Sapiens?

Have you read Yuval Noah Harari's books? I listened to all three (Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century), twice through, but some years ago and then listened to him give talks, interviews and presentations. As I walked through the fields and bluebell woods, I was listening to his interview with Sam Harris on Making Sense. It was the third time they'd talked and perhaps the least satisfying.

Why do I say that? Well, both were as erudite and thoughtful as ever, but given they had only an hour it felt like the discussion moved on to quickly and didn't get into any nuts and bolts.

Harari said he's far less worried about the pandemic than about the economic impact. He said that humankind, with scientific and medical advances, will overcome the virus. Bear in mind he is a historian so is inclined to take a long-perspective. While many of us want that solution now, for him, two years would be seen as a success in contrast to the long-standing impacts on life of smallpox and the bubonic plague, for example. For another excellent example of the historian's ability to see the contemporary circumstances through a lens illuminated by the lessons of the past, consider this piece written by Tobias Stone after the Brexit Referendum and election of Trump.

Harari didn't expand on his concerns about the economy except to say that as governments dole out billions (trillions?) to safeguard certain industries and businesses as well as individuals, it would be good to 'follow the money'. Whom has been helped? What relationships do they have with those in charge of the purse-strings? What obligations have been called in and what new ones will be created? What financial aid will actually benefit societies as opposed to corporations? He suggests that instead of paying such forensic attention to analyses of death rates and rates of infection, journalists should move their focus to the financial hand-outs and implications. If they don't start to do that until 2021, it will be too late: the poor will be poorer and the rich richer. I think this is a valid point.

It's a shame that investigative journalism has not been helped by the move to 24/7 news coverage, online access to content and the decline of newspapers. Also that so many journalists are in the pay of the Murdoch empire. A decline in advertising in newspapers, and a disinclination to pay for in-depth reporting when you can get the basics for free, has cut funds to finance long-term investigations, as does the immediate demand for reactive click-bait (on both sides of the political divide) and corporate interests limiting journalistic freedom.

In the UK, we have the BBC - and I think the independent terrestrial TV news strives equally for objectivity. We also maintain a relatively independent press with voices across the spectrum. Yet, of course, people buy or read and trust the news that already conforms to their worldview. And journalists will be as prone to cognitive bias as the rest of us. However, we are very fortunate. A colleague in Australia says he does not feel his nation benefits from the same access to opposing views in the media. I'm not reading any of it at the moment, so am poorly placed to make any judgement. But what I will say is that when trust has broken down in any institution - government, the media, the intellectual elite - it is incredibly hard to regain it.

One other area that interested me was Harari's claim that our attitude to death has changed since the Mediaeval era, which is his area of study. It is true that parents, for example, regard their children differently. In the 1400s just over half their children would survive to adulthood. The valuation of the child only really came about when there was a good chance of children actually growing up. Before, well, it wasn't especially sensible to set much store in them. Not that parents wouldn't be deeply saddened, of course, to lose a child, but it was a normal fact of life that had to be borne. Average life expectancy was around 40 and if you got ill or suffered a severe accident there wasn't a great deal anyone could do about it. No wonder they prayed. That was all that was on offer.

So when the plagues came along, and the scientists of the day claimed it was due to an earthquake somewhere or an alignment of the planets, it really was just as rational to believe that it was God's punishment or the Jews poisoning the wells. It would come down to a matter or resignation or blame. We are so different now, says Harari.

Really? The Chinese virus? Those wicked live food markets? The failures of our governments to keep it out? Or to have pandemic disaster plans in place to roll out? There are just causes for responsibility to rest on some shoulders for some aspects of the virus, but the very inevitability of a pandemic - which is touted as a cause for blaming governments' lack of preparedness - should confer some kind of humility. We are, like every living thing, part of a world that was not made for us and that does not care about our interests. Shit happens. And we are fortunate if we can do anything at all about it. We do have to learn from our mistakes, but we also have to rally together for the solutions. We do have to resolve accountability, but a backward looking focus is less important than a forward looking improvement. That old saying 'the buck stops with them'? It's no damn good to stop at where the buck stops. If we want to be better prepared next time we have to quit the blame and the resignation and navigate a new course.

In a five year term, what government of any stripe is really likely to invest in existential threats, unless there is great popular demand to divert money from, what, road-building or some such, into disaster containment? Would we accept a tax rise for risk-readiness? Such decisions need to come from a supra-governmental agency. Though that, of course, would have to be transparent, accountable and in some way democratic.

And then there's the global nature of all this. Sure, it may be crazy to outsource supply lines that could be required in a pandemic if such-and-such a nation is out of action. So, do we need to manufacture everything within our own borders? How many people could afford to clothe themselves as they wish without all the cheap imports? Does that make cheap imports necessary or immoral, relying as they do on cheap labour abroad? But what about the boon to growing economies from trade? And could domestic industry compete and so on and so forth. All these questions are huge and wide-reaching - we take a black-or-white approach at our peril. And I have zero answers.

One point Harari made that I felt was incredibly interesting was his view on nationalism. He said that nationalism should mean caring about my neighbours, my fellow-countrywomen - not hating other nations. The World Wars saw the rise of violent nationalism. Now, he does not see nationalism as a problem. He said whereas a war between France and the UK, say, seems inconceivable, civil strife within a sovereign state looks far from impossible. The divides are within nations, rather than between nations. Those divides, fueled by charismatic populist leaders (see the Tobias Stone article - and this one that he links to - it's really long but, do yourself a favour, read the first couple of paragraphs, they will blow you away), the influence of foreign powers (via social media hacks) and any threats to security (economic, through terrorism or through a pandemic), run the risk of being further widened.

We need to find a way to bridge our divides. As Laurie Penny writes in Bitch Doctrine: Essays for Dissenting Adults, times of crisis are precisely when utopian thinking is most necessary.