"21 Lessons for the 21st Century" Book Notes#
Author: Yuval Noah Harari
Reading Time: 6 hours
These are my notes and excerpts recorded while reading "21 Lessons for the 21st Century" on WeChat Reading.
Chapter 3 Freedom: Data Tyranny and Social Equality#
All "feelings" are merely biochemical mechanisms that all mammals and birds possess to quickly calculate the probabilities of survival and reproduction. The basis of "feelings" is not intuition, inspiration, or freedom, but computation.
Therefore, feelings are not contrary to rationality; rather, they reflect evolutionary rationality.
To avoid this outcome, for every dollar or minute invested in enhancing artificial intelligence, an equal dollar or minute should be invested in enhancing human consciousness. Unfortunately, there is currently little research and development on human consciousness. Our development of human capabilities is primarily aimed at meeting the urgent demands of the current economic and political system, rather than ensuring that humans remain conscious beings long into the future. My boss wants me to respond to emails as quickly as possible, but he has no interest in my ability to taste and appreciate food. As a result, I find myself checking emails even during meals, gradually losing the ability to value my sensory experiences. The entire economic system pressures me to expand my investment portfolio and diversify my investments, but it gives me no motivation to expand my empathy or make my empathy more diverse. Thus, I invest a lot of effort in understanding the intricacies of securities trading, but hardly any thought into understanding the deeper causes of suffering.
All "feelings" are merely biochemical mechanisms that all mammals and birds possess to quickly calculate the probabilities of survival and reproduction. The basis of "feelings" is not intuition, inspiration, or freedom, but computation.
Therefore, feelings are not contrary to rationality; rather, they reflect evolutionary rationality.
To avoid this outcome, for every dollar or minute invested in enhancing artificial intelligence, an equal dollar or minute should be invested in enhancing human consciousness. Unfortunately, there is currently little research and development on human consciousness. Our development of human capabilities is primarily aimed at meeting the urgent demands of the current economic and political system, rather than ensuring that humans remain conscious beings long into the future. My boss wants me to respond to emails as quickly as possible, but he has no interest in my ability to taste and appreciate food. As a result, I find myself checking emails even during meals, gradually losing the ability to value my sensory experiences. The entire economic system pressures me to expand my investment portfolio and diversify my investments, but it gives me no motivation to expand my empathy or make my empathy more diverse. Thus, I invest a lot of effort in understanding the intricacies of securities trading, but hardly any thought into understanding the deeper causes of suffering.
Chapter 7 Nationalism: Unable to Solve Global Problems#
I am not saying that the cohesion of nations is wrong. Large systems require large-scale loyalty to function, and expanding the scope of human empathy certainly has its advantages. Moderate patriotism has always been one of the most beneficial concepts created by humanity. Believing that one's country is unique, worthy of loyalty, and that one has special obligations to fellow citizens can inspire people to care for others and be willing to sacrifice for them. If one thinks that without nationalism, our world would be a paradise of freedom for all, then that would be a dangerous misunderstanding. Without nationalism, we are more likely to face tribal fragmentation and chaos. For example, people from peaceful, prosperous, and free countries like Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland have a strong sense of nationalism. Countries lacking nationalism include Afghanistan, Somalia, the Congo, and most failed states.
I am not saying that the cohesion of nations is wrong. Large systems require large-scale loyalty to function, and expanding the scope of human empathy certainly has its advantages. Moderate patriotism has always been one of the most beneficial concepts created by humanity. Believing that one's country is unique, worthy of loyalty, and that one has special obligations to fellow citizens can inspire people to care for others and be willing to sacrifice for them. If one thinks that without nationalism, our world would be a paradise of freedom for all, then that would be a dangerous misunderstanding. Without nationalism, we are more likely to face tribal fragmentation and chaos. For example, people from peaceful, prosperous, and free countries like Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland have a strong sense of nationalism. Countries lacking nationalism include Afghanistan, Somalia, the Congo, and most failed states.
Chapter 8 Religion: Deities Only Serve the State#
It is precisely because religious people focus too much on interpretation that they find themselves at a disadvantage when faced with science. Although scientists can also be opportunistic and distort evidence, the true essence of science lies in the willingness to acknowledge failure and try different methods. Because of this, scientists have gradually learned how to grow better crops and develop better medicines, while priests and masters have only learned how to find better excuses. For centuries, even the most devout believers have begun to notice this difference, leading religious authorities to retreat in many areas of technology. This has gradually led the entire world toward a shared civilization, as long as something is truly useful, everyone will use it.
It is precisely because religious people focus too much on interpretation that they find themselves at a disadvantage when faced with science. Although scientists can also be opportunistic and distort evidence, the true essence of science lies in the willingness to acknowledge failure and try different methods. Because of this, scientists have gradually learned how to grow better crops and develop better medicines, while priests and masters have only learned how to find better excuses. For centuries, even the most devout believers have begun to notice this difference, leading religious authorities to retreat in many areas of technology. This has gradually led the entire world toward a shared civilization, as long as something is truly useful, everyone will use it.
Chapter 9 Cultural Identity: Openness and Tolerance#
Let us return from fiction to reality, and we can see that the current debate in Europe about immigration is not a clear-cut confrontation between good and evil. It is incorrect to label all anti-immigration advocates as "fascists" or to label all supporters of immigration as "cultural suicide." Therefore, when dealing with immigration disputes, it should not be viewed as a struggle against certain uncompromising moral demands. This is a discussion between two reasonable political positions that should be decided through standard democratic processes.
Let us return from fiction to reality, and we can see that the current debate in Europe about immigration is not a clear-cut confrontation between good and evil. It is incorrect to label all anti-immigration advocates as "fascists" or to label all supporters of immigration as "cultural suicide." Therefore, when dealing with immigration disputes, it should not be viewed as a struggle against certain uncompromising moral demands. This is a discussion between two reasonable political positions that should be decided through standard democratic processes.
Chapter 10 Terrorism: Avoid Overreacting#
Most of the time, the dangers posed by overreacting to terrorism are actually a greater threat than the terrorists themselves.
It may even be highly beneficial. From time to time, the political storms caused by anti-terrorism efforts actually benefit terrorists, so terrorists are willing to take a gamble: they are like gamblers holding a bad hand, hoping to reshuffle the deck with their opponents. After all, terrorists have nothing to lose, and they might even win big.
The reason governments find it difficult to tolerate these provocations is that the legitimacy of modern regimes comes from guaranteeing that the public sphere is not affected by political violence. As long as a regime's legitimacy does not come from a commitment to prevent various disasters, even if it encounters terrible disasters, it can endure or even completely ignore them. Conversely, if a regime's legitimacy is undermined, even a small problem can lead to its complete collapse.
This creates a paradox: precisely because modern states are too successful in preventing political violence, they are particularly vulnerable to terrorism.
So how should governments respond to terrorism? Successful counter-terrorism actions should take a three-pronged approach. First, secretly strike at the networks of terrorist organizations. Second, the media must remain objective and avoid hysteria. If the terror drama cannot be publicized, it cannot succeed. Unfortunately, the media often provides this publicity opportunity for free, obsessively reporting on terrorist attacks and exaggerating the dangers, because reporting on terrorism sells more newspapers than reporting on diabetes or air pollution. Third, it lies in everyone's imagination. Terrorists have captured our imagination to use against us. We repeatedly rehearse terrorist attacks in our minds, replaying events like "9/11" or recent suicide bombings. Terrorists kill 100 people, and then make a hundred million people believe that a killer is hiding behind every tree. Every citizen should take responsibility to free their imagination from terrorists and remind themselves of the real extent of the terrorist threat. It is precisely because of everyone's inner fears that the media continues to report on terrorism, leading governments to overreact to terrorism.
Most of the time, the dangers posed by overreacting to terrorism are actually a greater threat than the terrorists themselves.
It may even be highly beneficial. From time to time, the political storms caused by anti-terrorism efforts actually benefit terrorists, so terrorists are willing to take a gamble: they are like gamblers holding a bad hand, hoping to reshuffle the deck with their opponents. After all, terrorists have nothing to lose, and they might even win big.
The reason governments find it difficult to tolerate these provocations is that the legitimacy of modern regimes comes from guaranteeing that the public sphere is not affected by political violence. As long as a regime's legitimacy does not come from a commitment to prevent various disasters, even if it encounters terrible disasters, it can endure or even completely ignore them. Conversely, if a regime's legitimacy is undermined, even a small problem can lead to its complete collapse.
This creates a paradox: precisely because modern states are too successful in preventing political violence, they are particularly vulnerable to terrorism.
So how should governments respond to terrorism? Successful counter-terrorism actions should take a three-pronged approach. First, secretly strike at the networks of terrorist organizations. Second, the media must remain objective and avoid hysteria. If the terror drama cannot be publicized, it cannot succeed. Unfortunately, the media often provides this publicity opportunity for free, obsessively reporting on terrorist attacks and exaggerating the dangers, because reporting on terrorism sells more newspapers than reporting on diabetes or air pollution. Third, it lies in everyone's imagination. Terrorists have captured our imagination to use against us. We repeatedly rehearse terrorist attacks in our minds, replaying events like "9/11" or recent suicide bombings. Terrorists kill 100 people, and then make a hundred million people believe that a killer is hiding behind every tree. Every citizen should take responsibility to free their imagination from terrorists and remind themselves of the real extent of the terrorist threat. It is precisely because of everyone's inner fears that the media continues to report on terrorism, leading governments to overreact to terrorism.
Chapter 11 War: Never Underestimate Human Stupidity#
But the problem is that the world is far more complex than a chessboard, and human rationality is insufficient to fully understand it, so even rational leaders often make very foolish decisions.
But the problem is that the world is far more complex than a chessboard, and human rationality is insufficient to fully understand it, so even rational leaders often make very foolish decisions.
Chapter 12 Humility: The Earth Does Not Revolve Around You#
Among all forms of humility, perhaps the most important is humility before God. Whenever God is mentioned, people often refer to themselves as humble, but then turn around and act arrogantly towards their fellow beings in the name of God.
Among all forms of humility, perhaps the most important is humility before God. Whenever God is mentioned, people often refer to themselves as humble, but then turn around and act arrogantly towards their fellow beings in the name of God.
Chapter 13 God: Do Not Take the Name of God in Vain#
The essence of morality is not to "follow sacred commandments," but to "reduce suffering." Therefore, to consider oneself a moral person, one does not need to believe in any myths or stories; one only needs to understand the deep meaning of "suffering." If you truly understand that a certain action will cause unnecessary suffering to yourself or others, you will naturally refrain from doing it. Humans do engage in acts such as murder, rape, and theft, but this is because they do not fully understand the suffering caused by these actions. They are solely focused on satisfying their immediate desires or greed, without considering the impact of their actions on others or even on their long-term selves. Even during interrogations, while interrogators deliberately inflict great pain on the subjects, they still find ways to alleviate their own feelings of pain, temporarily setting aside their humanity to distance themselves from their actions.
In fact, you may never actually harm the person you hate, but the anger in your heart may burn for years. In such cases, even though you have not harmed anyone, you have harmed yourself. Therefore, if we should find ways to restrain our anger, the most natural consideration is for our own good, rather than for any divine will. Rather than killing a despised enemy, it is better to have no anger in your heart from the beginning; the experience will be much better.
The essence of morality is not to "follow sacred commandments," but to "reduce suffering." Therefore, to consider oneself a moral person, one does not need to believe in any myths or stories; one only needs to understand the deep meaning of "suffering." If you truly understand that a certain action will cause unnecessary suffering to yourself or others, you will naturally refrain from doing it. Humans do engage in acts such as murder, rape, and theft, but this is because they do not fully understand the suffering caused by these actions. They are solely focused on satisfying their immediate desires or greed, without considering the impact of their actions on others or even on their long-term selves. Even during interrogations, while interrogators deliberately inflict great pain on the subjects, they still find ways to alleviate their own feelings of pain, temporarily setting aside their humanity to distance themselves from their actions.
In fact, you may never actually harm the person you hate, but the anger in your heart may burn for years. In such cases, even though you have not harmed anyone, you have harmed yourself. Therefore, if we should find ways to restrain our anger, the most natural consideration is for our own good, rather than for any divine will. Rather than killing a despised enemy, it is better to have no anger in your heart from the beginning; the experience will be much better.
Chapter 14 Secularism: Face Your Imperfections#
Every religion, ideology, and creed has its own shadow, and regardless of which creed you adhere to, you should see your own shadow and avoid naively believing that "we would never do that." Compared to most traditional religions, secular science at least has one significant advantage: it is not afraid of its own shadow and is willing to acknowledge its own mistakes and blind spots. If you believe that there is some transcendent power that reveals absolute truth, you cannot allow yourself to admit any mistakes, as this would cause the entire narrative you believe in to collapse. However, if you believe that everything is just flawed humans trying to pursue the truth, you can calmly acknowledge that mistakes will occur in this process.
Every religion, ideology, and creed has its own shadow, and regardless of which creed you adhere to, you should see your own shadow and avoid naively believing that "we would never do that." Compared to most traditional religions, secular science at least has one significant advantage: it is not afraid of its own shadow and is willing to acknowledge its own mistakes and blind spots. If you believe that there is some transcendent power that reveals absolute truth, you cannot allow yourself to admit any mistakes, as this would cause the entire narrative you believe in to collapse. However, if you believe that everything is just flawed humans trying to pursue the truth, you can calmly acknowledge that mistakes will occur in this process.
Chapter 15 Ignorance: You Know Less Than You Think#
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Humanity's reliance on groupthink makes us the masters of the world, and the illusion of knowledge allows us to continue living happily without falling into futile efforts and avoiding attempts to understand everything around us. From an evolutionary perspective, it is a good thing for Homo sapiens to trust the knowledge of others.
Worse still, powerful authority always distorts the truth. Power seeks to change reality rather than see it clearly. When you hold a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when you hold great power, everything seems to be waiting for your intervention. Even if you manage to suppress this impulse, those around you will never forget that you hold this enormous hammer. Anyone who speaks to you will inevitably bring in other issues, so you can never fully trust their words, just as a sultan cannot trust that his subjects will tell him the whole truth.
Therefore, leaders face a dual constraint: if they stay at the center of power, their view of the world will be extremely distorted; if they bravely come to the surroundings, they will waste a lot of precious time. Moreover, the situation will only worsen. In the coming decades, the world will become more complex than it is now. Whether you are a king or a pawn, any individual will increasingly misunderstand the various technological tools, economic trends, and political dynamics that shape the world. As Socrates observed over 2000 years ago, in such a situation, our best choice is to acknowledge our ignorance.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Humanity's reliance on groupthink makes us the masters of the world, and the illusion of knowledge allows us to continue living happily without falling into futile efforts and avoiding attempts to understand everything around us. From an evolutionary perspective, it is a good thing for Homo sapiens to trust the knowledge of others.
Worse still, powerful authority always distorts the truth. Power seeks to change reality rather than see it clearly. When you hold a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when you hold great power, everything seems to be waiting for your intervention. Even if you manage to suppress this impulse, those around you will never forget that you hold this enormous hammer. Anyone who speaks to you will inevitably bring in other issues, so you can never fully trust their words, just as a sultan cannot trust that his subjects will tell him the whole truth.
Therefore, leaders face a dual constraint: if they stay at the center of power, their view of the world will be extremely distorted; if they bravely come to the surroundings, they will waste a lot of precious time. Moreover, the situation will only worsen. In the coming decades, the world will become more complex than it is now. Whether you are a king or a pawn, any individual will increasingly misunderstand the various technological tools, economic trends, and political dynamics that shape the world. As Socrates observed over 2000 years ago, in such a situation, our best choice is to acknowledge our ignorance.
Chapter 16 Justice: The Moral Dilemma of Humanity#
Most of the injustices in the contemporary world do not stem from individual biases but from large-scale structural biases, yet our hunter-gatherer brains have not evolved the ability to perceive structural biases. Everyone is at least an accomplice to some structural biases, and we do not have enough time and energy to recognize these facts. Writing this book has given me the opportunity to do this homework. When discussing global issues, I often make the mistake of only seeing the perspectives of the global elite while ignoring the thoughts of various marginalized groups. The global elite control the discourse, so we cannot miss their viewpoints. In contrast, marginalized groups are often silenced, and we easily forget them. It is not that we are truly malicious; it is simply due to pure ignorance.
Most of the injustices in the contemporary world do not stem from individual biases but from large-scale structural biases, yet our hunter-gatherer brains have not evolved the ability to perceive structural biases. Everyone is at least an accomplice to some structural biases, and we do not have enough time and energy to recognize these facts. Writing this book has given me the opportunity to do this homework. When discussing global issues, I often make the mistake of only seeing the perspectives of the global elite while ignoring the thoughts of various marginalized groups. The global elite control the discourse, so we cannot miss their viewpoints. In contrast, marginalized groups are often silenced, and we easily forget them. It is not that we are truly malicious; it is simply due to pure ignorance.
Chapter 17 Post-Truth Era: Lies Endure Forever#
Throughout human history, scholars have always faced this question: are they serving the powerful or serving the truth? The goal of scholars is to unite everyone around the same narrative or to let everyone know the truth, even if it means becoming a scattered group. So far, those who have both academic authority and significant power (such as Christian clergy) have prioritized unity over truth. This is precisely why they hold such authority. For the human species, the preference for power over truth is evident. We spend more time and energy trying to control the world rather than trying to understand it; and even when we strive to understand the world, it is usually to control it more easily afterward. Therefore, if your ideal society is one that prioritizes truth, ignoring various fictional myths, the Homo sapiens community is likely to disappoint you; you might as well try your luck with the chimpanzee community.
The first golden rule: if you want reliable information, you must pay a high price. If you always receive information for free, you might be the product of the entire commercial world. Suppose a mysterious billionaire proposes to you: "I will give you $30 a month, and you will let me brainwash you for an hour every day, implanting various political and commercial biases that I want to implant in your mind." A rational person would probably refuse. The mysterious billionaire slightly changes the proposal: "You let me brainwash you for an hour every day, and I will provide this service completely free!" Suddenly, hundreds of millions of people around the world think this is a great idea. We should not take these people as role models. The second golden rule: if you feel that certain issues seem particularly important to you, you should genuinely strive to read relevant scientific literature. Scientific literature refers to peer-reviewed papers, books published by reputable academic publishers, and works by well-known professors. Science certainly has its limitations and has made many mistakes. Nevertheless, over the past few centuries, the scientific community has remained our most reliable source of knowledge. If you believe that the scientific community's views on certain matters are incorrect, that possibility certainly exists, but you should at least understand what scientific theories you are denying and find evidence to support your ideas. As for scientists, they should work harder to engage in current public discussions. Whether in medicine or history, as long as the discussions involve their areas of expertise, scientists should not be afraid to speak out. Silence does not represent neutrality; it only represents support for the status quo. Of course, continuing academic research and publishing results in scientific journals that only a few experts read is still very important. However, equally important is disseminating the latest scientific theories to the public through popular science books and even using art and novels.
Throughout human history, scholars have always faced this question: are they serving the powerful or serving the truth? The goal of scholars is to unite everyone around the same narrative or to let everyone know the truth, even if it means becoming a scattered group. So far, those who have both academic authority and significant power (such as Christian clergy) have prioritized unity over truth. This is precisely why they hold such authority. For the human species, the preference for power over truth is evident. We spend more time and energy trying to control the world rather than trying to understand it; and even when we strive to understand the world, it is usually to control it more easily afterward. Therefore, if your ideal society is one that prioritizes truth, ignoring various fictional myths, the Homo sapiens community is likely to disappoint you; you might as well try your luck with the chimpanzee community.
The first golden rule: if you want reliable information, you must pay a high price. If you always receive information for free, you might be the product of the entire commercial world. Suppose a mysterious billionaire proposes to you: "I will give you $30 a month, and you will let me brainwash you for an hour every day, implanting various political and commercial biases that I want to implant in your mind." A rational person would probably refuse. The mysterious billionaire slightly changes the proposal: "You let me brainwash you for an hour every day, and I will provide this service completely free!" Suddenly, hundreds of millions of people around the world think this is a great idea. We should not take these people as role models. The second golden rule: if you feel that certain issues seem particularly important to you, you should genuinely strive to read relevant scientific literature. Scientific literature refers to peer-reviewed papers, books published by reputable academic publishers, and works by well-known professors. Science certainly has its limitations and has made many mistakes. Nevertheless, over the past few centuries, the scientific community has remained our most reliable source of knowledge. If you believe that the scientific community's views on certain matters are incorrect, that possibility certainly exists, but you should at least understand what scientific theories you are denying and find evidence to support your ideas. As for scientists, they should work harder to engage in current public discussions. Whether in medicine or history, as long as the discussions involve their areas of expertise, scientists should not be afraid to speak out. Silence does not represent neutrality; it only represents support for the status quo. Of course, continuing academic research and publishing results in scientific journals that only a few experts read is still very important. However, equally important is disseminating the latest scientific theories to the public through popular science books and even using art and novels.
Chapter 18 The Future Is Not a Science Fiction Novel: The Unescapable Matrix#
In fact, humanity's ability to dominate the world is not primarily due to the invention of knives or the killing of mammoths, but rather to the ability to manipulate minds. The mind is not the subject that freely shapes historical behavior and biological reality; it is the object shaped by history and biology. Even our most cherished ideals (freedom, love, creativity) are no different from stone knives; they were all crafted by someone to kill a mammoth. Just look at the most advanced scientific theories and technological tools today, and you will see that the mind has always been subject to various manipulations. In fact, there is no "real self" that can escape manipulation.
We like the story of making stone knives, but we do not like the idea of becoming that stone knife in the story. Therefore, adapting the story of the mammoth into a matrix version would go like this: "The mind imagines a robot; personally creates a robot; the robot kills terrorists but also wants to control the mind; the mind kills the robot." However, this story has a problem. The issue is not whether the mind can kill the robot, but that the mind that originally imagined the robot has long been a product generated by various manipulations. Therefore, killing the robot does not grant us freedom.
The basic assumption of "Brave New World" is that humanity is a biochemical algorithm, and science can crack this algorithm and then use technology to manipulate it.
If you want to control the masses, using "love" and "happiness" is more reliable than using "fear" and "violence."
Unlike "The Matrix" and "The Truman Show," Huxley questions whether anyone truly wants to escape, thus questioning the possibility of escape. Since your brain and "self" are part of the matrix, to escape the matrix, you must escape the self. This possibility is always worth exploring. In the 21st century, breaking free from a narrow definition of self may also become a necessary survival skill.
In fact, humanity's ability to dominate the world is not primarily due to the invention of knives or the killing of mammoths, but rather to the ability to manipulate minds. The mind is not the subject that freely shapes historical behavior and biological reality; it is the object shaped by history and biology. Even our most cherished ideals (freedom, love, creativity) are no different from stone knives; they were all crafted by someone to kill a mammoth. Just look at the most advanced scientific theories and technological tools today, and you will see that the mind has always been subject to various manipulations. In fact, there is no "real self" that can escape manipulation.
We like the story of making stone knives, but we do not like the idea of becoming that stone knife in the story. Therefore, adapting the story of the mammoth into a matrix version would go like this: "The mind imagines a robot; personally creates a robot; the robot kills terrorists but also wants to control the mind; the mind kills the robot." However, this story has a problem. The issue is not whether the mind can kill the robot, but that the mind that originally imagined the robot has long been a product generated by various manipulations. Therefore, killing the robot does not grant us freedom.
The basic assumption of "Brave New World" is that humanity is a biochemical algorithm, and science can crack this algorithm and then use technology to manipulate it.
If you want to control the masses, using "love" and "happiness" is more reliable than using "fear" and "violence."
Unlike "The Matrix" and "The Truman Show," Huxley questions whether anyone truly wants to escape, thus questioning the possibility of escape. Since your brain and "self" are part of the matrix, to escape the matrix, you must escape the self. This possibility is always worth exploring. In the 21st century, breaking free from a narrow definition of self may also become a necessary survival skill.
Chapter 19 Education: Change Is the Only Constant#
In such a world, the least teachers need to teach students is more information. Students already have too much information at hand; what they need is the ability to understand information, judge which information is important and which is not, and most importantly, to combine these bits of information to form a complete worldview.
Many education experts believe that schools should now teach the "4Cs": critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Broadly speaking, schools should not place too much emphasis on specific job skills but should emphasize general life skills. The most important thing is to be adaptable, learn new things, and maintain mental balance in unfamiliar environments. To keep up with the world of 2050, humanity needs not only to invent new ideas and products but also to repeatedly reshape itself.
Major changes in the future are likely to alter the basic structure of life, making "discontinuity" the most prominent feature.
To thrive in such a world, one needs to have a very flexible mindset and extreme emotional balance. Humanity will have to repeatedly give up certain familiar things and learn to coexist peacefully with the unknown. The trouble is that teaching children to embrace the unknown and maintain mental balance is much more difficult than teaching them physical formulas or the causes of World War I. Human resilience cannot be cultivated solely through reading and attending classes. Most current teachers are also products of the old education system, and their own mindsets are often not flexible enough.
Most adults mean well, but they do not understand the current world. In the past, listening to adults was a relatively safe option because they did understand that world, and the changes were not rapid. But the 21st century is different. The pace of change is accelerating, and you can never know whether what adults tell you is eternal wisdom or outdated prejudice.
In such a world, the least teachers need to teach students is more information. Students already have too much information at hand; what they need is the ability to understand information, judge which information is important and which is not, and most importantly, to combine these bits of information to form a complete worldview.
Many education experts believe that schools should now teach the "4Cs": critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Broadly speaking, schools should not place too much emphasis on specific job skills but should emphasize general life skills. The most important thing is to be adaptable, learn new things, and maintain mental balance in unfamiliar environments. To keep up with the world of 2050, humanity needs not only to invent new ideas and products but also to repeatedly reshape itself.
Major changes in the future are likely to alter the basic structure of life, making "discontinuity" the most prominent feature.
To thrive in such a world, one needs to have a very flexible mindset and extreme emotional balance. Humanity will have to repeatedly give up certain familiar things and learn to coexist peacefully with the unknown. The trouble is that teaching children to embrace the unknown and maintain mental balance is much more difficult than teaching them physical formulas or the causes of World War I. Human resilience cannot be cultivated solely through reading and attending classes. Most current teachers are also products of the old education system, and their own mindsets are often not flexible enough.
Most adults mean well, but they do not understand the current world. In the past, listening to adults was a relatively safe option because they did understand that world, and the changes were not rapid. But the 21st century is different. The pace of change is accelerating, and you can never know whether what adults tell you is eternal wisdom or outdated prejudice.
Chapter 20 Meaning: Life Is Not a Fictional Story#
If we cannot leave behind anything tangible (such as genes or poetry), perhaps it is enough to make the world a little better. If you help someone, and they go on to help others, this can contribute to making the entire world better, like forming a "chain of goodness," and you are just a small link in it. Perhaps you can also teach a wise but socially awkward child well, and they will eventually become a doctor, saving thousands of lives. Or perhaps you can help an elderly lady cross the street, giving her an hour of happiness in her life. While these actions do have their merits, a string of good deeds seems not much different from a string of sea turtles: we still do not know where the meaning lies. A wise person was asked about the meaning of life. He said, "What I know is that I am here to help others. But what I do not know is why others are here."
If personal identity and the entire social system are based on a certain story, it becomes difficult to question that story. The reason is not that this story is well-evidenced, but because its collapse would trigger disasters for individuals and society. Historically, the roof has sometimes been more important than the foundation.
But if you want to know how to achieve social stability and harmony (like Confucius), the truth often becomes a burden, while rituals and ceremonies become your best partners.
Even in love, whether it is Romeo or the troubled young Werther, they both know that true love cannot exist without sacrifice. Sacrifice not only convinces your beloved of your sincerity but also allows you to believe that you are truly in love. Why do you think women want their partners to put a ring on their finger? Once the partner makes such a significant economic sacrifice, they must convince themselves that it is all valuable and meaningful.
With sacrifice, not only can you enhance your confidence in the story, but it often replaces all your other obligations to it. Most of humanity's great stories prescribe ideals that most people cannot achieve.
Therefore, like other stories, the liberal story also begins with "creation." According to liberalism, creation is happening all the time, and I am the creator. So what is my life goal? To create meaning through feeling, thinking, desiring, and inventing. Anything that limits humanity's ability to feel, think, desire, and invent will limit the meaning of the universe. Thus, the highest ideal is to have the freedom to break free from these limitations.
A better approach is to try to understand yourself, understand your mind, and understand your desires, rather than rushing to realize every whimsical thought that crosses your mind.
To understand yourself, a crucial step is to acknowledge that the "self" is also a fictional story that will continuously create, update, and rewrite itself through the complex mechanisms of mental thought. There is a storyteller in my mind who explains who I am, where I come from, where I am going, and what is happening now. Just as the government explains recent political turmoil, this inner narrator repeatedly makes mistakes but rarely admits it. Just as the government uses flags, images, and parades to establish national myths, my inner propaganda machine also uses precious memories and valuable traumas to build a personal myth, but these memories and traumas often do not equate to the truth.
Therefore, if you truly want to understand yourself, you should not believe your social media accounts or the story your mind tells you, but rather observe the actual flow of your body and mind. You will find that the ebb and flow of various thoughts, emotions, and desires have no reason and cannot be commanded by you, just like the wind from all directions that messes up your hair. You are neither the wind nor the thoughts, emotions, and desires you experience, and certainly not the sanitized stories your mind organizes with hindsight. You are merely experiencing all of this, unable to control or possess it, and you are not equivalent to any of it. When humanity asks, "Who am I?" they hope to receive a story as an answer. In fact, the first thing you need to know is that you are not a story.
According to Buddhism, the universe has three fundamental realities: everything is constantly changing (impermanence), everything has no eternal essence (no-self), and nothing can provide lasting satisfaction (suffering).
According to Buddhism, life inherently has no meaning, so humanity does not need to create any meaning. As long as one knows that everything inherently has no meaning, one can stop clinging and stop pursuing empty things, thus achieving liberation. So, if a person asks, "What should I do?" the Buddha would say, "Do nothing." Our problem is that we are always doing something. On a physical level, it may be possible to do nothing (after all, we can sit quietly with our eyes closed for hours), but on a mental level, we are always busy creating various stories and identities, waging wars in our minds and winning victories. True doing nothing means allowing the mind to rest, creating nothing at all.
Humanity's ability to conquer the world lies in the capacity to create and believe in fictional stories. But because of this, humanity is particularly poor at judging the difference between fiction and reality. After all, we must ignore the differences between the two to survive; being overly concerned will lead to suffering. Because the most real thing in the world is suffering.
Therefore, whenever a politician's discourse begins to mix in some mysterious terms, one should be on high alert. In the face of real suffering, these individuals may use vague and incomprehensible expressions to package their arguments. Four words to be particularly cautious of are: sacrifice, eternity, purity, and restoration. As soon as you hear any of these, alarm bells should ring in your mind. If leaders often say things like, "Their sacrifice will restore the purity of our eternal nation," you should know that you have a serious problem. To maintain rationality, remember to turn these empty words back to reality: there are soldiers crying in pain, women being beaten and abused, and children trembling in fear. Therefore, if you truly want to know the truth of the universe, the meaning of life, and your identity, the best starting point is to begin observing suffering and exploring the nature of suffering. The answer will never be a story.
If we cannot leave behind anything tangible (such as genes or poetry), perhaps it is enough to make the world a little better. If you help someone, and they go on to help others, this can contribute to making the entire world better, like forming a "chain of goodness," and you are just a small link in it. Perhaps you can also teach a wise but socially awkward child well, and they will eventually become a doctor, saving thousands of lives. Or perhaps you can help an elderly lady cross the street, giving her an hour of happiness in her life. While these actions do have their merits, a string of good deeds seems not much different from a string of sea turtles: we still do not know where the meaning lies. A wise person was asked about the meaning of life. He said, "What I know is that I am here to help others. But what I do not know is why others are here."
If personal identity and the entire social system are based on a certain story, it becomes difficult to question that story. The reason is not that this story is well-evidenced, but because its collapse would trigger disasters for individuals and society. Historically, the roof has sometimes been more important than the foundation.
But if you want to know how to achieve social stability and harmony (like Confucius), the truth often becomes a burden, while rituals and ceremonies become your best partners.
Even in love, whether it is Romeo or the troubled young Werther, they both know that true love cannot exist without sacrifice. Sacrifice not only convinces your beloved of your sincerity but also allows you to believe that you are truly in love. Why do you think women want their partners to put a ring on their finger? Once the partner makes such a significant economic sacrifice, they must convince themselves that it is all valuable and meaningful.
With sacrifice, not only can you enhance your confidence in the story, but it often replaces all your other obligations to it. Most of humanity's great stories prescribe ideals that most people cannot achieve.
Therefore, like other stories, the liberal story also begins with "creation." According to liberalism, creation is happening all the time, and I am the creator. So what is my life goal? To create meaning through feeling, thinking, desiring, and inventing. Anything that limits humanity's ability to feel, think, desire, and invent will limit the meaning of the universe. Thus, the highest ideal is to have the freedom to break free from these limitations.
A better approach is to try to understand yourself, understand your mind, and understand your desires, rather than rushing to realize every whimsical thought that crosses your mind.
To understand yourself, a crucial step is to acknowledge that the "self" is also a fictional story that will continuously create, update, and rewrite itself through the complex mechanisms of mental thought. There is a storyteller in my mind who explains who I am, where I come from, where I am going, and what is happening now. Just as the government explains recent political turmoil, this inner narrator repeatedly makes mistakes but rarely admits it. Just as the government uses flags, images, and parades to establish national myths, my inner propaganda machine also uses precious memories and valuable traumas to build a personal myth, but these memories and traumas often do not equate to the truth.
Therefore, if you truly want to understand yourself, you should not believe your social media accounts or the story your mind tells you, but rather observe the actual flow of your body and mind. You will find that the ebb and flow of various thoughts, emotions, and desires have no reason and cannot be commanded by you, just like the wind from all directions that messes up your hair. You are neither the wind nor the thoughts, emotions, and desires you experience, and certainly not the sanitized stories your mind organizes with hindsight. You are merely experiencing all of this, unable to control or possess it, and you are not equivalent to any of it. When humanity asks, "Who am I?" they hope to receive a story as an answer. In fact, the first thing you need to know is that you are not a story.
According to Buddhism, the universe has three fundamental realities: everything is constantly changing (impermanence), everything has no eternal essence (no-self), and nothing can provide lasting satisfaction (suffering).
According to Buddhism, life inherently has no meaning, so humanity does not need to create any meaning. As long as one knows that everything inherently has no meaning, one can stop clinging and stop pursuing empty things, thus achieving liberation. So, if a person asks, "What should I do?" the Buddha would say, "Do nothing." Our problem is that we are always doing something. On a physical level, it may be possible to do nothing (after all, we can sit quietly with our eyes closed for hours), but on a mental level, we are always busy creating various stories and identities, waging wars in our minds and winning victories. True doing nothing means allowing the mind to rest, creating nothing at all.
Humanity's ability to conquer the world lies in the capacity to create and believe in fictional stories. But because of this, humanity is particularly poor at judging the difference between fiction and reality. After all, we must ignore the differences between the two to survive; being overly concerned will lead to suffering. Because the most real thing in the world is suffering.
Therefore, whenever a politician's discourse begins to mix in some mysterious terms, one should be on high alert. In the face of real suffering, these individuals may use vague and incomprehensible expressions to package their arguments. Four words to be particularly cautious of are: sacrifice, eternity, purity, and restoration. As soon as you hear any of these, alarm bells should ring in your mind. If leaders often say things like, "Their sacrifice will restore the purity of our eternal nation," you should know that you have a serious problem. To maintain rationality, remember to turn these empty words back to reality: there are soldiers crying in pain, women being beaten and abused, and children trembling in fear. Therefore, if you truly want to know the truth of the universe, the meaning of life, and your identity, the best starting point is to begin observing suffering and exploring the nature of suffering. The answer will never be a story.
Chapter 21 Re-Understanding Yourself: The Mysteries of the Human Mind#
Some people ask big questions about life; they do not want to know when to inhale and when to exhale, but rather what happens after death. However, the real mystery of life does not occur after death but during life. To understand "death," one must first understand "life."
The first thing I learned from observing my own breathing is that despite reading so many books and attending so many classes in college, I know almost nothing about my own mind and have no way to control it. No matter how hard I try, I still think of other things, and my focused observation of how my breath enters and exits my nostrils cannot last more than 10 seconds. For many years, I believed that I was the master of my life, the CEO of my personal brand, but just a few hours of meditation proved that I have almost no control over myself. I am not only not the CEO; I am not even qualified to be a doorkeeper. Although I am just standing by the door of my body (nostrils), observing what comes in and what goes out, I soon abandon my post. That was truly an eye-opening experience.
But with the advancement of technology, two things have happened. First, the stone knives of the past have developed into nuclear weapons today, increasing the likelihood of social order collapse. Second, the cave paintings of the past have developed into television broadcasts today, making it easier to confuse the masses. In the not-too-distant future, algorithms may put an end to all this development, and humanity will no longer be able to observe its true self but will instead have algorithms decide who we are and what we should know about ourselves. In the coming years or decades, we still have choices. As long as we work hard, we can still understand what our true selves look like. But if we want to seize this opportunity, it is best to start now.
Some people ask big questions about life; they do not want to know when to inhale and when to exhale, but rather what happens after death. However, the real mystery of life does not occur after death but during life. To understand "death," one must first understand "life."
The first thing I learned from observing my own breathing is that despite reading so many books and attending so many classes in college, I know almost nothing about my own mind and have no way to control it. No matter how hard I try, I still think of other things, and my focused observation of how my breath enters and exits my nostrils cannot last more than 10 seconds. For many years, I believed that I was the master of my life, the CEO of my personal brand, but just a few hours of meditation proved that I have almost no control over myself. I am not only not the CEO; I am not even qualified to be a doorkeeper. Although I am just standing by the door of my body (nostrils), observing what comes in and what goes out, I soon abandon my post. That was truly an eye-opening experience.
But with the advancement of technology, two things have happened. First, the stone knives of the past have developed into nuclear weapons today, increasing the likelihood of social order collapse. Second, the cave paintings of the past have developed into television broadcasts today, making it easier to confuse the masses. In the not-too-distant future, algorithms may put an end to all this development, and humanity will no longer be able to observe its true self but will instead have algorithms decide who we are and what we should know about ourselves. In the coming years or decades, we still have choices. As long as we work hard, we can still understand what our true selves look like. But if we want to seize this opportunity, it is best to start now.
This article was automatically generated by the WeRead-xLog synchronization tool.