but what happens when the building blocks of democratic societies start to crumble, when bonds of trust and shared history weaken, when information is no longer impartial, and hostility undermines common purpose? well, my guest, the israeli historian and public intellectual, yuval noah harari, is watching his own country grappling with these questions. it's happening in the us and europe, too. so where will it end? yuval noah harari, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. it is now more than a decade since you wrote sapiens.

it was a worldwide hit, and in essence, it was a very sort of positive explanation of how we humans have come to sort of dominate this planet. it was about our ability to cooperate, to tell shared stories, to give ourselves common purpose. ijust wonder whether in the last decade, you've lost some of that optimism. i think our shared stories and our ability to cooperate, both as a species, but also on the national level, is collapsing in more and more places. i see it now in my home country of israel, which is really on the verge maybe of a constitutional crisis or even a civil war. maybe what we need to understand specifically about democracies is that democracy, in essence, is a conversation. you know, dictatorship, there is one person dictates everything. democracy is trying to reach some agreement through conversation, and conversation is not

always possible. for most of history, large—scale conversation was just technically impossible. you had small—scale democracies, like in city states, like in ancient athens. but until, say, the 19th century, we have no example of a large—scale democracy, millions of people cooperating, conversing, making decisions together, because there was just no way for millions of people to hold a conversation over a large territory. then came new information technology, like newspapers, like telegraph, radio, television, and they made large—scale conversation and large—scale democracy possible. and now it's falling apart. we are not absolutely certain why. it's a strange situation. we have now the best, or most sophisticated information technology in history, and people are no longer able to talk with each other or to agree on the most basic facts. yeah, i mean, that does

appear to be a paradox. it's never been easier to tell stories and share stories. in the old days, it was a top—down process. only those who control the levers of information could share their stories. yeah. now we are all publishers, in a sense. yeah. pretty much all of us, certainly in the rich world, have smartphones, we can be publishers. but you're saying that maybe that diffusion of storytelling has become problematic? nobody really knows the answer. this would be the number—one question i would ask, you know, the experts on the new information technology, the managers of facebook and tiktok and twitter, please put everything else on the back burner and address this question. why is it that when we have such sophisticated information technology, the conversation breaks down? you know, like, we always had disagreements. if you look at ideological disagreements, there were much bigger issues in the us, for instance, in the 1960s, but people could still agree

who won the last elections. now it's becoming impossible to agree on even the most basic facts. so you think the level of toxicity has identifiably markedly risen in the last, let's say, couple of decades? maybe couple of years, even. mm—hm. and we see again that the information atmosphere is polluted by more and more toxic information. trust collapses, and when trust between people collapses, democracy becomes impossible. you can have dictatorship or you can have civil war, but democracyjust can't function in such a situation. i think part of it is, it's not the whole answer, but part of it is the rise of politicians and movements that deliberately undermine trust between people. i think it's motivated in a deep sense by a view

of reality that says, the populist view of reality, if you want, that says that the only reality is power, that there is no such thing, not just as truth, but also as justice or beauty. populists often tell us that all social interactions are power relations, people only want power. when somebody tells you that they are interested in the truth or injustice, this is just a ploy to get power. and they also tell because of this that every institution that claims to be interested in truth, like a university or a newspaper, or injustice, like the court, is just fooling us. it's really interested only in power. and this kind of cynical worldview, it destroys trust in institutions. but the problem is, yuval, that there is a very big debate about what truth actually is.

and in a sense, you've been part of that debate because over years, you've written about the importance of preserving institutions and traditions. you've talked about religions and the stories they tell. yeah. you've even at times talked about the utility of having monarchies and royal families. you call it a fairy tale, but you say it's a fairy tale that often acts as a glue... yes. ..is useful for a society, let's say, like the united kingdom. those aren't stories that are about truth. so you yourself are recognising that actually, truth isn't the only parameter to judge the value of stories by. absolutely! fiction has a critical role to play in human institutions, in human societies, but we can and need to be truthful about that as well. the laws of football, for instance, we can't play football unless we have laws. now, everybody knows these are fictional laws we invented, and because we acknowledge it,

we can change them. it's the same with the constitution of a country. if you think it comes from god or something, then this creates a problem because you have a fictional set of rules that somebody says, "this is not fiction, this is an absolute truth." the thing about, for instance, the difference between the ten commandments and the us constitution. the ten commandments claim to be an absolute truth, not a fictional creation of humans. this is why you can't change them. the tenth commandment, for instance, endorses slavery. people don't really think about it often, but the tenth commandment, "thou shalt not covet your neighbour's house orfield, orslaves." so according to the ten commandments, it's ok to have slaves, it's just wrong to covet somebody else�*s slaves. now, because it says this comes from god, you can't change it. but the us constitution acknowledges at the very beginning that it is we, the people, who created these laws,

and therefore it includes a mechanism to change the laws if you have a big enough consensus. so yes, we need fictions like the laws of football or laws of the economy, but we need to be honest that this is our creation, and therefore we can change them under certain circumstances. and this is what gives society this combination of strength and flexibility. now, no—one listening to you, even right now, could doubt your ability to capture ideas, to analyse, and to make that accessible to an audience, a worldwide audience. you have that gift. but something has changed for you in the recent past. you've stopped or ceased being just the sort of public intellectual, the analyst and thinker, you've become a participant and you've become a participant on the streets of your own country,

where you havejoined hundreds of thousands of other israelis protesting about what you claim to see as the rise of an authoritarian, even dictatorial, strand in israeli governance. what has it been like for you changing from analyst to participant? well, i didn't think it would reach that stage. i really prefer to stay just as an historian and not as a participant. but my house is on fire, so i have to attend to it. and, you know, partly... you say your house is on fire. many other israelis would say, "on the contrary, what is happening is that the house is being stabilised." yeah, so to understand the situation in israel, i would say there isjust one question that needs to be asked. what limits the power of the government? the whole idea of democracy is that you have checks and balances, so you don't have a bunch of people that can just do anything they want. now, in israel, we have a very brittle democracy.

there is a single check on the power of the governing coalition, and this is the supreme court. if you have a small majority in the israeli parliament out of 120 knesset members, if you have 61 knesset members who vote, for instance, to take away voting rights from arab citizens or to ban women from public spaces, the only entity that can intervene and says, "no, you can't do that, this is anti—democratic," is the supreme court. now the government tries to neutralise the supreme court. in your view, without getting into too much detail about netanyahu's judicial reforms, what he is doing is saying that forfar too long, the judiciary has become something of a closed shop, a self perpetuating elite. "what we are doing," he and his far—right ministers in the most far—right government israel's ever seen, they are changing the system,

so the knesset, the parliament, has ultimately much more control, more power over the supreme court. they're not doing away with the supreme court, they're just changing the wayjudges would be elected. it's very simple. if i would sit here with netanyahu, i would ask him, "please explain to me the mechanism that if 61 knesset members raise their hands and say arabs don't have voting rights, explain to me the mechanism that prevents this anti—democratic law from coming into effect." that's the question. were i netanyahu — clearly, i'm not — but if i were, i'd say, "yuval, get real, this is democracy. 61 represents a democratic mandate in the israeli system. 120 knesset members. if i can command 61, then the people's will must be followed." and i'm going to quote you people who are involved in this debate, justice minister yariv levin, for example. he says the supreme court

overturning the knesset�*s law, which is a possibility because they're considering it right now, that is, the judicial reform law, would be, quote, "a fatal blow to democracy and the rule of the people." that's his interpretation of exactly what is happening now. this is, i think, a complete misunderstanding of what democracy means. democracy means that if you win the mandate of the people, you can form the government, you can do so many things. you can declare war, you can make peace, you can raise taxes, lower taxes, so many things. but you cannot change the basic rules of the game, and you cannot take people's basic human rights. democracy is not majority dictatorship, it's a system that guarantees the freedom and equality of everybody... but sometimes... ..otherwise, you know, the first person who wins the elections now says, "ok, 61 mks, i'm now king for life." sometimes the rules of the game need to be changed. yes.

but this is an argument, actually, if you think about it deeply, as an argument pretty much for the status quo. you've become a bit of a sort of centrist who defends the entrenched status quo, arguably the elites who happen to have power today. as many would say in israel, it's the judges who have enjoyed power for a very long time. again, you need to change the system sometimes, but through a large consensus, not through a tiny, momentary majority. and the depiction ofjudges, again, as this kind of elite clique that takes care only of its own interests, this goes back to this populist perception that humans don't care aboutjustice, about truth, they only want power. this is a very cynical view. again, we sometimes need to change the system, but if you make a fundamental change in the democratic system, you need a larger consensus than just a tiny majority. we, earlier, talked about toxicity.

you said in recent years you have seen a much greater toxicity in the debate, in the way stories are exchanged and the fact that we cannot find consensus and common purpose. aren't you part of the problem? i'm just looking at things you've written about the israeli situation in the recent past. please. in haaretz, just a couple of months ago, you talked about, "a shocking situation in israel where the country "is becoming anti—semitic..." yes. "..in the deepest sense of that word," you said. you also accused netanyahu and his ministers of demonising left—wingers, of becoming, quote, "a messianic dictatorship". mm—hm. well, if we're talking about inflammatory language, i can't imagine much more inflammatory language to use in israel, thejewish state, than the language you use. well, i would say that the netanyahu government has forgotten whatjews have learned for 2,000 years and are betraying the deepest value ofjudaism.

on an immediate scale, they are trying to change the system in israel. i think on the bigger perspective, they're inventing a newjudaism. for 2,000 years, jews were the champions of minority rights. jews were very often, you know, just 1% of the population. and their message was, "even though we have just 1% of the population, it is ok to be different from the majority, to think differently, to behave differently". now, the netanyahu government is trampling over minority rights and adopting an ideology — and this is very forceful language but i stand behind it — they are adopting an ideology of jewish supremacy. i just wonder whether your language is a little dangerous and whether it reflects, if i may say so, a certain lack of empathy on your part. i'm just trying to think of the other side of the argument in israel. many of those on the other side of the argument are ultra—0rthodoxjewish israelis —

haredim, as they're called, inside the country. you're a gay israeli. maybe you lack empathy for that minority — albeit growing minority — in israel. i don't want... you talk about anti—semitism in israel itself... yes! ..that�*s clearly going to massively upset a huge number ofjewish people. i'm not telling them to change the way that they live, but i am addressing the kind of ideas that they want to impose on the country, and they say so openly. the netanyahu government basically abandons the two—state solution for the israeli—palestinian conflict and maybe the most important policy that they are, again, openly... but these kinds of prophecies you're making — which do amount, in the end, to your prediction — and you're famous for your futurology and your predictions — you seem to be predicting that there could be a conflict, some sort of civil war betweenjews in israel. there's an argument to say that

when you start positing that kind of scenario, you're making it more likely. i think that part of myjob — again, as an historian, as a public intellectual — is to speak as clearly as i can from a long—term perspective about what i'm seeing, and what i'm seeing — again, it's notjust a danger, internal danger tojewish society in israel, it's a danger of israel becoming a racist state, adopting racist ideology of jewish supremacy. becoming, or is it already there? again, until now, of course, there was a lot of racism in israel but there was also a pushback against it and the official position — at least of most governments — opposed it. now, you know, you have in the coalition government thejewish power party. the head of thejewish power party, who was convicted in an israeli court of incitement to racism, is our minister of national security.

0ur finance minister has gone on record calling to completely destroy a palestinian town, to wipe it off the map after there was an attack on israelis there. yes, i should say we've had associates of the leaders you're referring to on this programme and they have defended the language they have used. yes! so, let's just ask one last question about israel. you still live there. yes. you have written this recently — "i've never seriously considered leaving israel. i doubt whether i could go on working, though, in a place lacking any meaningful protection for minority rights and freedom of expression". does that mean you are actively considering leaving? because this is an issue for many israelis, right? yes, absolutely. again, if i feel that there is no longer sufficient protection in the country for minority rights and for freedom of speech, i will have to move elsewhere because i will not be able to continue operating from such a place. before we end, i want to move

from that very personal situation you find yourself in to something much bigger and wider, but also something that matters a great deal to you — that is, our digital world and, in particular, the ever—hastening sort of arrival of artificial intelligence. you have suggested that you find this fundamentally dangerous. we talked about the importance of storytelling earlier on, and you seem to be saying that al threatens the authenticity of the stories that we humans tell ourselves. yeah, i mean, a! — there are a lot of dangers with al. people are often drawn to these kinds of hollywoodian scenarios, of robots running in the street, shooting people or somebody creating... yeah, autonomous machines that have gone rogue — that's the idea. yes, and there is a danger there but i think there are also many dangers of a! not trying to destroy us but taking control of the world and hacking our civilisation. and our civilisation is built,

ultimately, on storytelling. but isn't even what you've just said a fundamental misunderstanding of where we are today with al because you're, again, assuming a level of autonomy that isn't there yet. yes, we have generative a! that can write text, it can even create music, create visual images. but fundamentally, it still depends on the algorithms — ultimately, the responsibility of human beings. no, that's the big difference between a! and every previous technology in history. ai is — by definition, what makes ai artificial intelligence, it can learn new things by itself. yes, it's initially created by us... within limits. ..within limits... your critics say you're in danger of anthropomorphising ai... i don't... ..giving it a level of autonomy that it doesn't have. again, i'm not saying it has consciousness, that it has desires, that it has feelings — absolutely not. but a! — the most important thing to know about it,

it's the first technology in history that can make decisions by itself and can create new ideas by itself. atom bombs couldn't decide who to bomb. autonomous weapons can. printing presses couldn't write books — they could just copy our ideas. a! can create new books, new ideas, new music, new everything. and it's already beginning right now. so, already, when you apply to a bank to get a loan, increasingly, it's an ai making the decision about you. in a few years, they could take over much of the financial system. in a funny sort of way, i'm with you — less interested in talking about the dangers of autonomous military vehicles and all that sort of thing, i'm more interested in talking about what it does for human beings�* — sapiens�* — mental health. exactly! because you seem to be very concerned that we humans, as a! is developed and evolves and becomes ever more sophisticated, we humans are going to be overwhelmed

with a sense of redundancy. that's one of the dangers. but in an even more fundamental way, you know, we live cocooned by culture. from the moment we are born, we are shaped by fairy tales and music and art and mythology and political ideologies and so forth. until now, they were always created by human minds. now, there is an alien intelligence, a non—human intelligence, which will increasingly create more and more of the stories, the music, the images, even the mythologies and ideologies. what would it mean to grow up, to be a human in a world inside an alien culture which increasingly shapes me and everybody else around me? this is not the kind of clear—cut, destructive scene — we don't know. it's basically like — just as an analogy, yes? just imagine that somebody tells us

that there is an invasion fleet coming from another planet with highly intelligent beings. they'll be here, let's say, in five years. they will take over. they can cure cancer, they can solve climate change, they can create new kinds of music. maybe they'll be good for us, who knows? we will still be very concerned about losing control. well, this invasion fleet is, indeed, on the way but not from another planet, but from california and china, in the laboratories. they're already here and they are taking control of more and more parts of the financial system, the cultural system of the world. we are out of time, so we do have to stop there, but yuval noah harari, thank you so much for being on hardtalk. thank you.

hello there. it's definitely been a gear change with the weather story in recent days, an autumnal flavour to our weather. we'll certainly see threatening looking skies for the remainder of the week, and some of the rain at times really quite heavy. so here's the next batch, pushing in off the atlantic — just look how many isobars there are on the chart. the winds a feature, and some of that rain really quite heavy. so, to start with, on tuesday, the wettest of the weather moving out of northern ireland across southern scotland, northern england, and wales, and we'll see this frontal system moving its way south and north throughout the day. now, it never really gets all the way across central and southern england, so here, some brighter skies into the afternoon, still pretty windy.

gusts of winds ao—asmph in places, maybe close to 60mph in exposed west—facing coast, and the heaviest of the rain across northwest england, the scottish borders, and northern ireland. the far north of scotland, bright, as well — not quite as windy here, but it will be noticeably fresher. top temperatures here around 13—15 celsius. we mightjust see 20 celsius further south if we get a little bit of afternoon brightness. now, as we move out of tuesday into wednesday, there's another area of low pressure, and this one has the remnants, a little bit of energy from ex—hurricane lee in there. so this one, again, will mean business — a lot of heavy rain, sweeping its way steadily eastwards. don't forget the brighter greens, denoting the intensity of that rain, and the winds, again, a feature 50—60mph not out of the question, particularly close to the centre of the low, and far west of scotland. top temperatures again, 14—21 celsius the high. so, as we move out of wednesday, there's more to come —

and it's all because the jet stream at the moment has sunk that little bit further south, it's intensified and centred across the uk. now we all know by now, it's the jet stream, this ribbon of fast—moving air high up in the atmosphere that drives in areas of low pressure. and if it's centred across the uk, then it'll continue to push further areas of low in our direction. just look what's waiting in the wings as we head through the weekend. so, be prepared for some showers or longer spells of rain, the winds remaining a feature. a brief window of finer weather potentially on saturday. take care.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm arunoday mukharji. lets get you the headlines. five americans — held for years in iran — are heading home after a prisoner exchange with tehran. police receive a report of sexual assault following a media investigation into russell brand. meanwhile the comedian�*s live shows are cancelled. canada investigates allegations that indian government agents were involved in the murder of a canadian sikh activist.

chinese foreign minister wang yi visits russia for talks on security. the visit comes days after his meeting with us officials. live from our studio in singapore — this is bbc news. it's newsday. five american citizens who were jailed for years in one of iran's most notorious prisons, are finally on their way home to the united states after they were freed as part of a complex financial arrangement. the four men and one woman, who also hold iranian passports, were flown out of tehran to doha, in qatar. their release was contingent on the transfer of $6 billion in iranian funds, money that iran earned from selling oil to south korea. 0ur chief international

correspondent lyse doucet reports.