Is there a nexus?

The book has just come out and I saw an excerpt posted here that intrigued me quite a bit. Feeling helpless I asked Gemini, an immaterial dude, for advice. [my text is in italics]

You're an educated person.

The following is an excerpt from the latest book by Yuval Noah Harari, Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI:

"just when humanity confronts the existential challenges of ecological collapse, global war, and out-of-control technology. Instead of trusting complex human institutions, populists give us the same advice as the Phaethon myth and "The Sorcerer's Apprentice": "Trust God or the great sorcerer to intervene and make everything right again." If we take this advice, we'll likely find ourselves in the short term under the thumb of the worst kind of power-hungry humans, and in the long term under the thumb of new AI overlords. Or we might find ourselves nowhere at all, as Earth becomes inhospitable for human life."

Please give an exegetic interpretation of this excerpt, connecting the populist ethos - if such a connection is plausible - to both the myth and cautionary tale, in the sense of ascertaining what is supposed to be heeded in humanity's presupposed current predicament, namely a factual comparison between the leverage available to the mentioned complex human institutions and the populists in leading the world to whatever implied fate, and it's accountability over the outcome.

Harari's excerpt paints a stark picture of humanity's current predicament, where pressing existential threats like ecological collapse, global war, and out-of-control technology loom large. This, he argues, is the perfect breeding ground for populism, a political ideology that often thrives on promises of simple solutions and a return to perceived "golden ages."

The connection to both the Phaethon myth and "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" serves as a potent warning against this populist appeal.

Phaethon's Myth: In Greek mythology, Phaethon, the son of the sun god Helios, demands to drive his father's chariot for a day. Despite warnings from Helios and his own lack of experience, Phaethon arrogantly takes the reins, leading to chaos and near-destruction of the world. This myth exemplifies the dangers of unchecked ambition, particularly when fueled by ignorance and a desire for immediate gratification, a hallmark of populism.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice: This tale, popularized by Goethe and later Disney, warns against the dangers of wielding power without understanding its full implications. The apprentice, eager to mimic his master, uses magic to make a broom work for him but fails to stop it, leading to chaos. The story serves as a metaphor for the potential pitfalls of technology, particularly when wielded by those who lack the wisdom and responsibility to control it.

Populist Ethos: Populism, in Harari's analysis, presents itself as a solution to complex global issues, promising quick fixes and a return to idealized pasts. This simplistic approach mirrors the Phaethon myth's disregard for warnings and the "Sorcerer's Apprentice's" lack of understanding about the consequences of manipulating powerful forces.

Leverage and Accountability: Harari implicitly contrasts the leverage and accountability of "complex human institutions" with that of populists. While institutions may operate slowly and be susceptible to flaws, they are, in theory, accountable to the public and possess the expertise to navigate complex challenges. Populists, on the other hand, often bypass established institutions, relying on charismatic leadership and emotional appeals, lacking the necessary knowledge and transparency to effectively address systemic issues.

Implied Fate: Harari suggests that this reliance on populist solutions, rather than complex institutions, could lead to disastrous outcomes. In the short term, we may be subjected to "the worst kind of power-hungry humans," implying an authoritarian regime fueled by populist rhetoric. In the long term, we might be at the mercy of AI overlords, a consequence of unchecked technological advancement spurred by simplistic, populist solutions. Ultimately, both scenarios point to a future where human agency and control are diminished, possibly leading to Earth becoming "inhospitable for human life."

Heeding the Warning: Harari's message is clear: we must be wary of populist appeals, particularly when confronted with complex global challenges. While populist promises may be alluring, they ultimately offer dangerous illusions of control. The true solution lies in engaging with complex human institutions, fostering informed discourse, and embracing the difficult work of tackling these challenges with caution, wisdom, and a commitment to long-term solutions.

Thanks. So, you seem to equate the complex human institutions with either Helios or the master and the populists with the eager son or the reckless apprentice. But were not the former that brought humanity to the verge of such existential challenges, irrespectively of what the latter might advocate for? Isn't also fair to postulate Harari's position as one of simply maintaining the status quo, keeping on course, and dismissively disregarding any dissent as populist, which is pejorative to start with? Isn't such a stance a preemptively excluding one, and a bit authoritarian too?

You're right to point out the complexities and potential pitfalls of interpreting Harari's argument. It's easy to fall into a simplistic dichotomy where "complex human institutions" are seen as inherently good and "populists" as inherently bad. Harari himself is likely not suggesting such a simplistic view, and your critique highlights the limitations of equating institutions with "Helios" and "the master," and populists with "Phaethon" and "the apprentice."

You're correct in suggesting that Harari's critique might be seen as a veiled defense of the status quo. He acknowledges the failings of "complex human institutions" in leading us to our current predicaments but ultimately suggests they are the better option, even if they have contributed to the problem. This can indeed be read as a dismissal of any radical critique or alternative solutions offered by those labeled as "populists."

Furthermore, labeling a political approach as "populist" can be pejorative, carrying the weight of being unrefined, dangerous, and possibly even fascist. This is a legitimate concern, as the term is often used to delegitimize political dissent, particularly when it comes from those outside the established power structures. Harari's use of the term could be seen as a way of preemptively excluding these voices, rather than engaging with their concerns and ideas.

Therefore, while Harari's warnings about populism might seem valid on the surface, his reliance on the "Helios/master" versus "Phaethon/apprentice" metaphor can lead to a misleading simplification. He risks overlooking the very real potential for "complex human institutions" to be the source of the existential threats, and also dismisses the possibility of "populist" solutions that might offer genuine alternatives to the current course.

Ultimately, Harari's argument should be approached with critical awareness. While his concerns about unchecked populism are valid, it's crucial to avoid simplistic binaries and acknowledge the potential for both "complex human institutions" and "populists" to contribute to both solutions and problems in our current predicament. A truly nuanced discussion requires engaging with a wider range of political perspectives and acknowledging the complexities of the challenges we face.