harari said of the India retreats, which take place northeast of Mumbai, “Most of the day you’re in your own cell, the size of this table.”

    “Unbelievable,” Pnina Harari said.

    During her son’s absences, she and Yahav stay in touch. “We speak, we console each other,” she said. She also starts a journal: “It’s like a letter to Yuval. And the last day of the meditation I send it to him.” Once back in Mumbai, he can open an e-mail containing two months of his mother’s news.

    Before Itzik Yahav met Harari, through a dating site, he had some experience of Vipassana, and for years they practiced together. Yahav has now stopped. “I couldn’t keep up,” he told me. “And you’re not allowed to drink. I want to drink with friends, a glass of wine.” I later spoke to Yoram Yovell, a friend of Harari’s, who is a well-known Israeli neuroscientist and TV host. A few years ago, Yovell signed up for a ten-day retreat in India. He recalled telling himself, “This is the first time in ten years that you’re having a ten-day vacation, and you’re spending it sitting on your tush, on this little mat, inhaling and exhaling. And outside is India! ” He lasted twenty-four hours. (In 2018, two years after authorities in Myanmar began a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims, Jack Dorsey completed a ten-day Vipassana retreat in that country, and defended his visit by saying, “This was a purely personal trip for me focused on only one dimension: meditation.”)

    At lunch, Pnina Harari recalled the moment when Yuval’s two older sisters reported to her that Yuval had taught himself to read: “He was three, not more than four.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Yuval smiled. “I think more like four, five.”

    She described the time he wrote a school essay, then rewrote it to make it less sophisticated. He told her that nobody would have understood the first draft.

    From the age of eight, Harari attended a school for bright students, two bus rides away from his family’s house in Kiryat Ata. Yuval’s father, who died in 2010, was born on a kibbutz, and maintained a life-long skepticism about socialism; his work, as a state-employed armaments engineer, was classified. By the standards of the town, the Harari household was bourgeois and bookish.

    The young Yuval had a taste for grand designs. He has said, “I promised myself that when I grew up I would not get bogged down in the mundane troubles of daily life, but would do my best to understand the big picture.” In the back yard, he spent months digging a very deep hole; it was never filled in, and sometimes became a pond. He built, out of wood blocks and Formica tiles, a huge map of Europe, on which he played war games of his own invention. Harari told me that during his adolescence, against the backdrop of the first intifada, he went through a period when he was “a kind of stereotypical right-wing nationalist.” He recalled his mind-set: “Israel as a nation is the most important thing in the world. And, obviously, we are right about everything. And the whole world doesn’t understand us and hates us. So we have to be strong and defend ourselves.” He laughed. “You know—the usual stuff.”

    He deferred his compulsory military service, through a program for high-achieving students. (The service was never completed, because of an undisclosed health problem. “It wasn’t something catastrophic,” he said. “I’m still here.”) When he began college, at Hebrew University, he was younger than his peers, and he had not shared the experience of three years of activity often involving groups larger than eight. By then, Harari’s nationalist fire had dimmed. In its place, he had attempted to will himself into religious conviction—and an observant Jewish life. “I was very keen to believe,” he said. He supposed, wrongly, that “if I read enough, or think about it enough, or talk to the right people, then something will click.”

    In Chapter 2 of “Sapiens,” Harari describes how, about seventy thousand years ago, Homo sapiens began to develop nuanced language, and thereby began to dominate other Homo species, and the world. Harari’s discussion reflects standard scholarly arguments, but he adds this gloss: during what he calls the Cognitive Revolution, Homo sapiens became uniquely able to communicate untruths. “As far as we know, only Sapiens can talk about entire kinds of entities that they have never seen, touched or smelled,” he writes, referring to myths and gods. “Many animals and human species could previously say ‘Careful! A lion!’ Thanks to the Cognitive Revolution, Homo sapiens acquired the ability to say, ‘The lion is the guardian spirit of our tribe.’ ” This mental leap enabled coöperation among strangers: “Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins.”

    A dog owner and her friend look at her dog which is wailing in despair.
    “He’s always been a little needy, but the despair is new.”
    Cartoon by Zoe Si
    In the schema of “Sapiens,” money is a “fiction,” as are corporations and nations. Harari uses “fiction” where another might say “social construct.” (He explained to me, “I would almost always go for the day-to-day word, even if the nuance of the professional word is a bit more accurate.”) Harari further proposes that fictions require believers, and exert power only as long as a “communal belief” in them persists. Every social construct, then, is a kind of religion: a declaration of universal human rights is not a manifesto, or a program, but the expression of a benign delusion; an activity like using money, or obeying a stoplight, is a collective fantasy, not a ritual. When I asked him if he really meant this, he laughed, and said, “It’s like the weak force in physics—which is weak, but still strong enough to hold the entire universe together!” (In fact, the weak force is responsible for the disintegration of subatomic particles.) “It’s the same with these fictions—they are strong enough to hold millions of people together.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    In his representation of how people function in society, Harari sometimes seems to be extrapolating from his personal history—from his eagerness to believe in something. When I called him a “seeker,” he gave amused, half-grudging assent.

    As an undergraduate, Harari wrote a paper, for a medieval-history class, that was later published, precociously, in a peer-reviewed journal. “The Military Role of the Frankish Turcopoles: A Reassessment” challenged the previously held assumption that, in crusader armies, most cavalrymen were heavily armored. Harari proposed, in an argument derived from careful reading of sources across several centuries, that many were light cavalrymen. Benjamin Kedar, who taught the class, told me that the paper “was absolutely original, and really a breakthrough.” It seems to be generally agreed that, had Harari stuck solely to military history of this era, he would have become a significant figure in the field. Idan Sherer, a former student and research assistant of Harari’s who now teaches at Ben Gurion University, said, “I don’t think the prominent scholar, but definitely one of them.”

    In academic prose, especially philosophy, Harari seems to have found something analogous to what he had sought in nation and in faith. “I had respect for, and belief in, very dense writing,” he recalled. “One of the first things I did when I came out, to myself, as gay—I went to the university library and took out all these books about queer theory, which were some of the densest things I’ve ever read.” He jokingly added, “It almost converted me back. It was ‘O.K., now you’re gay, so you need to be very serious about it.’ ”

    In 1998, he began working toward a doctorate in history, at the University of Oxford. “He was oppressed by the grayness,” Harari’s mother recalled, at lunch. Harari agreed: “It wasn’t the greatest time of my life. It was a culture shock, it was a climate shock. I just couldn’t grasp it could be weeks and weeks and you never see the sun.” He later added, “It was a personal impasse. I’d hoped that, by studying and researching, I would understand not only the world but my life.” He went on, “All the books I’d been reading and all the philosophical discussions—not only did they not provide an answer, it seemed extremely unlikely that any answer would ever come out of this.” He told himself, “There is something fundamentally wrong in the way that I’m approaching this whole thing.”

    One reason he chose to study outside Israel was to “start life anew,” as a gay man. On weekends, he went to London night clubs. (“I think I tried Ecstasy a few times,” he said.) And he made dates online. He set himself the target of having sex with at least one new partner a week, “to make up for lost time, and also understand how it works—because I was very shy.” He laughed. “Very strong discipline!” He treated each encounter as a credit in a ledger, “so if one week I had two, and then the next week there was none, I’m O.K.”

    These recollections contain no regret, but, Harari said, “coming out was a kind of false enlightenment.” He explained, “I’d had this feeling—this is it. There was one big piece of the puzzle that I was missing, and this is why my life was completely fucked up.” Instead, he felt “even more miserable.”

    On a dating site, Harari met Ron Merom, an Israeli software engineer. As Merom recently recalled, they began an intense e-mail correspondence “about the meaning of life, and all that.” They became friends. (In 2015, when “Sapiens” was first published in English, Merom was working for Google in California, and helped arrange for Harari to give an “Authors at Google” talk, which was posted online—an important early moment of exposure.) Merom, who now works at Facebook, has forgotten the details of their youthful exchanges, but can recall their flavor: Harari’s personal philosophy at the time was complex and dark, “even a bit violent or aggressive”—and this included his discussion of sexual relationships. As Merom put it, “It was ‘I need to conquer the world—either you win or you lose.’ ”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Merom had just begun going on meditation retreats. He told Harari, “It sounds like you’re looking for something, and Vipassana might be it.” In 2000, when Harari was midway through his thesis—a study of how Renaissance military memoirists described their experiences of war—he took a bus to a meditation center in the West of England.

    Ten days later, Harari wrote to Amir Fink, a friend in Israel. Fink, who now works as an environmentalist, told me that Harari had quoted, giddily, the theme song of a “Pinocchio” TV show once beloved in Israel: “Good morning, world! I’m now freed from my strings. I’m a real boy.”

    At the retreat, Harari was told that he should do nothing but notice his breath, in and out, and notice whenever his mind wandered. This, Harari has written, “was the most important thing anybody had ever told me.”

    Steven Gunn, an Oxford historian and Harari’s doctoral adviser, recently recalled the moment: “I sort of did my best supervisorial thing. ‘Are you sure you’re not getting mixed up in a cult?’ So far as I could tell, he wasn’t being drawn into anything he didn’t want to be drawn into.”

    On a drive with Yahav and Harari from their home to Jerusalem, I asked if it was fair to think of “Sapiens” as an attempt to transmit Buddhist principles, not just through its references to meditation—and to the possibility of finding serenity in self-knowledge—but through its narrative shape. The story of “Sapiens” echoes the Buddha’s “basic realities”: constant change; no enduring essence; the inevitability of suffering.

    “Yes, to some extent,” Harari said. “It’s definitely not a conscious project. It’s not ‘O.K.! Now I believe in these three principles, and now I need to convince the world, but I can’t state it directly, because this would be a missionary thing.’ ” Rather, he said, the experience of meditation “imbues your entire thinking.”

    He added, “I definitely don’t think that the solution to all the world’s problems is to convert everybody to Buddhism, or to have everybody meditating. I meditate, I know how difficult it is. There’s no chance you can get eight billion people to meditate, and, even if they try, in many cases it could backfire in a terrible way. It’s very easy to become self-absorbed, to become megalomaniacal.” He referred to Ashin Wirathu, an ultranationalist Buddhist monk in Myanmar, who has incited violence against Rohingya Muslims.

    In “Sapiens,” Harari went on, part of the task had been “to show how everything is impermanent, and what we think of as eternal social structures—even family, money, religion, nations—everything is changing, nothing is eternal, everything came out of some historical process.” These were Buddhist thoughts, he said, but they were easy enough to access without Buddhism. “Maybe biology is permanent, but in society nothing is permanent,” he said. “There’s no essence, no essence to any nation. You don’t need to meditate for two hours a day to realize that.”

    We drove to Hebrew University, which is atop Mt. Scopus. We walked into the humanities building, and, through an emergency exit, onto a rooftop. There was a panoramic view of the Old City and the Temple Mount. Harari recalled his return to the university, from Oxford, in 2001, during the second intifada. The university is surrounded by Arab neighborhoods that he’s never visited. In the car, he had been talking about current conditions in Israel; in recent years, he had said, “many, if not most, Israelis simply lost the motivation to solve the conflict, especially because Israel has managed to control it so efficiently.” Harari told me that, as a historian, he had to dispute the assumption that an occupation can’t last “for decades, for centuries”—it can, and new surveillance technologies can enable oppression “with almost no killing.” Harari saw no alternative other than “to wait for history to work its magic—a war, a catastrophe.” With a dry laugh, he said, “Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran—a couple of thousand people die, something. This can break the mental deadlock.”

    Harari recalled a moment, in 2015, when he and Yahav had accidentally violated the eight-person rule. They had gone to a dinner that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to attend. Netanyahu was known to have read “Sapiens.” “We were told it would be very intimate,” Harari said. There were forty guests. Harari shared a few pleasantries with Netanyahu, but they had “no real exchange at all.”

    Yahav interjected to suggest that, because of “Sapiens,” Netanyahu “started doing Meatless Monday.” Harari, who, like Yahav, largely avoids eating animal products, writes in “Sapiens” that “modern industrial agriculture might well be the greatest crime in history.” When Netanyahu announced a commitment “to fight cruelty toward animals,” friends encouraged Harari to take a little credit.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    “People told me this was my greatest achievement,” Harari said. “I managed to convince Netanyahu of something! It didn’t matter what.” This assessment gives some indication of Harari’s local politics, but Yoram Yovell, his TV-presenter friend, said that he had tried and failed to persuade Harari to speak against Netanyahu publicly. Yovell said that Harari, although “vehemently against Netanyahu,” seemed to resist “jumping into the essence of life—the blood and guts of life,” adding, “I actually am disappointed with it.” Harari, who has declined invitations to write a regular column in the Israeli press, told me, “I could start making speeches, and writing, ‘Vote for this party,’ and maybe, one time, I can convince a couple of thousand people to change their vote. But then I will kind of expend my entire credit on this. I’ll be identified with one party, one camp.” He did acknowledge that he was discouraged by the choice presented by the September general election, which was then imminent: “It’s either a right-wing government or an extreme-right-wing government. There is no other serious option.”

    At Hebrew University, his role is somewhat rarefied: he has negotiated his way to having no faculty responsibilities beyond teaching; he currently advises no Ph.D. students. (He said of his professional life, “I write the books and give talks. Itzik is doing basically everything else.”) Harari teaches one semester a year, fitting three classes into one day a week. His recent courses include a history of relations between humans and animals—the subject of a future Harari book, perhaps—and another called History for the Masses, on writing for a general reader. During our visit to the university, he took me to an empty lecture hall with steeply raked seating. “This is where ‘Sapiens’ originated,” he said. He noted, with mock affront, that the room attracts stray cats: “They come into class, and they grab all the attention. ‘A cat! Oh!’ ”

    “It’s hard to keep a good friendship when someone’s financial status changes,” Amir Fink told me. Fink and his husband, a musicologist, have known Harari since college. “We have tried to keep his success out of it. As two couples, we meet a lot, we take vacations abroad together.” (Neither couple has children.) Fink went on, “We love to come to their place for the weekend.” They play board games, such as Settlers of Catan, and “whist—Israeli Army whist.”

    Fink spoke of the scale of the operation built by Harari and Yahav. “I hope it’s sustainable,” he said. With “Sapiens,” he went on, Harari had written “a book that summarizes the world.” The books that followed were bound to be “more specific, and more political.” That is, they drew Harari away from his natural intellectual territory. “Homo Deus” derived directly from Harari’s teaching, but “21 Lessons,” Fink said, “is basically a collection of articles and responses to the present day.” He added, “It’s very hard for Yuval to keep himself as a teacher,” noting, “He becomes, I guess, what the French would call a philosophe.”

    While Harari was at Oxford, he read Jared Diamond’s 1997 book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” and was dazzled by its reach, across time and place. “It was a complete life-changer,” Harari said. “You could actually write such books!” Steven Gunn, Harari’s Oxford adviser, told me that, as Harari worked on his thesis, he had to be discouraged from taking too broad a historical view: “I have memories of numerous revision meetings where I’d say, ‘Well, all this stuff about people flying helicopters in Vietnam is very interesting, and I can see why you need to read it, and think about it, to write about why people wrote the way they did about battles in Italy in the sixteenth century, but, actually, the thesis has to be nearly all about battles in Italy in the sixteenth century.’ ”

    After Harari received his doctorate, he returned to Jerusalem with the idea of writing a history of the gay experience in Israel. He met with Benjamin Kedar. Kedar recently said, “I gave him a hard look—‘Yuval, do it after you get tenure.’ ”

    Harari, taking this advice, stuck with his specialty. But his continued interest in comparative history was evident in the 2007 book “Special Operations in the Age of Chivalry, 1100-1550,” whose anachronistic framing provoked some academic reviewers. And the following year, in “The Ultimate Experience: Battlefield Revelations and the Making of Modern War Culture, 1450-2000,” Harari was at last able to include an extended discussion of Vietnam War memoirs.

    In 2003, Hebrew University initiated an undergraduate course, An Introduction to the History of the World. Such classes had begun appearing in a few history departments in the previous decade; traditional historians, Kedar said, were often disapproving, and still are: “They say, ‘You teach the French Revolution, and if somebody looks out of the window they miss the revolution’—all those jokes.” Gunn said that “Oxford makes sure people study a wide range of history, but it does it by making sure that people study a wide range of different detailed things, rather than one course that goes right across everything.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Harari agreed to teach the world-history course, as well as one on war in the Middle Ages. He had always hated speaking to people he didn’t know. He told me that, as a younger man, “if I had to call the municipality to arrange some bureaucratic stuff, I would sit for like ten minutes by the telephone, just bringing up the courage.” (One can imagine his bliss in the dining hall at a meditation retreat—the sound of a hundred people not starting a conversation.) Even today, Harari is an unassuming lecturer: conferences sometimes give him a prizefighter’s introduction, with lights and music, at the end of which he comes warily to the podium, says, “Hello, everyone,” and sets up his laptop. Yahav described watching Harari recently freeze in front of an audience of thousands in Beijing. “I was, ‘Start moving! ’ ”

    A woman sardonically reminds her exhusband of who she is and their entire sordid relationship history after he called…
    “Paul? Susan! From the gym? I showed you how to use the elliptical? We went for coffee? One thing led to another? We started dating? Then we got married? We had two kids? But we got divorced? I got custody? You see them on the weekends? But you want them for Christmas? I said no way? You called me last night in tears? Susan!”
    Cartoon by Will McPhail
    As an uncomfortable young professor, Harari tended to write out his world-history lectures as a script. At one point, as part of an effort to encourage his students to listen to his words, rather than transcribe them, he began handing out copies of his notes. “They started circulating, even among students who were not in my class,” Harari recalled. “That’s when I thought, Ah, maybe there’s a book in it.” He imagined that a few students at other universities would buy the book, and perhaps “a couple of history buffs.”

    This origin explains some of the qualities that distinguish “Sapiens.” Unlike many other nonfiction blockbusters, it isn’t full of catchy neologisms or cinematic scene-setting; its impact derives from a steady management of ideas, in prose that has the unhedged authority—and sometimes the inelegance—of a professor who knows how to make one or two things stick. (“An empire is a political order with two important characteristics . . .”) “Guns, Germs, and Steel” begins with a conversation between Jared Diamond and a Papua New Guinean politician; in “Sapiens,” Harari does not figure in the narrative. He told me, “Maybe it is some legacy of my study of memoirs and autobiographies. I know how dangerous it is to make personal experience your main basis for authority.”

    It still astonishes Harari that readers became so excited about the early pages of “Sapiens,” which describe the coexistence of various Homo species. “I thought, This is so banal!” he told me. “There is absolutely nothing there that is new. I’m not an archeologist. I’m not a primatologist. I mean, I did zero new research. . . . It was really reading the kind of common knowledge and just presenting it in a new way.”

    The Israeli edition, “A Brief History of Humankind,” was published in June, 2011. Yoram Yovell recalled that “Yuval became beloved very quickly,” and was soon a regular guest on Israeli television. “It was beautiful to see the way he handled it,” Yovell added. “He’s intellectually self-confident but truly modest.” The book initially failed to attract foreign publishers. Harari and Yahav marketed a print-on-demand English-language edition, on Amazon; this was Harari’s own translation, and it included his Gmail address on the title page, and illustrations by Yahav. It sold fewer than two thousand copies. In 2013, Yahav persuaded Deborah Harris, an Israeli literary agent whose clients include David Grossman and Tom Segev, to take on the book. She proposed edits and recommended hiring a translator. Harris recently recalled that, in the U.K., an auction of the revised manuscript began with twenty-two publishers, “and it went on and on and on,” whereas, in the U.S., “I was getting the most insulting rejections, of the kind ‘Who does this man think he is?’ ” Harvill Secker, Harari’s British publisher, paid significantly more for the book than HarperCollins did in the U.S.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Harari and Yahav recently visited Harris at her house, in Jerusalem; it also serves as her office. They had promised to cart away copies of “Sapiens”—in French, Portuguese, and Malay—that were filling up her garden shed. At her dining table, Harris recalled seeing “Sapiens” take off: “The reviews were extraordinary. And then Obama. And Gates.” (Gates, on his blog: “I’ve always been a fan of writers who try to connect the dots.”) Harris began spotting the book in airports; “Sapiens,” she said, was reaching people who read only one book a year.

    There was a little carping from reviewers—“Mr. Harari’s claim that Columbus ignited the scientific revolution is surprising,” a reviewer in the Wall Street Journal wrote—but the book thrived in an environment of relative critical neglect. At the time of its publication, “Sapiens” was not reviewed in the Times, The New York Review of Books, or the Washington Post. Steven Gunn supposes that Harari, by working on a far greater time scale than the great historical popularizers of the twentieth century, like Arnold Toynbee and Oswald Spengler, substantially protected himself from experts’ scoffing. “ ‘Sapiens’ leapfrogs that, by saying, ‘Let’s ask questions so large that nobody can say, “We think this bit’s wrong and that bit’s wrong,” ’ ” Gunn said. “Because what he’s doing is just building an extremely big model, about an extremely big process.” He went on, “Nobody’s an expert on the meaning of everything, or the history of everybody, over a long period.”

    Deborah Harris did not work on “Homo Deus.” By then, Yahav had become Harari’s agent, after closely watching Harris’s process, and making a record of all her contacts. “It wasn’t even done secretly!” she said, laughing.

    Yahav was sitting next to her. “He’s a maniac and a control freak,” Harris said. In her own dealings with publishers, she continued, “I have to retain a semblance of professionalism—I want these people to like me. He didn’t care! He’s never going to see these people again, and sell anything else to them. They can all think he’s horrible and ruthless.”

    They discussed the controversy over the pliant Russian translation of “21 Lessons.” Harris said that, if she had been involved, “that would not have happened.”

    Yahav, who for the first time looked a little pained, asked Harris if she would have refused all of the Russian publisher’s requests for changes.

    “Russia, you don’t fuck around,” she said. “You don’t give them an inch.” She asked Harari if he would do things differently now.

    “Hmm,” he said. Harari drew a distinction between changes he had approved and those he had not: for example, he hadn’t known that, in the dedication, “husband” would become “partner.” In public remarks, Harari has defended allowing some changes as an acceptable compromise when trying to reach a Russian audience. He has also said, “I’m not willing to write any lies. And I’m not willing to add any praise to the regime.”

    They discussed the impending “Sapiens” spinoffs. Harris, largely enthusiastic about the plans, said, “I’m just not a graphic-novel person.” She then told Harari to wait before writing again. “I think you should learn to fly a plane,” she said. “You could do anything you want. Walk the Appalachian Trail.”

    One day in mid-September, Harari walked into an auditorium set up in an eighteenth-century armory in Kyiv, wearing a Donna Karan suit and bright multicolored socks. He had just met with Olena Zelenska, the wife of the Ukrainian President. The next day, he would meet Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s former President, and accept a gift box of chocolates made by Poroshenko’s company. Harari was about to give a talk at a Yalta European Strategy conference, a three-day, invitation-only event modelled on Davos. yes is funded by Victor Pinchuk, the billionaire manufacturing magnate, with the aim of promoting Ukraine’s orientation toward the West, and of promoting Victor Pinchuk.

    As people took their seats, Harari stood with Pinchuk at the front of the auditorium, and for a few minutes he was exposed to strangers. Steven Pinker, the Harvard cognitive psychologist, introduced himself. David Rubenstein, the billionaire investor and co-founder of the Carlyle Group, gave Harari his business card. Rubenstein has become a “thought leader” at gatherings like yes, and he interviews wealthy people for Bloomberg TV. (Later that day, during a yes dinner where President Volodymyr Zelensky was a guest, Rubenstein interviewed Robin Wright, the “House of Cards” star. His questions were not made less awkward by being barked. “You’re obviously a very attractive woman,” he said. “How did you decide what you wanted to do?”)

    Harari’s talk lasted twenty-four minutes. He used schoolbook-style illustrations: chimney stacks, Michelangelo’s David. Nobody on Harari’s staff had persuaded him not to represent mass unemployment with art work showing only fifty men. He argued that the danger facing the world could be “stated in the form of a simple equation, which might be the defining equation of the twenty-first century: B times C times D equals AHH. Which means: biological knowledge, multiplied by computing power, multiplied by data, equals the ability to hack humans.” After the lecture, Harari had an onstage discussion with Pinchuk. “We should change the focus of the political conversation,” Harari said, referring to A.I. And: “This is one of the purposes of conferences like this—to change the global conversation.” Throughout Harari’s event, senior European politicians in the front row chatted among themselves.

    When I later talked to Steven Pinker, he made a candid distinction between speaking opportunities that were “too interesting to turn down” and others “too lucrative to turn down.” Hugo Chittenden, a director at the London Speaker Bureau, an agency that books speakers for events like yes, told me that Harari’s fee in Kyiv would reflect the fact that he’s a fresh face; there’s only so much enthusiasm for hearing someone like Tony Blair give the speech he’s given on such occasions for the past decade. On the plane to Kyiv, Yahav had indicated to me that Harari’s fee would be more than twice what Donald Trump was paid when he made a brief video appearance at yes, in 2015. Trump received a hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    In public, at least, Harari doesn’t echo Pinker’s point about money gigs, and he won’t admit to having concerns about earning a fee that might compensate him, in part, for laundering the reputations of others. “We can’t check everyone who’s coming to a conference,” he told me. He was unmoved when told that Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and self-help author known for his position that “the masculine spirit is under assault,” had cancelled his yes appearance. Later this year, in Israel, Harari plans to have a private conversation with Peterson. Harari said of Peterson’s representatives, “They offered to do a public debate. And we said that we don’t want to, because there is a danger that it will just be mud wrestling.” Yahav had earlier teased Harari, saying, “You don’t argue. If somebody says something you don’t like, you don’t say, ‘I don’t like it.’ You just shut up.”

    In Kyiv, Harari gave several interviews to local journalists, and sometimes mentioned a man who had been on our flight from Israel to Ukraine. After the plane left the gate, there was a long delay, and the man stormed to the front, demanding to be let off. There are times, Harari told one reporter, when the thing “most responsible for your suffering is your own mind.” The subject of human suffering—even extreme suffering—doesn’t seem to agitate Harari in quite the way that industrial agriculture does. Indeed, Harari has taken up positions against what he calls humanism, by which he means “the worship of humanity,” and which he discovers in, among other places, the foundations of Nazism and Stalinism. (This characterization has upset humanists.) Some of this may be tactical—Harari is foregrounding a contested animal-rights position—but it also reflects an aspect of his Vipassana-directed thinking. Human suffering occurs; the issue is how to respond to it. Harari’s suggestion that the airline passenger, in becoming livid about the delay, had largely made his own misery was probably right; but to turn the man into a case study seemed to breeze past all of the suffering that involves more than a transit inconvenience.

    The morning after Harari’s lecture, he welcomed Pinker to his hotel suite. They hadn’t met before this trip, but a few weeks earlier they had arranged to film a conversation, which Harari would release on his own platforms. Pinker later joked that, when making the plan, he’d spoken only with Harari’s “minions,” adding, “I want to have minions.” Pinker has a literary agent, a speaking agent, and, at Harvard, a part-time assistant. Contemplating the scale of Harari’s operation, he said, without judgment, “I don’t know of any other academic or public intellectual who’s taken that route.”

    Pinker is the author of, most recently, “Enlightenment Now,” which marshals evidence of recent human progress. “We live longer, suffer less, learn more, get smarter, and enjoy more small pleasures and rich experiences,” he writes. “Fewer of us are killed, assaulted, enslaved, oppressed, or exploited.” He told me that, while preparing to meet Harari, he had refreshed his skepticism about futurology by rereading two well-known essays—Robert Kaplan’s “The Coming Anarchy: How Scarcity, Crime, Overpopulation, Tribalism, and Disease Are Rapidly Destroying the Social Fabric of Our Planet,” published in The Atlantic in 1994, and “The Long Boom,” by Peter Schwartz and Peter Leyden, published in Wired three years later (“We’re facing 25 years of prosperity, freedom, and a better environment for the whole world. You got a problem with that?”).

    As a camera crew set up, Harari affably told Pinker, “The default script is that you will be the optimist and I will be the pessimist. But we can try and avoid this.” They chatted about TV, and discovered a shared enthusiasm for “Shtisel,” an Israeli drama about an ultra-Orthodox family, and “Veep.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    “What else do you watch?” Harari asked.

    “ ‘The Crown,’ ” Pinker said.

    “Oh, ‘The Crown’ is great!”

    Harari had earlier told me that he prefers TV to novels; in a career now often focussed on ideas about narrative and interiority, his reflections on art seem to stop at the observation that “fictions” have remarkable power. Over supper in Israel, he had noted that, in the Middle Ages, “only what kings and queens did was important, and even then not everything they did,” whereas novels are likely “to tell you in detail about what some peasant did.” Onstage, at yes, he had said, “If we think about art as kind of playing on the human emotional keyboard, then I think A.I. will very soon revolutionize art completely.”

    The taped conversation began. Harari began to describe future tech intrusions, and Pinker, pushing back, referred to the ubiquitous “telescreens” that monitor citizens in Orwell’s “1984.” Today, Pinker said, it would be a “trivial” task to install such devices: “There could be, in every room, a government-operated camera. They could have done that decades ago. But they haven’t, certainly not in the West. And so the question is: why didn’t they? Partly because the government didn’t have that much of an interest in doing it. Partly because there would be enough resistance that, in a democracy, they couldn’t succeed.”

    Harari said that, in the past, data generated by such devices could not have been processed; the K.G.B. could not have hired enough agents. A.I. removes this barrier. “This is not science fiction,” he said. “This is happening in various parts of the world. It’s happening now in China. It’s happening now in my home country, in Israel.”

    Two angry looking cops hold hands as they arrest Cupid for shooting arrows at both of them.
    Cartoon by Paul Noth
    “What you’ve identified is some of the problems of totalitarian societies or occupying powers,” Pinker said. “The key is how to prevent your society from being China.” In response, Harari suggested that it might have been only an inability to process such data that had protected societies from authoritarianism. He went on, “Suddenly, totalitarian regimes could have a technological advantage over the democracies.”

    Pinker said, “The trade-off between efficiency and ethics is just in the very nature of reality. It has always faced us—even with much simpler algorithms, of the kind you could do with paper and pencil.” He noted that, for seventy years, psychologists have known that, in a medical setting, statistical decision-making outperforms human intuition. Simple statistical models could have been widely used to offer diagnoses of disease, forecast job performance, and predict recidivism. But humans had shown a willingness to ignore such models.

    “My view, as a historian, is that seventy years isn’t a long time,” Harari said.

    When I later spoke to Pinker, he said that he admired Harari’s avoidance of conventional wisdom, but added, “When it comes down to it, he is a liberal secular humanist.” Harari rejects the label, Pinker said, but there’s no doubt that Harari is an atheist, and that he “believes in freedom of expression and the application of reason, and in human well-being as the ultimate criterion.” Pinker said that, in the end, Harari seems to want “to be able to reject all categories.”

    The next day, Harari and Yahav made a trip to Chernobyl and the abandoned city of Pripyat. They invited a few other people, and hired a guide. Yahav embraced a role of half-ironic worrier about health risks; the guide tried to reassure him by giving him his dosimeter, which measures radiation levels. When the device beeped, Yahav complained of a headache. In the ruined Lenin Square in Pripyat, he told Harari, “You’re not going to die on me. We’ve discussed this—I’m going to die first. I was smoking for years.”

    Harari, whose work sometimes sounds regretful about most of what has happened since the Paleolithic era—in “Sapiens,” he writes that “the forager economy provided most people with more interesting lives than agriculture or industry do”—began the day by anticipating, happily, a glimpse of the world as it would be if “humans destroyed themselves.” Walking across Pripyat’s soccer field, where mature trees now grow, he remarked on how quickly things had gone “back to normal.”

    The guide asked if anyone had heard of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare—the video game, which includes a sequence set in Pripyat.

    “No,” Harari said.

    “Just the most popular game in the world,” the guide said.

    At dusk, Harari and Yahav headed back to Kyiv, in a black Mercedes. When Yahav sneezed, Harari said, “It’s the radiation starting.” As we drove through flat, forested countryside, Harari talked about his upbringing: his hatred of chess; his nationalist and religious periods. He said, “One thing I think about how humans work—the only thing that can replace one story is another story.”

    We discussed the tall tales that occasionally appear in his writing. In “Homo Deus,” Harari writes that, in 2014, a Hong Kong venture-capital firm “broke new ground by appointing an algorithm named vital to its board.” A footnote provides a link to an online article, which makes clear that, in fact, there had been no such board appointment, and that the press release announcing it was a lure for “gullible” outlets. When I asked Harari if he’d accidentally led readers into believing a fiction, he appeared untroubled, arguing that the book’s larger point about A.I. encroachment still held.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    In “Sapiens,” Harari writes in detail about a meeting in the desert between Apollo 11 astronauts and a Native American who dictated a message for them to take to the moon. The message, when later translated, was “They have come to steal your lands.” Harari’s text acknowledges that the story might be a “legend.”

    “I don’t know if it’s a true story,” Harari told me. “It doesn’t matter—it’s a good story.” He rethought this. “It matters how you present it to the readers. I think I took care to make sure that at least intelligent readers will understand that it maybe didn’t happen.” (The story has been traced to a Johnny Carson monologue.)

    Harari went on to say how much he’d liked writing an extended fictional passage, in “Homo Deus,” in which he imagines the belief system of a twelfth-century crusader. It begins, “Imagine a young English nobleman named John . . .” Harari had been encouraged in this experiment, he said, by the example of classical historians, who were comfortable fabricating dialogue, and by “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” by Douglas Adams, a book “packed with so much good philosophy.” No twentieth-century philosophical book besides “Sources of the Self,” by Charles Taylor, had influenced him more.

    We were now on a cobbled street in Kyiv. Harari said, “Maybe the next book will be a novel.”

    At a press conference in the city, Harari was asked a question by Hannah Hrabarska, a Ukrainian news photographer. “I can’t stop smiling,” she began. “I’ve watched all your lectures, watched everything about you.” I spoke to her later. She said that reading “Sapiens” had “completely changed” her life. Hrabarska was born the week of the Chernobyl disaster, in 1986. “When I was a child, I dreamed of being an artist,” she said. “But then politics captured me.” When the Orange Revolution began, in 2004, she was eighteen, and “so idealistic.” She studied law and went into journalism. In the winter of 2013-14, she photographed the Euromaidan protests, in Kyiv, where more than a hundred people were killed. “You always expect everything will change, will get better,” she said. “And it doesn’t.”

    Hrabarska read “Sapiens” three or four years ago. She told me that she had previously read widely in history and philosophy, but none of that material had ever “interested me on my core level.” She found “Sapiens” overwhelming, particularly in its passages on prehistory, and in its larger revelation that she was “one of the billions and billions that lived, and didn’t make any impact and didn’t leave any trace.” Upon finishing the book, Hrabarska said, “you kind of relax, don’t feel this pressure anymore—it’s O.K. to be insignificant.” For her, the discovery of “Sapiens” is that “life is big, but only for me.” This knowledge “lets me own my life.”

    Reading “Sapiens” had helped her become “more compassionate” toward people around her, although less invested in their opinions. Hrabarska had also spent more time on creative photography projects. She said, “This came from a feeling of ‘O.K., it doesn’t matter that much, I’m just a little human, no one cares.’ ”

    Hrabarska has disengaged from politics. “I can choose to be involved, not to be involved,” she said. “No one cares, and I don’t care, too.” ♦

    Published in the print edition of the February 17 & 24, 2020, issue, with the headline “The Really Big Picture.”
    Ian Parker has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 2000.
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/17/yuval-noah-harari-gives-the-really-big-picture?source=search_google_dsa_paid&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0ezDsIjz7gIVeCCtBh3PwwLdEAMYASAAEgLlxvD_BwE

  28. Orlando 18 February 2021 at 7:31 am Permalink

    Democratizar Viet Nam , y que viejitos como , deja buscar los nombres, cedan sus puestos a dirigentes más jóvenes y audaces no es tarea facil.

    No quieren dejar sus cargos porque pierden el equipo de Geishas que los entretienen y les hacen compañía bailando, cantando, recitando poesía, sirviéndoles el té , y cerrando con broche de oro con lo que se conoce en Miami por el eufemismo de final feliz.

  29. Orlando 18 February 2021 at 7:53 am Permalink

    Jajaja. Deja ver si lo publican. Está esperando ser aprobado.

    Democratizar Viet Nam , y que viejitos de noventa años como , Nguyen Tan Dung,
    Nguyen Phu Trong y el general Tran Dan Quai, ya fallecido, suelten el jamón y cedan sus cargos vitalicios para que lo ocupen dirigentes más jóvenes y audaces es tarea de larga data.

    ? Quién sería tan tonto como para dejar de ocupar por las buenas un cargo que asegura mantener un equipo de Geishas que te entretenga, te haga compañía, te baile, cante y te recite poesía.

    Además que te sirva el té , y que te cierre la jornada del día con broche de oro que conocí en Miami y que allá se conoce por el eufemismo de final feliz

  30. Julian Perez 18 February 2021 at 9:15 am Permalink

    Florida: el estado al que Biden quiere restringir entrada y salida por lo ¨peligroso¨ que es para el COVID (no NY, donde gobierna el asesino Cuomo o California: Florida)

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/18/these-shocking-graphs-show-floridas-far-better-covid-outcomes-with-far-milder-lockdown-than-new-york-california/

  31. Orlando 18 February 2021 at 10:16 am Permalink

    Y este, ?lo publicarán?

    Esta entrada de la Joven Cuba demuestra la razón de que el PCC prefiera que la gente se adapte a pasar hambre y necesidades inauditas antes de abrir la economía. ! Coño! !Que ustedes no agradecen nada!

    Les dan un dedo y se quieren coger la mano.

    Jajaja. Después piden reformas políticas. Zapatero a sus zapatos. A desmochar palmiche y forrar botones se ha dicho.

  32. Julian Perez 18 February 2021 at 10:55 am Permalink

    No se pierdan el video de Biden hablando (bueno, hablando es un eufemismo) acerca de China

    https://www.israelunwired.com/china-genocide-uigher/

  33. manuel 18 February 2021 at 1:14 pm Permalink

    los dos estan publicados, felicidades!

    ya te hicieron el dia

    https://jovencuba.com/vietnam-emocratizacion-pendiente/comment-page-1/#comment-322122

  34. Julian Perez 19 February 2021 at 9:32 am Permalink

    https://res.cloudinary.com/caucusroom/image/upload/v1613697265/images/posts/kuceeqs3bdczxrwzotzm.jpg


Leave a Reply