YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Richard David Precht - Wie werden wir in Zukunft leben?

Richard David Precht - Wie werden wir in Zukunft leben? — Transcript

by Zwischen den Zeilen · 12,495 words · 2,015 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Our liberal democracy, as it exists
0:02today, was invented after the Second
0:04World War for us. Now we are 80 years
0:06later. We are increasingly entering the
0:07second machine age. The entire
0:09foundations upon which this liberal
0:11democracy as we know it is based are
0:13currently vanishing rapidly.
0:16So one would have to sit down and think
0:18about how to create a liberal democracy
0:20that is, in the 21st century, efficient
0:22enough.
0:24And what is the problem with the
0:26centrist parties perceiving any
0:27fundamental doubt about the capacity of
0:29the current liberal democracy to act as
0:31inadmissible criticism of the system and
0:34assigning it to the fringes?
0:36This means we are currently experiencing
0:38the inability of the liberal democracy
0:40to reform itself from the center.
0:43He is one of our country's most
0:45well-known intellectuals, and our
0:47Minister of Health, Karl Lauterbach—
0:49well, not directly, but he says he is
0:51one of the truly great philosophers who
0:53will still be talked about in 200 or 300
0:55years, essentially forever.
0:57>> I am talking about Richard David Precht
0:59, whom we know as a debater and a clever
1:01mind, as an author and podcaster, and I
1:03don't need to ask much, Richard, where
1:05am I reaching you,
1:08>> because he is sitting right in front of
1:09me, and I am honestly very pleased about
1:11that. Yes, I am pleased as well.
1:12>> We calculated it back, we have known
1:14each other for almost, I would say, over
1:1625 years now,
1:17>> yes,
1:18>> and we have met very often, and I
1:20brought something with me from my
1:21bookshelf. I am sitting on it right now
1:23so you wouldn't see it beforehand.
1:25>> Because there I have—where is the camera
1:26here? A book that was published around
1:282007, 2006.
1:30Lenin came only to Lüdenscheid.
1:32>> To Lüdenscheid. Yes.
1:35And there is a childhood photo of you on
1:36it.
1:37>> Yes, that's true.
1:39>> And it looks a bit defiant to me.
1:42>> Yes, that's after an afternoon nap.
1:45>> Skeptical.
1:45>> Yes,
1:46>> that's how the little one looks, and
1:48it's a very sweet little boy.
1:49>> Yes, I was—I always liked taking
1:51afternoon naps. I still do it whenever
1:54possible, even today on trains and
1:56airplanes and so on. And afterwards, I
1:59need about half an hour until I am
2:00approachable again.
2:02And my mother took this photo in that
2:03situation.
2:04>> Does that mean you recognize yourself
2:05here in the photo?
2:06>> Yes, I think the expression on my face
2:08is often the same even today,
2:10>> but it is a very sweet one, and that is
2:12not what you are known for today;
2:13instead, you are known as a skeptical
2:15mind.
2:15>> Yes, well, you don't choose that.
2:17>> Actually, you can. I've been listening
2:21to a lot of your podcasts lately, and I
2:24find it incredibly exciting to talk to
2:26you about what are essentially the core
2:28questions of our science, which is
2:30really: how do we want to live?
2:33>> And the second question: how will we
2:35live? Mm.
2:37>> These are such fundamental questions.
2:39>> It could be that the gap between those
2:41two answers is widening significantly.
2:43>> Yes, that is potentially the problem.
2:45And I’ve been wondering, how can a
2:47philosopher—philosophy is always seen as
2:49a bit lofty—how can a philosopher who,
2:51among other things, has spent years
2:53writing a complete history of philosophy
2:56that isn't finished yet...It’s a
2:58multi-volume work. I have three volumes
3:00at home.
3:00>> Yes, four have already been published,
3:02there will be five, and the whole
3:03project will end up being about 3,000
3:05pages.
3:05>> Yeah, 3,000 pages, I won't manage that,
3:07but that’s okay.
3:09But how can a philosopher who deals with
3:10that also concern themselves with the
3:11trivialities of our everyday lives?
3:13That is the genuine task of philosophy.
3:17Philosophy in our Western culture wasn't
3:20created for us to retreat into ivory
3:22towers or deal with problems that
3:24interest no one; it originated quite
3:26practically in ancient Greece when
3:28democracy stopped working.
3:31Yes, Athenian democracy was in crisis,
3:33and that is the time when Socrates,
3:36Plato, Aristotle, and so on emerged,
3:38trying to ask themselves the question:
3:41how can we give this an update? What is
3:43a good life? What is a proper life? How
3:45should it be structured, Richard, right
3:47?
3:47>> Yes. Yes, it’s not about me comparing
3:50myself to those people, but about that
3:52being the genuine task of philosophy.
3:55I mean, the Enlightenment thinkers
3:56didn't see it any differently. They saw
3:57it no differently in the 18th century.
3:58Immanuel Kant didn't see it any
4:00differently.
4:01So, all the great philosophers have
4:03taken on this task.
4:04>> That is correct. And the only problem is
4:06that our world is changing at such a
4:08rapid pace that you can barely keep up
4:10...
4:11>> to analyze it and say: where do we
4:13actually stand at this moment?
4:15And what I found fascinating—I just have
4:17to quote from what I've partially heard
4:20and read in reports about you—is you say
4:22that we are at the beginning of a whole
4:24new era, and not in the way Scholz once
4:26said it: a new era because a war has
4:28broken out in Europe.
4:29>> Right? Not a "Zeitenwende."
4:31>> Right? Quite the opposite; we are at a
4:34turning point in human history,
4:35>> yes, the end of the bourgeois age.
4:38>> And I find that quite intense, so
4:39perhaps we should simply ask ourselves:
4:41what does "bourgeois age" actually mean
4:43? Exactly.
4:45You have to realize that what we
4:47consider a normal life—going to an
4:49office and getting paid for work—as well
4:52as how we think, how we believe a
4:54society should function, the essence of
4:56liberal democracies, the rule of law,
4:58the whole way society operates; it was
5:00all conceived in a time when none of
5:02this existed, during the era of the
5:04nobility in the 18th century.
5:07Century, right? It was an agrarian
5:09system with kings and princes, and there
5:11was no middle class.
5:13>> Then came the French Revolution in 1789
5:15, though a much more important
5:17revolution than the French one was the
5:18improvement of the steam engine by James
5:20Watt.
5:21That marked the beginning of industrial
5:23production; the middle class started
5:25with industrial production, eventually
5:27had more money in their pockets than the
5:29nobility, and demanded their political
5:31rights. And so began a new blueprint for
5:34society, or one could say in a double
5:36sense, a new operating system for
5:39society—the bourgeois wage labor and
5:42later the meritocracy—which is
5:44completely tied to the first machine age
5:47. Without the industrial revolution, the
5:49middle class could not have prevailed.
5:51If we had continued to live in agrarian
5:53states with unequally distributed land,
5:54we would still be living in
5:56aristocracies.
5:56>> The upper class determining everything
5:58and owning everything.
5:59Yes, and the rest had no say, while the
6:02middle class insisted that there must be
6:04competition, including a competition of
6:07ideas, and that the people needed in
6:09society—doctors, lawyers, teachers, and
6:12so on—had to be gradually included in
6:15political power.
6:16And so the right to vote was expanded in
6:19many small steps, until in the very end
6:21they came to the idea that women should
6:23vote too—a long process, yes, a process
6:26that lasted well over 100 years.
6:29And then they said, okay, it's good if
6:30as many people as possible have a say.
6:32Now we are entering the second machine
6:34age.
6:35In the first machine age, the skills of
6:37the human hand were replaced by machines
6:39, and in the second machine age, the
6:41skills of the human brain are being
6:43replaced by machines.
6:45>> That brings us to AI.
6:46>> And that raises the question: do we
6:48actually need a bourgeois society with
6:51all that it entails, or are we
6:54experiencing a refeudalization in the
6:56data economy?
6:59And that raises the question: does this
7:01really have mainly to do with AI, or is
7:03it just the fact that we are currently
7:04experiencing, taking the Federal
7:06Republic of Germany as an example, that
7:08the gap between rich and poor is
7:09widening? That means on the one hand, we
7:11don't have destitution yet, because the
7:13state subsidizes quite heavily. Sure,
7:14but we have a leading class that
7:17basically owns the majority—I don't have
7:19the exact number in my head—of this
7:21nation's wealth.
7:23>> That is the case globally. And we see it
7:24, of course, when we look beyond Germany
7:26.
7:27We look to the United States, we can
7:29just as well look at Russia, and there
7:31we see a new power: the power of money.
7:33>> Mhm.
7:34>> That determines politics.
7:35>> Yes, well. I would say that has always
7:37been the case throughout the 200 years
7:38of the bourgeoisie.
7:40Yes, it was never the case that the
7:43voice of a worker had the same power as
7:45that of the CEO of Krupp or the owner of
7:48large companies and retail chains and so
7:51on.
7:52So this inequality has always existed.
7:54But what is actually happening is that
7:56the elites have become more and more
7:58detached from the people and have become
8:00incredibly wealthy. And it makes
8:02absolutely no difference whether it's in
8:04autocracies or liberal democracies. This
8:06process is independent of the form of
8:08government. It's like that in Singapore
8:11, yes, which is not a liberal democracy
8:13. It's like that in England. It's like
8:15that in the USA, it's also like that in
8:16Germany.
8:17And it's like that in Russia. That means
8:19the form of government plays absolutely
8:20no role; rather, the elites are
8:22distancing themselves more and more from
8:23the population. The gap is widening
8:25further and further and we are turning
8:27back into a quasi-feudal state.
8:28Yes, but if you look at the United
8:30States of America, it is the case that
8:32these elites are also quite consciously
8:34trying to dismantle democratic
8:35structures.
8:37Yes, and I believe that will come to us
8:39as well, for the simple reason: the
8:41democratic structures were necessary for
8:43the first machine age, that is, for the
8:45bourgeois age, and in the second, people
8:47will increasingly ask themselves—if
8:49everyone has a say, yes, see most
8:51liberal democracies—is the state still
8:53capable of action?
8:54We don't just have this problem in
8:56Germany; we have it in France, we have
8:57it in England, we have it pretty much
8:58everywhere, in Italy, that we no longer
9:00have states that are capable of taking
9:01action.
9:03And if the economy declines because the
9:05Asians are becoming more powerful and
9:07Europeans are becoming economically and
9:09politically less significant, then
9:11people will ask themselves: Do people
9:14want this, will they go along with it,
9:16will they defend liberal democracy even
9:18as economic strength wanes, or will they
9:20trade freedom for efficiency?
9:23That means
9:24>> and say, only a high-growth autocracy is
9:27effective.
9:29So, the economic elites—that would be
9:31the thought—rule themselves, and
9:32universal suffrage is gradually
9:34dismantled, or rather, the ability to
9:35participate is curtailed.
9:37>> The fact that human beings are
9:38inherently lazy has been proven quite
9:40conclusively, I believe.
9:41>> Digitalization proves that quite
9:43impressively.
9:44So, you would go as far as to say that
9:47many people would prefer a comfortable
9:49life in an autocratic state over a
9:52not-so-comfortable life in a liberal
9:54democracy?
9:56>> I am firmly convinced of that,
9:57unfortunately, and of course, many
9:59people wouldn't want to live in China.
10:02Yes, perhaps because they don't like the
10:04Chinese mentality or a certain kind of
10:05collectivism. But what about Singapore?
10:09Singapore is not a real democracy, but
10:12it's incredibly successful economically
10:14, the streets are clean, there's almost
10:16no crime—it's a "feel-good dictatorship
10:19," and if I have the choice between a
10:21slowly deteriorating democracy and a
10:23feel-good dictatorship, 99%will choose
10:25the dictatorship.
10:27I am very sure of that.
10:28>> Yes. And Singapore is, of course, also a
10:31rich place.
10:32>> Mhm.
10:32>> Where many people participate in that
10:34wealth.
10:35>> Mhm.
10:35>> We see that in Arab countries, too, of
10:37course. Like Kuwait?
10:39>> Exactly. Yes, at the moment, Dubai is
10:41incredibly interesting for a lot of
10:43people to live in.
10:44Yes, well, for me, Dubai is about as
10:46interesting as Mars.
10:48I really don't want to go there. I mean
10:50, all...
10:52>> Yeah, I mean, it doesn't get more
10:54soulless than Dubai. Yes, a world of
10:56beaches and malls. Yes. And slave labor
10:58.
10:58>> And lately, by the way, culture and art
10:59as well.
11:00>> Yes. Yes. Yes. But what they've bought
11:03there...I'm not really a fan of "high
11:04culture" anyway.
11:06Yes. Because once something has frozen
11:08into high culture, it can no longer be
11:10awakened to true cultural life.
11:12>> When was the last time you were at the
11:13opera?
11:14>> Oh, I still go to the opera every now
11:15and then. I go about three or four times
11:17a year.
11:17>> And the theater?
11:18>> I haven't been to the theater in a long
11:20time. When I think about the fact that I
11:22wanted to be an actor a long time ago.
11:23It's frightening how little interest I
11:26have in theater now.
11:27>> A pity, really. Yes, I am also quite
11:29sure that there is very, very good
11:30theater. I know the last time I was at
11:32the theater here in Cologne at the Baut
11:34Theater, I watched the play about the
11:35monkey Petermann.
11:36>> Okay.
11:37>> And what I didn't know was that it was
11:39virtually the exact day my friend Gunter
11:42Nogge, the Cologne zoo director, died.
11:45>> Yes.
11:45>> He plays a big role in that, because the
11:47monkey Petermann attacked him back then
11:49. That is a Cologne story.
11:52This monkey Petermann was truly a
11:53well-known personality here in the city
11:55, you could say.
11:56They did all sorts of things to him that
11:59aren't exactly monkey-appropriate. They
12:01put him on display, dressed him up as a
12:03pumpkin and this and that. They simply
12:06abused him permanently.
12:07>> Exactly.
12:08>> And at some point, Petermann had had
12:10enough, so he tried to simply kill his
12:13master, the zoo director, which luckily
12:15,
12:16>> whether he wanted to kill him or whether
12:17he wanted to subjugate him. Well,
12:18chimpanzees are seven to eight times
12:20stronger than humans.
12:21>> Yes.
12:22And it was important to show that he was
12:24the boss now, whether he really wanted
12:26to kill him or not. Gunter Nogge was
12:28never entirely convinced of that,
12:29because if he had, he assumed he
12:31wouldn't be alive anymore. I think it
12:33was enough for him that he offered no
12:35resistance, because a human cannot offer
12:37any serious resistance to a chimpanzee
12:39in a direct fight.
12:40>> back to the killing or he just wanted to
12:42give him a real beating.
12:43>> Make it clear who is the master here,
12:45which didn't end well for Petermann and
12:46of course not for Nog, because he was
12:48seriously injured. Yes, he was seriously
12:50injured, was in a coma, and Petermann
12:52was shot.
12:53>> Yes, that is regrettable.
12:55>> That is a very tragic story. But the
12:57legend lives on.
12:58Yes, and it is said that the moment the
13:00fatal bullet hit him, Petermann raised
13:02his left fist to the sky as a symbol for
13:05all wrongfully imprisoned creatures and
13:07people on this earth.
13:09>> Could that have come from your father,
13:11because he died back then, well he
13:12hadn't died yet, but your father often
13:14raised his left fist.
13:15>> No, he didn't do it that often, because
13:17his gestures were not that demonstrative
13:18.
13:19I mean, my father was very left-wing,
13:21but he didn't agitate.
13:22>> It is astonishing and I don't want to
13:24deviate from social development. That is
13:26the common thread for me today, because
13:27I find it incredibly interesting and
13:29exciting and, of course, frightening. I
13:31have to say quite honestly, frightening
13:32. Um, your father really shaped you from
13:34your parental home. Yes, a convinced,
13:36I’d like to say, utopian socialist. Is
13:39that right?
13:40>> Oh, well, utopian is too much. He was
13:42convinced by Marx’s economic analysis.
13:45That shaped him a great deal. He was
13:46essentially a theoretical Marxist, but
13:48he wasn’t a prophet or a true believer.
13:51That’s what distinguished him from many
13:53communists.
13:54And my father didn’t have many illusions
13:56that communism would work anyway,
13:58because it didn't align with his view of
14:01human nature.
14:02But it’s actually the other way around.
14:04If everyone had been like my father,
14:06socialism would have worked. My father
14:09had almost no material needs and was
14:12essentially free of all the negative
14:15traits that usually poison human
14:17coexistence.
14:18>> You recently mentioned, either on Lanz
14:20or with Paul Ronzheimer, that earthly
14:22goods are completely uninteresting to
14:23you—no fancy cars, not even an expensive
14:25bike or anything like that, just like
14:27your father. Yes.
14:28>> So I wonder, you’ve written over 30
14:30books, most of them were bestsellers.
14:33You do the podcast, you make appearances
14:35—what do you actually do with all that
14:37money?
14:37>> Yes, well, it’s true that because of how
14:39I was raised, status plays no role for
14:41me. Status is embarrassing. I mean,
14:43someone who needs a big car so that
14:45people look at them—or a flashy watch—
14:46is just exhibiting embarrassing behavior
14:48.
14:49Besides, it’s a fact that people
14:51recognize me quite often.
14:53And to be recognized, I don’t need any
14:55status symbols or to draw attention to
14:57myself; actually, I’m rather glad when I
14:59walk through downtown Cologne or
15:00Düsseldorf if people don’t recognize me
15:02.
15:03So, in that sense, I’m not particularly
15:06susceptible to status.
15:07>> Yes, my question isn’t even...
15:08>> Yes, for example, I have a very nice—
15:10well, it’s not that earthly goods are
15:11fundamentally worthless to me.
15:13I spend a lot of money on travel, go on
15:16many big, long trips, am in Africa very
15:19often, and I also have a very nice, old
15:21natural history library.
15:24>> I heard that in a podcast, too.
15:26>> A big aquarium, that was back then, so
15:27to speak—from my first big advance,
15:29which was really substantial, the one
15:31for "Who Am I?" So, instead of a Porsche
15:33, I got myself a large aquarium.
15:36>> Ah, "Who Am I?""And If So, How Many?"
15:37That was, so to speak, the breakthrough
15:39.
15:39>> Exactly. 2008.
15:41How long ago was that? That’s already
15:43almost 20 years ago. 20 years. Yes,
15:45actually. 20. Exactly. But that is a
15:47long time. Although my question about
15:50your childhood with your father, who I
15:52believe was a great man, judging by how
15:53you've spoken or written about him
15:55lately. What role did your mother play
15:57in the family with five children? Did
15:58she work outside the home as well?
16:00>> Yes, my mother played the lead role.
16:02>> Oh,
16:02>> my father played a supporting role,
16:03because my father didn't perform the
16:05fatherly role in a demonstrative way.
16:07My father never told us what we should
16:09or shouldn't do.
16:11Um, and he didn't really encourage us to
16:13get some kind of great career or earn
16:16money or anything like that, but when he
16:18came home from his job as an industrial
16:20designer, duties waited for him with
16:22five, or usually more like four, kids to
16:25tutor in math and things like that.
16:28And he belonged to the modern generation
16:30of fathers, despite being born in '33,
16:32who did the dishes at home and also
16:34cooked.
16:36Uh, my mother was not employed, but she
16:38did a lot of volunteer work for the
16:40children's charity Terre des Hommes; my
16:42parents were among the very, very first
16:45members of Terre des Hommes.
16:47So, she didn't see the family as a
16:49project for self-actualization. Five
16:52children, that's true, but let's just
16:54say maternal affection was very limited
16:56.
16:56>> I seem to recall, weren't there two who
16:58were adopted?
16:58>> Two adopted ones. Exactly. My brother
17:01Marcel was adopted from Vietnam in 1969
17:03, he was among the very first children.
17:06So my father went to Paris back then and
17:08picked them up. The children who were
17:11even adopted into Germany at all. It was
17:13still a bit illegal back then. Was
17:15>> were those the boat people?
17:16>> No, that was much later.
17:17>> Oh, that was later. Okay.
17:18>> Yes, we are talking about, well, my
17:20siblings were born in '69 and '72.
17:23That was still during the Vietnam War.
17:25The Vietnam War ended in 1975 and the
17:27boat people were in the late 70s.
17:30Those who fled from the Vietnamese
17:32regime.
17:33>> Yes, it's the case that families, even
17:35with adopted children, maintain a close
17:38bond throughout their lives. Is that the
17:40case for you? Do you have close contact
17:41with all of them?
17:42>> At the moment, of course, a lot.
17:44It's about my father's funeral now, and
17:47in such times of crisis, it shows how
17:49well our family works.
17:51But otherwise, we are widely scattered.
17:52My sister lives as a teacher in Denmark
17:54, my brother lives as an architect in
17:56Switzerland. My two Vietnamese siblings
17:58also don't live in the same place, and
18:00as a result, we see each other quite
18:02rarely, but the contact is there.
18:04>> Why did you stay here in the Rhineland?
18:06You're actually from Westphalia.
18:08>> Yes, I always wanted to leave and it
18:10never worked out.
18:12Yes, it was, well, I would have really
18:15liked to have gone to Berlin in the
18:17early 90s. I wrote a novel, The
18:19Cosmonauts. It takes place during that
18:21immediate time, the post-reunification
18:23period, because I found it so
18:24fascinating. East Berlin was basically
18:27one giant adventure playground. You
18:29could break open apartment doors, move
18:31your mattress in,
18:33>> and if you could prove to the housing
18:36authority that you were willing to fix
18:38up the place, you’d even get a cheap
18:41rental contract for 70 marks or so.
18:44So, it was such an exciting, eventful
18:46time. I would have liked to go there,
18:48but right at that time I got my
18:50assistant position at the University of
18:52Cologne, and one could be incredibly
18:54grateful for such a position in that
18:56tough competition, so I couldn't leave.
18:58It’s also a matter of financial security
19:00. I mean, you have this position, you
19:02can—
19:02>> I wanted to become a tenured university
19:04professor back then, and you can’t do
19:06that without having been an assistant
19:07first. In that respect, I was so happy
19:09about that research assistant position
19:12that I didn't go for that reason.
19:14Otherwise, I would have gone to Berlin
19:15back then.
19:15>> And why didn’t it work out with the
19:17professorship?
19:18>> Oh, there are a whole range of reasons.
19:20Well, I was a bit naive about the world
19:22when I finished. I studied in a very,
19:24very short time—faster isn't possible—
19:26and my grades couldn't have been better
19:28either.
19:29And of course, I—well, I have to say
19:31this, because now comes the big failure
19:33.
19:34Yes, well, uh, it was short,
19:36>> yes, but very poignant; I mean, when you
19:38don't understand the world anymore, when
19:40you've done everything as well as
19:42possible.
19:43>> Mhm.
19:45And then you're finished, and then, uh,
19:47my research assistant position was in a
19:49research project that expired, and in
19:51the subject I earned my doctorate in, I
19:53then applied for research
19:57associate or assistant positions. So, I
20:00did that maybe 12 or 14 times without
20:02any response, and that's just
20:04inexplicable. I mean, if you are
20:06unbeatable on paper, why aren't you
20:07invited for an interview? Mm.
20:09>> You aren't invited because those
20:10positions are given to their own people
20:12, even though they're formally
20:13advertised.
20:14>> There is no real competition at the
20:16universities.
20:17>> I wasn't prepared for that at all, and I
20:19didn't have a plan B. I couldn't do
20:21anything, not even drive a taxi.
20:23>> I can't drive a car. So I—I knew—but I
20:25mean, for someone who just thinks to
20:27themselves,
20:28>> there's relatively little out there.
20:30And then there was a job advertisement
20:32in Die Zeit, a whole page, the
20:34Bertelsmann Foundation, they have money
20:36.
20:37There was an owl on it.
20:38And it said, if you can talk to them
20:41about Plato, the Tiger states, and
20:43inflation rates in equal measure, and if
20:46you completed your studies in record
20:48time with top grades, then you are our
20:51man.
20:51>> Did you apply?
20:52>> Then I thought, yes exactly, I could
20:53have written that myself. Wonderful. I
20:55applied there euphorically. I had
20:58already written entire double-page
21:00spreads for Die Zeit at that time. Uh,
21:03about cultural topics, economic topics,
21:05media topics, and so on. I copied that,
21:07put everything in there. Sent everything
21:09off in a clear plastic folder.
21:11Yes, and then a few weeks later I got a
21:13formal rejection, not suitable, and so
21:15on.
21:17But on the plastic folder—and I still
21:19have it today—the ballpoint pen had
21:21pressed through from the assessment that
21:24hadn't been sent to me, and it said "
21:26too highbrow," underlined three times.
21:29That means the Bertelsmann Foundation
21:31makes a totally highbrow ad, only to
21:34then not hire the highbrow person they
21:36want to attract with it.
21:38That's an interesting question, but the
21:40even more interesting question is, would
21:41you consider yourself highbrow?
21:43>> No, of course not. Yes, but that's the
21:45obvious conclusion now.
21:47>> Yes, but I mean highbrow meant, in the
21:49way they intended it, uh, not a solid
21:51lawyer, not a solid businessman, that’s
21:54what it meant.
21:56But they had made an ad where they
21:58thought, let's fish for people who
22:00studied sociology or philosophy, but
22:02then they didn't actually want them.
22:05>> But that is a very deep injury,
22:08>> when I experience over a long period
22:10that I don't get through at all with
22:12what I have to offer, and that is quite
22:14a lot. Right,
22:15>> I have to pack that away somewhere every
22:17time, and you are now, well, you're
22:19actually quite spoiled by success, yes,
22:21you have to say, with all your
22:22bestsellers, with the attention you
22:24truly receive for good reason.
22:27How did you deal with that back then?
22:29>> Well, at the moment the injury happened
22:31, it was of course terrible, because I
22:32had the feeling I was born with talents
22:34or skills for which there is no use
22:36whatsoever.
22:38And I had no contacts through my parents
22:40'home, no friends, no acquaintances, or
22:42anything like that. I didn't know at all
22:44where I should dock.
22:45And that was indeed a very difficult
22:47situation. Success, let me think, well,
22:51the major failure began in 1995, I was
22:5530 then, and, um, the success came in
22:582008.
23:00That's quite a bit of time in between.
23:02That period wasn't just failure, though
23:04. I built something for myself during
23:06that time, but the lean years, they were
23:08really tough for ten years.
23:11Lean years in the truest sense of the
23:12word. Yes.
23:14You could say that; if you had that
23:15little bit of unemployment money left
23:17over from the research assistant
23:19position, you could pay the rent, and
23:21once you’d paid for the phone and so on
23:22, you had under 300 marks a month to
23:24live on.
23:26>> But, uh, I do see a parallel there; I'm
23:28even older than you are.
23:30When I had finished my exams and thought
23:32, now things are really going to take
23:34off—and I had always worked at a
23:35newspaper as a side job because I had to
23:37earn something—I thought, now I'll apply
23:39everywhere.
23:40WDR, ZDF, Henri Nannen School, all the
23:42things you do as an aspiring journalist
23:44, which is how I saw myself, and I only
23:46got rejections. I didn't have any
23:48connections, no contacts at all, nothing
23:51, and so I more or less had to keep on
23:53with the daily newspaper, despite the
23:56disappointment. It wasn't fun at all
23:58back then because you weren't treated
23:59well and were paid dramatically poorly.
24:00So there mus
24:01>> Where were you? At which daily newspaper
24:03?
24:03>> Bonner Rundschau.
24:04>> And, uh, I just didn't have a clue what
24:06was going to happen in my life now. And
24:08that took a while, I have to be
24:09completely honest.
24:10And then I felt so—and then there was a
24:13kind of insult, I'll call it, and I was
24:15so angry that I actually drove to the
24:17WDR in Cologne, fuming with rage, and
24:19went right in, knowing the receptionist
24:21was sitting there.
24:23>> And I said I want to work for WDR right
24:25now.
24:26>> And the receptionist looked at me like I
24:27was crazy and said, "That's nice, do you
24:29have an appointment?"
24:30>> I said, not exactly.
24:32>> I want to speak to Manfred Erdenberger,
24:34he was the editor-in-chief at the time.
24:35I knew the name from the radio.
24:37>> Mhm. And I was put through and.
24:41>> Audacity pays off.
24:42>> Yes, really, and then I said.
24:44>> Do you know what's going to happen now?
24:46People are listening to this podcast,
24:47and thousands will storm the WDR and try
24:49the same trick.
24:50>> They know now that there's a
24:51receptionist there, always just walk
24:53past him and such, and then I—and that's
24:54how it all started. But that feeling, um
24:56, that things aren't moving forward at
24:58all and I have no perspective. I can
25:01truly understand that very well.
25:03>> It is all the better, of course, when
25:05you have the feeling that now I am being
25:07seen and heard.
25:08>> Yes,
25:09>> and above all, it's interesting, I mean
25:12, when Markus Lanz and I do social
25:13topics on our podcast, we regularly get
25:16comments on YouTube: Two millionaires
25:18talking about the problems of the
25:19welfare state.
25:23And people can't imagine that this
25:24perspective, what it's like to, um,
25:26essentially have nothing and have to
25:28count on the fact that maybe nothing
25:30will ever come, yes, how deep that is in
25:32my bones and how well I can put myself
25:34in that position.
25:35>> I actually find that to be a very, very
25:37important prerequisite, if I'm being
25:39honest. Sometimes when I look at certain
25:41young people who come from very wealthy
25:43families, where everything is
25:45immediately taken care of and everything
25:47is provided, and they already have their
25:49first new car at 19 or so, um, and
25:51stroll around in very fancy elite
25:53schools,
25:54>> extremely unhealthy, then I think to
25:55myself
25:55>> irresponsible parents to do something
25:57like that.
25:57>> It's difficult to see how that's
25:59supposed to continue. Of course, they
26:01will see themselves as the new feudal
26:03elite. I mean, that's also, you can see
26:05it visually,
26:07>> so these blazer-with-gold-buttons
26:08wearers or sweater-over-the-shoulder
26:10wearers, yes, who wear their parents'
26:12clothes and have the same glasses frames
26:14and already look just like them and
26:15strut around as, as yes, the new
26:17nobility, there isn't much healthy
26:19coming from them.
26:21>> We saw that on SL, uh, before
26:23>> Yes, exactly. Pony, we saw there are
26:25certain clusters of them. Yes.
26:27>> Yes, dramatic, actually. But the term
26:30feudal just came up again, and I'll
26:32stick with this common thread.
26:35We are now in a society, uh, where we
26:37have to say, hmm, a few years ago this
26:39society was still very much together.
26:41In my eyes, there was a consensus on
26:43what we expect from the state and how we
26:45feel in this country. That actually
26:47always worked quite well,
26:49>> and then came Corona,
26:51>> and for me that is always a pivotal
26:53point where a lot of people thought, no
26:55, we can't rely on this state.
26:58It dictates things to us, it mandates
27:00things that we as individuals consider
27:02unhealthy, that we don't want to do, and
27:04then we have to let ourselves be
27:06insulted or even publicly denounced.
27:09Was that a point for you where this
27:12basic consensus of a liberal German
27:15society got its first real crack?
27:18Oh, that's a difficult question. I would
27:19have to go into a bit more detail. I
27:21would say that this basic consensus was
27:23at its peak during the Merkel era, the
27:25strongest we’ve ever had. It wasn’t as
27:27if we had always had it.
27:30We often forget that. The history of the
27:32Federal Republic was actually the
27:34history of a dissent between left and
27:36right,
27:37>> and sometimes one side was in power,
27:38sometimes the other, and frankly, that
27:39did the country quite a bit of good. We
27:41still have that today in Great Britain,
27:43>> yes, where there are still major shifts
27:45, though one has to be honest, the
27:46Labour Party isn't what it used to be
27:47either. So
27:48>> and the right is gaining ground there
27:49too. The right is gaining ground there
27:50too. But what was interesting for us was
27:52, I mean, the CDU defined itself as a
27:54right-wing party in the Adenauer era.
27:56Yes. And the restoration period we had
27:58in the 50s and 60s, including the
28:00economic miracle, but also total
28:02cultural restriction. Yes, that was the
28:04first phase, and then the social
28:06democratic left, a truly left-wing phase
28:08, came up against it, yes, with the
28:09founding of all those universities,
28:11workers 'children should be able to
28:13study, daring more democracy,
28:14liberalization of society, legalization
28:16of homosexuality, which was still
28:18forbidden under Adenauer, and so on.
28:20That means the left-wing headwind came,
28:23and then came Helmut Kohl's "
28:24intellectual-moral turn."
28:27This means we actually always had a
28:28dissent between right and left, and
28:29sometimes one side was in power, and
28:30sometimes the other. It was ultimately
28:32like a seesaw,
28:33>> that was not a bad thing,
28:35>> and this way, everyone eventually got
28:38their turn,
28:40>> and all in all, it didn't do the country
28:41any harm.
28:43What changed then is the clumping in the
28:46center, meaning that during the Merkel
28:48era, suddenly all parties no longer
28:50wanted to be left or right.
28:52First, the SPD didn't want to be left
28:54anymore. That already began with Helmut
28:55Schmidt. Yes. And Gerhard Schröder, for
28:58him, "left" was also a dirty word. Then
29:00the Greens no longer wanted to be left,
29:02yes, under Joschka Fischer, yes, but
29:03rather wanted to be a centrist party.
29:05The CDU under Merkel no longer wanted to
29:07be a right-wing party.
29:09Suddenly, the FDP anyway, we have four
29:12centrist parties, and at the height of
29:14the Merkel phase, we had 90%of voters
29:16choosing a so-called centrist party.
29:19Mm.
29:20>> And that's when everything changed, the
29:22media changed too. Suddenly we had no
29:24truly left-wing media anymore. WDR
29:26hasn't been a left-wing medium for a
29:28long time. Yes, the TAZ eventually
29:30stopped being a left-wing medium too.
29:32>> Some would doubt that about the TAZ as
29:33well.
29:33>> Yes, I know, because they consider
29:35things to be "left" that I consider "
29:37right," but not left in the sense of, uh
29:39, questioning fundamental issues of
29:40capitalism.
29:41You could also see that during the
29:43corona pandemic.
29:44Yes, whether I read the FAZ or the Taz,
29:46there was no difference between them
29:48anymore.
29:49That means it had been prepared by a
29:51homogenization of society. We have a
29:53broad consensus, we all hold hands, we
29:55are all in agreement, and those who have
29:57a different opinion on fundamental
29:59issues belong to an imaginary fringe.
30:02Whether it's the left fringe or the
30:03right fringe; one can claim that, for
30:05example, the CDU's policy was very
30:07similar to the Green party's policy.
30:09Yes, I would absolutely say so; between
30:12Merkel’s stance on cultural and social
30:14issues and so on and the Greens, I see
30:16no serious difference. That was evident
30:18, too. I mean, whenever the Greens were
30:20in government, they were super-pragmatic
30:23on these issues, and lately, the Greens
30:25have completely sacrificed the ecology
30:27topic. I mean, in the last election
30:29campaign, uh, there was, uh, nothing
30:31about climate on the Greens' election
30:33posters. Not a single statement on
30:35climate. It just said "together" on them
30:37. Yes, okay.
30:38>> Yes, together. So, that is—I don't know
30:41—they wanted to avoid any clear
30:43political positioning and any ecological
30:46topic to get re-elected. I no longer see
30:49the Greens as a party seriously
30:51interested in ecology.
30:54>> Uh, I don't want to know what you want,
30:55but do you even know what you want
30:56anymore?
30:56>> That is, of course, extremely difficult
30:58. It’s perfectly clear.
31:00I—I have no—I used to be a Green voter,
31:02which is why my criticism of the Greens
31:03is so harsh.
31:06Well, I mean—my father belonged to the
31:08generation that once put their faith in
31:10the SPD and then at some point, "uh, who
31:12betrayed us, Social Democrats," turned
31:13away from the SPD.
31:16And I belong to the generation for whom
31:18the Greens in the 80s embodied
31:20everything I thought politically,
31:22everything I stand for, and who now see
31:24in the Greens the party of those people
31:26they were once founded against.
31:29>> Mhm.
31:30Sure. But Joschka Fischer also says he
31:32is in a new era and we must simply drop
31:34many of the certainties we once believed
31:36in, and see, that is......
31:38>> another word for opportunism. Well, I
31:40wouldn't say that.
31:41I would rather say that in the context
31:44of changed international politics, this
31:46is a new actual positioning, not of a
31:48single man, but of an interpretation of
31:50reality that is completely different
31:52from what it was 30 years ago, for
31:54example, as you just mentioned.
31:57>> Well, just under 30 years ago, there was
31:59still the Cold War, and the time when
32:01the Greens first started with their
32:02pacifist slogans was that of the Cold
32:04War and the systemic competition between
32:06capitalism and communism.
32:08None of that exists anymore today. The
32:09situation is therefore much less
32:11ideologically heated than it was back
32:13then. And in the situation back then,
32:15the Greens were pacifists, and today
32:17they are the party that is most strongly
32:19in favor of rearmament and no longer
32:21relies on diplomacy or anything similar
32:23at all.
32:24So, exactly the opposite of what they
32:26always stood for.
32:28>> I would still say, however, that the
32:30situation is completely different with
32:32an aggressor like Russia, not only
32:33against Ukraine but regarding the entire
32:35concept of great power politics. But
32:37when you just said,
32:39>> I see in Russia a relatively small
32:40amount of great power politics compared
32:42to the size of the country, especially
32:44in comparison to the USA.
32:47So, China's great power politics are
32:49quite small, and Russia's is
32:51significantly less, as the Americans
32:53have well over 100 military bases all
32:55over the world.
32:56The Russians, I believe, have fewer than
32:57ten left.
32:58In the last few decades, the Russians
33:00have not gained influence in the world
33:03bit by bit, but lost it. They lost their
33:05entire buffer zone, all the Eastern Bloc
33:07states, to NATO. So, if you look at it
33:10objectively, but what does great power
33:12politics even mean? They even somewhat
33:14agreed to it and only said relatively
33:15late that they had had enough. They let
33:18this development happen for a very, very
33:20long time. So I don't see this grand
33:22imperialism there. Yes, I would say
33:24Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine.
33:25>> Yes, that is a good example. They left
33:27Georgia again. They didn't annex it, and
33:30the goal in Ukraine was certainly not to
33:31occupy the country.
33:33So, we shouldn't keep spreading such
33:35fairy tales here.
33:36>> What was the goal of the invasion of
33:37Ukraine then?
33:38Well, we remember that Zelensky, at the
33:41Munich Security Conference, just a few
33:43weeks before the start of the Russian
33:45war of aggression, threatened the
33:47nuclear rearmament of Ukraine.
33:50And since we can assume that Zelensky
33:53doesn't write his own speeches and
33:55doesn't do such things without
33:56coordinating with the USA, it was clear
33:59that the stationing of American nuclear
34:01missiles on the border with Russia was
34:03going to take place.
34:06And under these circumstances, Russia
34:08would no longer have been capable of
34:09defending itself in any way. This is not
34:11the only motive for the war.
34:13Putin is convinced that it is a betrayal
34:15—as an intelligence officer—that Ukraine
34:17, or rather the Ukrainian government
34:18under Zelensky, has aligned itself so
34:20closely with the US.
34:22He also views that as a betrayal. He can
34:24also point to the fact that the eastern
34:25territories of Ukraine are historically
34:27Russian. There is a very widespread use
34:30of the Russian language, and many people
34:32of Russian descent.
34:34It is a mix of several motives, and he
34:36essentially said: you aren't going to
34:38interfere in our core territories, you
34:40won't align with our enemy, and so on—
34:42and then he began this war, which I
34:44completely condemn as a violation of
34:45international law.
34:48What I want is a total condemnation of
34:51the war, a total condemnation of Russian
34:53aggression, but a realistic explanation
34:55for why this war exists, rather than
34:58telling fairy tales and myths that it is
35:00solely—at the beginning we even said
35:03Putin is insane—due to Russian delusions
35:05of grandeur; that oversimplifies the
35:07problem.
35:09He is happy about Trump day after day, I
35:12mean Putin.
35:13>> In what way?
35:14>> Well, because of Trump's fickleness. You
35:17can't rely on Trump. They had reached an
35:19agreement in Alaska, but he sees that he
35:20cannot rely on Trump. Uh, not rely on
35:23him.
35:24Besides, as long as Ukraine and the
35:26Europeans have their own say in the
35:28matter—which is right and proper—
35:31agreements with Trump are of no use to
35:33him.
35:35>> Yes, at the moment it is deadlocked, and
35:37very many people, even now in the
35:38Federal Republic, are saying this can't
35:40go on, that so much money is being spent
35:42on weapons. What will it look like in
35:44two years? Yes, well, we are going to
35:45ruin ourselves with rearmament. We don't
35:47even need to think long about that,
35:48because arming is the most unproductive
35:50thing you can do economically. We are
35:52manufacturing things that create no
35:53further added value, right? If I take
35:55the same money—we don't just manufacture
35:57them, we buy them from the United States
35:58, too.
35:59>> Yes, we are spending an insane amount of
36:01money on it and pumping up the US
36:02defense industry. But the really big
36:04problem is that in a situation where we
36:06have to completely reinvent ourselves
36:08economically—the automotive industry is
36:10declining, and so on—we have missed the
36:12digital transition, and the education
36:13system is on its last legs. In such a
36:15situation, we are spending hundreds of
36:17billions on armaments. It is suicide out
36:18of fear of death. So, it is a giant
36:21catastrophe. And precisely because
36:23that's the case, one should be playing
36:25the role that Merkel played back then
36:27with Hollande, when the Germans and the
36:28French tried to avoid escalation in 2014
36:30with the Minsk agreements and such,
36:32which they at least succeeded in doing
36:34for a few years.
36:36Where is the diplomatic initiative?
36:38>> Yes, especially since the first
36:40German-French cooperation projects have
36:42already fallen through,
36:43>> the armaments projects
36:45>> among others. Yes, and also
36:46>> yes, well, the German-French
36:47relationship isn't particularly good.
36:49And it won't get any better if Marine Le
36:51Pen possibly becomes the next French
36:52president.
36:54Europeans no longer have the ability to
36:56speak with one voice; instead, they are
36:58actually falling apart because they all
37:00have gigantic problems.
37:02The other countries—France, England (
37:04England isn't even in the EU anymore,
37:06but is still in the boat militarily, so
37:08to speak)—have insane social problems,
37:10the kind that ours might be facing in 10
37:12years. So, we are in a desolate
37:15situation, and precisely for that reason
37:17, the most important thing we could do
37:19would be a diplomatic mission. And that
37:22starts with one sentence.
37:24It starts with the sentence that we
37:26accept that not only does Ukraine, very
37:29understandably as an invaded country,
37:31need security guarantees and have
37:33security interests, that not only do we
37:35have security interests, but that Russia
37:37also has security interests that we
37:39haven't considered at all so far.
37:42The moment we state that, we have
37:44negotiations.
37:46>> Who is supposed to say that? I remember
37:48the meeting between Baerbock and Lavrov
37:49.
37:50Yes, there, for instance—if you look at
37:53it—Baerbock went after Lavrov and threw
37:55her fundamental opinions at him once
37:57again. I mean, how can such a person be
37:59Foreign Minister? I mean, you can't get
38:01any more anti-diplomacy than that.
38:04No, it begins with trying to plan a
38:06conference where everyone can calmly
38:08present their position, their military
38:11position, and their intentions, in order
38:13to then—on a very long, arduous path of
38:16negotiation between two partners who
38:18don't trust each other, including
38:20Ukraine, of course, and the USA is
38:22involved anyway—slowly and gradually
38:25attempt to negotiate such a compromise,
38:27rather than by lecturing the other on
38:30what they shouldn't do.
38:33I'm with you on that. But the question
38:34is, you just said that the diplomatic
38:36skill of Baerbock—speaking of German
38:38policy—is, well...
38:40>> Yes, it was already like that under her
38:42predecessor, but the diplomatic skill of
38:44the US government isn't exactly what one
38:46would imagine it to be either.
38:49>> No, there is absolutely nothing reliable
38:51in that for anyone. So, there is nothing
38:52reliable in there for Ukraine. There is
38:54nothing reliable in there for Europeans
38:56. And by the way, there is also nothing
38:57reliable in there for the Russians.
38:59All the sanctions that were once passed
39:01by the American side against Russia are
39:04, after all, still active.
39:06Yes, well, Putin and Trump aren't
39:08actually that close.
39:10>> What I’ve noticed, uh, especially lately
39:13, is that you provide a very clear
39:15analysis of why certain things no longer
39:18work and why this process of change in
39:20society has long been underway and isn't
39:23leading to anything good.
39:25But I always miss the approach: how can
39:28we deal with this better?
39:30We have growing unemployment, we have a
39:32decay.
39:33You just said that a few years ago, 90%
39:35of voters, uh, voted for the democratic
39:38center, however you want to define it.
39:41By now, what percentage do we have? Um,
39:43maybe
39:43>> we have a ratio of 60 to 40, 60.
39:46>> 60, and in case of doubt, that will
39:47sharpen even further.
39:48>> Yes, I think so too.
39:50>> Do you believe in Chancellor Alice
39:51Weidel?
39:52>> What does "believe in" mean? I think it
39:53is quite conceivable.
39:55I suspect the most likely solution is
39:57that in two years there will be another
39:59three-party coalition of the CDU, SPD,
40:01and Greens, that it won't last long, and
40:03then, in the course of the legislative
40:05period, Alice Weidel will become
40:07Chancellor.
40:08I think that, for the moment, as far as
40:11one can foresee—this isn't prophecy—is
40:13the most likely solution.
40:15>> Yes, it is, of course, also a question
40:17regarding the massive problems we have
40:18encountered over time with
40:20digitalization, AI, etc., the whole
40:21range of problems we have—by the way,
40:23immigration must also be mentioned here
40:25.
40:26Uh, um, whether democracy, with all the
40:28necessary compromise proposals and all
40:30the duration of its processes, isn't
40:32actually a much too complicated system
40:34for many people.
40:37>> Yes, well, I think so, and that is
40:39naturally a core issue now; um, our
40:41liberal democracy, as it is today, was
40:43invented for us after the Second World
40:45War,
40:46>> based on, uh, models in the
40:48Anglo-American world.
40:50The French have a similar system as well
40:52. So, we did a few things differently.
40:53After the experience of the Weimar
40:55Republic, we significantly changed the
40:56role of the Federal President and so on
40:57. But basically, it is a classic Western
41:00democracy that we established there. Now
41:02we are 80 years later, we are living,
41:04and increasingly entering, the second
41:06machine age.
41:08Yes, the very foundations upon which
41:10this liberal democracy, as we know it,
41:12is based are currently vanishing rapidly
41:15.
41:16So we should sit down and think, if you
41:18are for liberal democracy, which I am,
41:21think about how to create a liberal
41:23democracy that in the 21st century is
41:25efficient enough and actually capable of
41:28political action, which we are almost no
41:30longer. So that is the question that
41:32should be asked first. And the problem
41:34is that the parties in the center, this
41:37clumped center, perceive any fundamental
41:40doubt about the current viability of
41:43liberal democracy as inadmissible system
41:46criticism and assign it to some fringes
41:49.
41:50This means we are currently witnessing
41:53the inability of the liberal democracy
41:55to reform itself through the center, as
41:57well as continued appeasement, all
42:00settled in the center.
42:02Where is the ability to reform supposed
42:04to come from? It has to come from the
42:05center so that we don't get reforms from
42:07the edge; then we must make these
42:09reforms from the center.
42:10So, but what we understand by reforms,
42:12let's think about pension reform.
42:14Yes, I mean, that is plastic surgery on
42:17a cancer patient. Yes, we already have
42:20the problem that the working people can
42:23no longer finance the non-working people
42:26, and with over 120 billion, we are
42:28subsidizing the pension system. So every
42:31fifth euro we spend is a subsidy, not
42:34the financing of the pension system. The
42:36whole system is completely broken. So
42:38you would have to stand there and say,
42:40okay, this has served us well for a few
42:42decades, but it can no longer do so in
42:44the future. The AI age will destroy
42:46millions and millions of jobs. Then it
42:49will be even less possible for the
42:51working to finance the non-working.
42:53>> I know your thesis, which you say, I
42:55also took that from the podcast and
42:57found it very, very interesting. You say
42:59, yes, but if we still generate so much
43:01with AI and deduct it via increased
43:03taxes, then we can naturally support
43:06certain people who have lost their jobs
43:08, as you like to say, that term. Yes,
43:10fundamentally it has to be, well, if AI
43:12were to lead to an increase in value
43:14creation—there are a few who dispute
43:16that is the case, but let's assume it
43:18does—it is only a question of
43:20distribution.
43:21>> Exactly.
43:22>> How that which the machines earn, what
43:24the robots earn, what the software
43:27programs and so on earn, must simply be
43:29distributed properly, then we will also
43:31have a functioning pension system in the
43:34future.
43:36Yes, I'll move away from the retirees
43:38now, and instead look at those who don't
43:39have to work as much because work is
43:41being taken over by AI, for example, or
43:43perhaps, utopically speaking, don't have
43:44to work at all. What do people actually
43:46do when they no longer have anything to
43:48do?
43:48>> Well, there's no simple answer to that.
43:51Esoteric leftists would say that's when
43:53humans become creative.
43:55Silicon Valley says that too, right?
43:57If AI takes your work away, you'll
43:59finally have time to creatively focus on
44:00everything that's fun.
44:02>> Yes. Yes, exactly. Doing things like
44:04that, right? Or painting amazing
44:06pictures, or using AI generators to
44:09compose, uh, 100 records, and so on.
44:13So, that is the answer.
44:15But if we look at the example, we had
44:17the riots in France, we talked about the
44:19banlieues, of course, and we also talked
44:21about how the opportunists in these
44:23protests, many of whom have a migrant
44:25background from the outskirts, uh, they
44:27also have nothing to do.
44:29They are already in that state.
44:32Yes, and if you don't have enough money
44:34and don't have enough recognition, you
44:36don't become creative; you become
44:37destructive, aggressive, or, uh,
44:39depressed.
44:41That means we're entering a society
44:43where a significant portion won't have
44:45good plans for their day, and we aren't
44:47prepared for that in any way at all.
44:50Well, we already had to observe this
44:52overwhelm, that peaceful protests here
44:54in Germany in many, many large cities
44:56and other towns—not just large cities—
44:58have been hijacked, so to speak, where
45:00other very, very violent people have
45:02positioned themselves at the front and
45:04>> even though in percentage terms they
45:06were very, very few,
45:06>> yes, but the urge to destroy is powerful
45:10.
45:10>> Yes, but that has always existed, right
45:11? I mean
45:12>> yes, but that doesn't make it any better
45:13.
45:13>> So typical, typical for our generation.
45:15Yes. What was the epitome of senseless
45:18violence? The Chaos Days in Hanover.
45:22Back then, there were the Chaos Days in
45:24Hanover; the punks did them, cars were
45:26set on fire, Molotov cocktails were
45:27thrown, and so on. They took place every
45:29year, was it on May 1st? Or I don't even
45:31remember which day it was, it took place
45:33like that for 10, 15 years. It was a
45:35trend that wasn't about political
45:37demands. People always say this is
45:39something brand new.
45:40Yes, they caused a ruckus in Paris, but
45:42they didn't have any political demands
45:44at all. That is not new at all. Yes, so
45:47that it's become so uninhibited
45:51or with the punks, that was, so to speak
45:53, a fundamental rejection of state
45:54authority. That was the only motive that
45:56existed against it. And just causing a
45:58real ruckus, that has actually always
46:00existed. Let's move to the present day.
46:01What is the motive of those people? I
46:03still really have an image in my head, I
46:05saw it on Insta, where I was truly
46:07appalled that a, by the way, very
46:10well-dressed young man
46:12>> uh, who clearly had a migrant background
46:15, was laughing and beaming into the
46:18camera saying, "Cologne is finally
46:21burning,"
46:22>> and saw that as a personal victory.
46:24>> Yes, attention.
46:25>> Exactly, of course. Yes, they are both
46:27>> recognition in his, naturally,
46:30>> meant differently.
46:32Everyone's 15 minutes or 5 seconds or
46:35something like that. A star for 5
46:37seconds. Yes. And if everyone gets upset
46:39about him, then he is happy and his
46:41friends pat him on the back.
46:42>> Yes.
46:43>> Yes,
46:43>> that has always existed and that is a
46:47key motive for rioting and bandwagon
46:50jumping.
46:51>> Yes, but what do we do now?
46:53We are currently experiencing, including
46:55in the comments, there is a discussion
46:56again about migrant background, migrant
46:58milieu, to be precise. Yes,
46:59>> but the point is, I'm telling you, take
47:02the punks as an example, none of whom
47:04were migrants.
47:05>> This doesn't lie in the DNA of migrants
47:08, but it's about social class.
47:10>> So the Japanese in Düsseldorf were not
47:13involved in that. So yes, they also come
47:15from a different cultural background. Um
47:18, some of them are also in their own
47:20communities and don't even have that
47:22much contact with other communities and
47:25so on. They are integrated in their own
47:26way; they aren't integrated because they
47:28mingle, but because they pose no threat
47:30of violence and respect our liberal
47:32democratic order—not because they
47:33brought good restaurants to Düsseldorf.
47:35>> Yes, absolutely. A really, really great
47:37restaurant scene. Yes, the best Asian
47:39restaurant scene in Europe, better than
47:42London.
47:43So of course it's great, but the point
47:45is only the migrants who are at the
47:47bottom of society and who are not
47:49integrated are a problem. What we
47:51overestimate in this regard, from my
47:53point of view, is religion.
47:55That is a big mistake we make, that we
47:57always think, yes, it's because they
47:59come from Islamic or Islamistically
48:00influenced countries. Actually, it's
48:02quite the opposite.
48:04Someone who is a devout believer, they
48:07don't cause a riot and don't rejoice
48:09that Cologne is burning.
48:13Yes, they'd get a proper thrashing at
48:15home if they did that; instead, it's the
48:17aimless ones.
48:19These are the ones who have essentially
48:22fallen out of their own Islamic social
48:24structures and are trying to gain
48:26recognition and wealth in the realm of
48:28crime and similar activities.
48:31It is precisely not the devout, it is
48:33the non-believing Muslims.
48:36>> But now, images come to mind that go in
48:38a completely different direction when I
48:40look at some demonstrations. There was
48:42one recently on the past weekends where
48:45a lot of German flags were carried and
48:47where very short-haired German men kept
48:50saying there is no rioting here, but
48:53showed with a powerful demonstration
48:55that we are the ones who want to have
48:58the power here. Simply put,
49:00right-wingers. Yes, and they are just as
49:01concerned with recognition.
49:02>> Exactly.
49:03>> Right? The motive, the motive is
49:05identical.
49:06>> It is not about specific groups, but
49:07rather about what you just said, a
49:09certain motivation to do this.
49:11>> And when you look at demonstrations,
49:13also against the CSD for example or
49:16others, then that is a latent threat of
49:18violence. Mhm.
49:20>> Which often then actually turns into
49:21acts of violence.
49:23>> Mhm.
49:23And above all, an increasingly weaker
49:25state that can defend itself less and
49:27less against it. That is also an
49:28interesting question. Do you think our
49:30judiciary is lagging a bit behind events
49:32? It is not a question of impression,
49:35but anyone who works in this judiciary
49:37would of course immediately agree that
49:39this is the case.
49:41That.
49:41>> A completely overloaded judiciary. It
49:43all costs a huge amount of money to
49:45process that properly. We are proud to
49:47be a good constitutional state, but it
49:49is a) insanely expensive and b) very,
49:51very, very slow.
49:53But that is also something you stand
49:54before somewhat helplessly, and of
49:56course you also understand that on the
49:57other hand, you don't want such
49:59proceedings to be brutally shortened
50:00because that increases the risk of
50:01committing injustice.
50:03Then people would say those are the
50:04methods of autocracies again. Yes,
50:06fast-track justice that judges very
50:08quickly and so on. It is a very
50:09difficult problem.
50:11So the best thing would be if we didn't
50:13have such a large number of people who
50:15do not feel they belong and who have a
50:16high potential for violence, regardless
50:18of whether they came to us from Morocco
50:20or from Saxony-Anhalt.
50:22Yes, but uh, when I keep hearing the
50:24keyword "remigration" from the right, in
50:27an extraordinarily aggressive manner, I
50:29ask myself: How am I supposed to
50:31actually create an identification for
50:34people who are on the fringes, who
50:36aren't necessarily so fond of this
50:38society that they would want to defend
50:40it?
50:41How am I supposed to bring them into
50:43this community of a state?
50:45>> Yes, well, the fundamental idea is
50:47actually always to demand and support,
50:49right? That's what it's about, so that
50:51one uh—I am a patron of Mentor and the
50:54reading literacy helpers.
50:57It's about helping children who are
50:59already lagging far behind in elementary
51:01school with their reading skills—often
51:04from a migrant background, but not
51:06necessarily—to support them so that they
51:09actually have the chance to participate
51:11in society and not just have negative
51:13experiences in the education system.
51:17And, of course, that could be done on a
51:19much, much larger scale than just
51:20through volunteer associations.
51:23I mean, as early as kindergarten, every
51:24child in Germany needs to—the fact that
51:25we haven't managed that to this day.
51:27This demand has existed for decades, and
51:29it remains the case that there are
51:30numerous kindergartens where hardly any
51:32child speaks German and there isn't
51:34enough staff to teach the children
51:35German and so on.
51:37So, we've been asleep at the wheel there
51:38; we're so poor at it, we often spend
51:40money in the wrong places.
51:42So, we must give children the chance to
51:44become a valuable member of our society
51:46at the earliest possible moment.
51:49>> You think about many things analytically
51:51and actually draw conclusions from them
51:53. Absolutely. Imagine you weren't a
51:56philosopher, but a politician. Would you
51:58be an unhappy person then?
51:59>> Yes, I would. Because I wouldn't be able
52:01to implement any of my ideas under the
52:02current circumstances. That's just how
52:04it is. And because people who have a lot
52:06of idealism and a lot of drive no longer
52:08rise up in the parties, uh, especially
52:10in the center, they don't rise up. I
52:12mean, at the fringes, it's still easier
52:14. Yes, whatever one may think of the
52:15respective idealism, but in the center,
52:17you don't rise up. I mean, you can start
52:19out as a rock crystal. By the time
52:21you're up there, you're as rounded as a
52:23river pebble, and you've made so many
52:25compromises in your life that it doesn't
52:27matter much to you to make 1,000 more,
52:29and then you don't change anything
52:31anymore. We have truly reached a
52:34systemic standstill.
52:36What you could certainly do, for example
52:38, is extend the legislative periods.
52:40>> Mhm.
52:41>> But rule out reelection. I mean, why
52:43haven't we done that a long time ago?
52:45Why don't we elect the chancellor for
52:46six or seven years, but they can't be
52:48reelected?
52:50Then they wouldn't have to be desperate
52:51to the point of absurdity to be popular
52:53and get reelected.
52:54Yes, that would be a huge advantage.
52:57That would have to apply to the
52:58chancellor and the leading ministers,
53:00that they cannot be reelected, because
53:01then they could act much more decisively
53:03.
53:04Why don't we set all the state elections
53:06as midterm elections on a single date?
53:09Then we would have peace and quiet for
53:11years to actually shape policy. I mean,
53:14you could do something, but all these
53:16proposals—I mean, politicians know these
53:18proposals; I've made them quite often.
53:21Uh, von Schirach, Ferdinand von Schirach
53:22, has also taken them up and made them
53:24more frequently, too.
53:26Yes, and then politicians say they don't
53:28see any need for action to think about
53:31it seriously. You could do all of that
53:33with a two-thirds majority, you can do
53:34that.
53:34>> Yes, but this, this—I'm with you on this
53:36proposal of no reelection, because then
53:39you are somewhat free. Politicians are
53:41always eyeing the fact that they have to
53:42survive the next election. Yes,
53:44>> and every lost election is also a loss
53:46of image and a personal affront, let's
53:48be honest. I also think it's about the
53:49body's own drugs.
53:51I mean, you see it very often when
53:53politicians leave politics—what it does
53:55to them.
53:57I personally have no relationship to
53:58power, which is why I never wanted to be
54:00a politician.
54:02Yes, I don't like it. I mean, I don't
54:04want to immediately tell other people
54:06what they should do or how to do things
54:08. The more concrete it gets, the less
54:10I'm really into it.
54:13I would never have any desire to run a
54:14company or tell people, "You do this and
54:16you do that," and to monitor and control
54:19them.
54:20That's, I have absolutely no ambition in
54:22that direction.
54:24But the people who do that—for many of
54:26them, there is obviously a lot of
54:28endorphin, adrenaline, and dopamine
54:30released, even when they walk on red
54:31carpets.
54:33For me, it's like this: When I go to
54:36award ceremonies or something like that
54:38and I see photographers waiting on the
54:40red carpet, I look to see if there's a
54:42back entrance.
54:44Or when I go to events to give speeches
54:46and I see autograph hunters or people
54:48standing there beforehand, I try to get
54:51past them somehow if I feel
54:52uncomfortable with it.
54:55But there are people who find that
54:57pleasant, and when they get a lot of it
54:59, it's a drug cocktail they have every
55:01day, and when they leave, the body tries
55:03to get it back.
55:05That means they really fall very, very
55:07deep, and that's why it's addictive,
55:10even if you can't shape anything. So,
55:12imagine you are one of those
55:14unsuccessful ministers like Robert
55:16Habeck, yes, who can't think of anything
55:18that ultimately stands as a great track
55:20record of success. Nevertheless, he has
55:23soaked up so much of it in these three
55:25years that he can no longer be without
55:26it.
55:28Or you could also see it in the physical
55:29changes in Joschka Fischer, for example
55:31, what happens to someone when they have
55:32to give up power.
55:34So, you shouldn't underestimate that.
55:35>> But he became that way beforehand, I
55:37have to cautiously add that.
55:38>> Yes, he first got thin, and when he
55:40became that way, he gained a lot of
55:42weight again, although at the beginning
55:44he demonstratively, no matter where he
55:46was, in New York and so on, he was still
55:48running, running, running, and running.
55:51Yes, but that stopped completely when he
55:54was out.
55:55So, it does something to you.
55:56>> So you're saying politics can be
55:58addictive, or what is addictive? I can't
56:01explain why, when you can shape less and
56:03less, you still absolutely want to keep
56:06going and going. So, when you are as
56:08attacked as Friedrich Merz and you have
56:11the feeling that no one can stand you
56:13anymore, and even in your own party
56:15everyone would be happy if you left, and
56:17you still can't let it go.
56:19Yes, I mean, you ultimately have to
56:21protect these people from themselves.
56:23>> Yes, but I think there's a kind of
56:25cocoon he moves in that surrounds him,
56:27and that certainly includes his closest
56:29friend, Wolf Weimer, for example, the
56:31Minister of State for Culture.
56:34That includes his family and a few
56:36buddies who are around him and who
56:38possibly make confronting reality
56:40difficult, if not to say prevents it.
56:44>> Yes, but if what you just said is true,
56:45then we have conditions similar to Erich
56:47Honecker, who at the end also still
56:48believed he was popular, even though no
56:49one could stand him anymore.
56:51>> That was, wasn't that, uh, uh, what was
56:53his name again? Mielke.
56:54>> Yes, I do love you all. Yes, I love you
56:56all. I really do love you all. Yes,
56:58exactly.
56:59>> Yes, of course. Well, intelligence
57:00agencies certainly live in cocoon worlds
57:02, but for completely different reasons.
57:04They don't get the attention and the red
57:06carpet; they have to prevent it.
57:08But I actually believe that this is the
57:10main reason why people insist on staying
57:12in power, even if they aren't shaping
57:13anything. It is striking how many people
57:15there are in politics who become
57:16ministers or the like and don't want to
57:18change anything fundamental.
57:21I don't get the feeling that a huge
57:23signal should be coming out of the
57:25Ministry of Education, right, after the
57:27PISA study and so on, or in the school
57:29and cultural ministries—most of the
57:31people there want to change as little as
57:33possible, because any change regarding
57:35school causes trouble.
57:38Yes, and for my political career, doing
57:40nothing is much better than doing
57:42something, because then I'm always
57:44picking a fight with someone or scaring
57:46someone off. And then I ask myself, if
57:49you have the office and can't do
57:51anything in the office, yeah, what is
57:53the kick or the appeal of holding it at
57:56all?
57:56>> But it is another example of your thesis
57:58that this society has ground to a kind
58:01of halt, from which it can hardly free
58:03itself on its own. And then I ask myself
58:05, what force could it be?
58:06>> Well.
58:07Yes, well, we have this—I would phrase
58:09it this way now—we often have this in
58:11the media sector too, regarding public
58:13service broadcasting, that they are very
58:15, very cautious and no longer
58:17progressively leading.
58:20>> That is also not the epitome of a desire
58:21for reform. Yes,
58:22>> right? That that is a huge area. Uh,
58:25that's why they are attacked so much,
58:27but for different reasons. We have it in
58:29politics
58:30>> uh, we have institutions that we know,
58:32or areas that we know, are not
58:34functioning the way they should be. We
58:36still have a pretty good healthcare
58:38system. The only question is, for how
58:39much longer? Because even that is barely
58:40affordable anymore. Yes,
58:43>> and that is my initial question: how
58:44would we like to live and how will we
58:46live?
58:48>> Mhm. So this future forecast—uh, as a
58:51philosopher, you've almost become a
58:53futurist now too.
58:54>> Oh good heavens. I think the term "
58:56futurist" is terrible, as if you could
58:57research the future, which you can't.
59:00>> No, but you can, you can—you can
59:02research the foundations and, based on
59:04that, how might it possibly change or
59:06develop?
59:07Yeah, I wouldn't use the word "research
59:09," would I? Because I would actually
59:10like to reserve the word "research" for
59:12the natural scientists.
59:15Humanities scholars researching us—I
59:16could name names who made a name for
59:18themselves with that. Interestingly, you
59:21don't hear much from them anymore today
59:22.
59:22>> No, that's true.
59:24It flourished during the Merkel era;
59:26there were so many futurists, and they
59:27told us how beautiful life would be in
59:29the digital world, for example, how
59:31green our cities would become and what
59:33technical possibilities exist against
59:34climate change and such things.
59:37And that's not really "in" at the moment
59:39, because we are currently living in a
59:40time without utopias.
59:42I mean, we had this time where the
59:44window for utopias was open, where we
59:46thought about it a lot. Like, in the
59:48wake of Fridays for Future, could we do
59:50things differently, could we live in
59:52tiny houses, uh,
59:56could we be completely self-sufficient
59:58with regional vegetables and can't we
1:00:00end supply routes we don't need, and
1:00:01stuff like that?
1:00:03And right now, we are living in a time
1:00:05where this is the all-encompassing theme
1:00:07for us. We feel attacked, we have to
1:00:09defend ourselves, and so on. It's no
1:00:11time for social progress.
1:00:13>> Yes, but we aren't saying that on our
1:00:14own; it's being whispered to us
1:00:16everywhere more or less. And I can
1:00:17really only say, because you just gave
1:00:19examples, we are going to make our
1:00:20cities greener.
1:00:22We experienced a summer that should have
1:00:24made it clear to us that it's probably
1:00:26five to twelve and we have to do
1:00:27something for the cities too.
1:00:30Hm.
1:00:31>> We can't stop climate change, but we
1:00:32have to protect people from the
1:00:34consequences—an interesting sentence
1:00:36that you now say we can't stop climate
1:00:37change, right?
1:00:39A few years ago, we were still saying we
1:00:41have to stop climate change,
1:00:42>> and now we've reached the point where we
1:00:44say, no, we can't stop it, we have to
1:00:46prepare for the catastrophe.
1:00:48>> Yes, but you have to at least protect
1:00:49the people and not act like it's nothing
1:00:50. I mean, I experience that this subject
1:00:51just isn't there.
1:00:53I also didn't experience that in this
1:00:55summer, where we had thousands of deaths
1:00:57in Germany, old people who couldn't cope
1:00:59with the heat at all, that there was no
1:01:01Chancellor or no high-ranking politician
1:01:04,
1:01:05>> who cared about it, who simply said, who
1:01:07simply said, I am sorry.
1:01:09>> Yes, that interests me.
1:01:11Merz is a child of the 80s and 90s in
1:01:13his core political formation, and back
1:01:15then, the Greens with their ecological
1:01:17themes were the declared enemy.
1:01:20He has absolutely no affinity for that
1:01:22at all, and that, by the way, is more
1:01:24dangerous than any climate denier. Yes,
1:01:26climate deniers are interesting cranks
1:01:28who obviously have a problem with
1:01:31looking reality in the eye. But the much
1:01:33bigger problem is not climate deniers.
1:01:35It is those who do not deny climate
1:01:37change at all, but as people in charge
1:01:40and in power, they act as if it weren't
1:01:42there because it doesn't fit their
1:01:44worldview.
1:01:45Yes, those are the same contradictions
1:01:48we see with AI.
1:01:50Yes, as far as AI is concerned, Germany
1:01:51needs to see that we keep up for
1:01:53economic reasons, otherwise we'll be
1:01:54left behind. Also for the reason that we
1:01:57can't regulate anything if we aren't
1:01:58players in this game ourselves. At the
1:02:00same time, we see this AI that we are
1:02:02now pushing forward enormously will make
1:02:05people unemployed, and yet we push it
1:02:07anyway because we have to be involved.
1:02:09The other thing is AI weapons. Yes, just
1:02:11a few years ago we condemned them
1:02:13internationally on a large scale and
1:02:14said we would never do that. Now we say
1:02:16, well, the Russians are doing it too,
1:02:18the Chinese probably are too, and so on
1:02:19. Now we have to do it on a massive
1:02:21scale, even though we know that of all
1:02:23the dangers of AI, the greatest danger
1:02:25lies in the fact that the smallest error
1:02:27in autonomous weapons systems could
1:02:29actually wipe out humanity.
1:02:31This means that we are currently doing
1:02:33lots of things that we simultaneously
1:02:34have huge fears about, yet we keep
1:02:36pushing them forward.
1:02:37>> Richard, I just have to ask, how do we
1:02:38want to live? Now you're ending with a
1:02:40kind of end-of-the-world scenario.
1:02:42>> No, I'm not an apocalyptic person. I
1:02:44don't believe that it will all turn out
1:02:46so terribly bad, and I still believe
1:02:48that every movement generates its own
1:02:50counter-movement. I still think it's
1:02:51conceivable that we could have a
1:02:53peaceful relationship with Russia again
1:02:55in 10 years. I won't let anyone take
1:02:56that hope away from me.
1:02:58I still think it's conceivable that we—
1:03:00though it will be incredibly difficult—
1:03:02will eventually scale back these
1:03:03enormous sums we are spending on
1:03:05armaments.
1:03:06So, I don't believe that humanity has
1:03:07gone completely insane. For every insane
1:03:09phase, a phase of reason follows.
1:03:12That is probably the reason why you say
1:03:14about yourself, "I am a"—you always say
1:03:16optimistic; I would prefer the term
1:03:18confident.
1:03:20>> Yes, I would also say that I am not
1:03:22hopeless in what I do. Because then I
1:03:25might stop doing anything, then I would
1:03:27just give up.
1:03:28And I always think: You know, an
1:03:30optimist and a pessimist are probably
1:03:31both right or wrong just as often, but
1:03:33the optimist has the nicer life along
1:03:35the way.
1:03:36>> Better mood.
1:03:38I’d like to say in closing, your new
1:03:40book, just recently released, "
1:03:41Auserzählt," about how artificial
1:03:43intelligence is abolishing culture.
1:03:46An important book, one worth reading; I
1:03:48haven’t read it yet, but I will, and I
1:03:50thank you for a very stimulating,
1:03:51intense conversation.
1:03:53I wish you all the best and thank you
1:03:54too.
1:03:55>> Uh, that you are heard even more. I I l
1:03:57I will keep listening to you. I think
1:03:58that’s nice. I’m glad to hear that.
1:04:00Until next time.
1:04:01>> Yes, until next time. And not quite as
1:04:02long. If you enjoyed this conversation,
1:04:04which really brought quite a lot with it
1:04:06, then please leave a five-star review,
1:04:08subscribe to us, and recommend us to
1:04:10others. With that in mind, thank you
1:04:12very much. Thank you very much.
1:04:13>> Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very
1:04:14much.
1:04:16"
1:04:16>> Zwischen den Zeilen" is a production of
1:04:19Early Studios.
1:04:21Creative Producer Paul Wolter.
1:04:25Technical Direction Luisa Hett.
1:04:28Post-production Julia Völkel.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Richard David Precht - Wie werden wir in Zukunft leben? by Zwischen den Zeilen, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 12,495 words across 2,015 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.