I love how Rutger Bregman use facts and history to slap us and give us hope at the same time. 😍 We are flock animals, but should try to not be sheeps. 😅
I live in the Netherlands and on our public channels (that are funded by tax payer money, just like the BBC) there are plenty of programs that butcher the royal family completely. Isn't there any program on the BBC that Isn't afraid to have this viewpoint because that would be very worrisome to me if I lived in the UK to be honest. (here is our dutch equivalent of John Oliver who basically calls for the monarchy to be abolished by the way th-cam.com/video/EIOHmOOQA9k/w-d-xo.html )
@@friendlyperson1202 I knew your link was going to be Zondag met Lubach! Love the guy XD Also, our culture and attitude towards the royal family is so different to that of Britain, so I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much anti-monarchy sentiment (apart from a bit of innocent comedy) on the BBC. Don't know for sure though.
The interviewer is asking hard questions and disagreeing so Rutger has a better chance to show the merit of his arguments, not because he really disagrees. It's a common interview technique.
What I really like about this interviewer, is that after peppering him with the usual sceptical questions, he actually stops and gives him an opportunity to expand on his thesis. I feel like if the interviewer, a la Cathy Newman stylee, just straight pummeled him with nonstop smug cynicism, it would have been a much shallower conversation
He is being contrary isn’t he? But maybe he’s behaving the way he thinks people expect him to behave. Oh wait... that’s what Rutger is saying about humans!
@intempify I think it's really helping Rutger here, because his arguments seem even more solid, given a bit of adversity. I'd like to see him tackle with someone who REALLY fights back.
We can only say this is the best time to be alive because we can’t see what the future holds, maybe 100 years from now will be better, or worse, what matters most is the ideas we promote and celebrate now, and the actions we take. We can recognise how privileged we are while intentionally planning to share that privilege with our future...
Or Steven actually read the book and gave Rutger a chance to talk about "what really happened in the experiments". It's more interesting if the interviewer takes the position of "current beliefs" and gives the interviewee a chance to convince him otherwise.
It’s not corporations paying more, they pay very little, we are talking about paying there fair share. Corporate loop holes and tax breaks don’t trickle down, it trickles or more accurately flows to China and 3rd world countries.
@@burnheart123 Yeah I thought it was pretty obvious that he was just playing "devils advocate" so Rutger could explain his point better. He does express true scepticism at other points I think, but again it's not to antagonize/disagree, but to hear Rutger out on what his ideas are.
Watching this interview I understand why Joe Rogan is so popular. This host speaks with this weird intonation and clearly doesn't give a crap about answers to the questions he is asking.
One thing I wish Rutger Bregman would address more--what, specifically, motivates veneer theory and the pessimistic view of human nature? I think it's ideological. It is quite clearly serving the economic interests of the ruling class.
I really do not get the people in the comment section complaining about how the interview was conducted, it's tone or Stephen Sackur's intent!! I think, as always Stephen Sackur pushed hard, and Rutger Bregman's answers made the interview great to watch!
This is a HIGHLY FASCINATING subject that could keep me glued here for hours. I endured hard time on a few occasions. I also had great times as well. So, two years ago I set off on a mission: to observe Nature around while I read lot of psychology, history, religion, and at the same time closely observe myself. I came to one simple but articulated conclusion. Humans, animals, and also plants fight the closer you pack them together. But the difference between plants and animals (having now included humans in them) is that plants DO NOT have EYES. So, if they are far enough from each other, they can live in harmony. On the good side, we humans are Mammals and therefore we have an EMPATHIC brain. That said, if something or someone takes anyone of us to the bottom of Abraham Maslow's pyramid, then history teaches us that even a monstrous and unimaginable thing like CANNIBALISM will come out of humans HOWLING as an EVIL and repressed OFFSPRING.
Sorry to tell you, but that's not an articulate conclusion. One might intuitively infer the main notion of you argument, but a variety of loosely related, poorly understood, semi-scientific observations leaves an aftertaste of confusion rather than clarity. Nonetheless, keep up the good work of thinking. Peace
@@transliuotoriai thanks for sharing. As a common mortal, I do not think my thoughts are 'water proof'. I am glad to have dropped long ago striving to be the BEST or to arrive the FIRST. In the tortous path to here, I become almost addicted to the pursuit of one day becoming COMPLETE; a concept which is, as master Carl Jung once said, an EXTREMELY HARD TASK indeed. Take good care.
@@0129581s hey.. Hey.. Slow down there. I've never questioned your integrity nor your motivation. It's a common mistake nowadays to confuse the message with the messenger. To attribute flaws of the idea to the mind which has muttered it. I commit no such mistake, hence don't take it personally. I am only judging your IDEA in this public forum, not YOU. All the best
Regarding Maslow's pyramid, one of the things Rutger Bregman points out in his book is that people living through disasters in which they lose their homes tend to help each other. I have seen this myself during and in the aftermath of an earthquake. It was quite the opposite of cannibalistic behaviour. Sensationalism, for which humans have a soft spot and which dominates the media, emphasises exceptional and negative behaviours in circumstances like these. This is one of the reasons why so many people think that humans will turn into cannibals when disaster strikes and their basic needs are no longer certain.
This is the (quite useful) BBC interview style. Nothing about the journalist's personal opinion here. He's just presenting challenges as Rutger might get in any debate. If anything the interviewer sets up Rutger quite nicely to make his case ;)
It really felt like he wanted talk in black and white... for instance the part where he said : but hoe can it be posible that hunter gatherer times were good but also the capitalist model has delivered is into the best conditions so far..... why should only one be right in all aspects. If each was fundamentally wrong they would not have prevailed.... nor is there a solution that is perfect for ever. Only the fundamental laws of science are ansolute.... gravity, you can’t argue away gravity.... you can stop buying shit you don’t need and go live in a tree... you can do that tomorrow if you want
Mr Bergman Islam does not state mankind are born sinners, it states that we all begin with a clean slate and whatever is imprinted on us from our society or how our environment is created around us shapes our dissonance.
Yes, and usually just to their immediate family and friends. They don't care about the underpaid person who made their smartphone on the other side of the world.
The human psych contains drivers that are both selfish and cooperative. Most of the time these are kept in balance but when circumstances and stresses are excessive negative aspects will find expression, history illustrates this well.
Why is it that philosophers and psychologists always want to talk about what "people" are like? With such a wide range of behavior visible, is any kind of average meaningful? And if 99 percent of the population was actually fairly decent would this matter in the least if 1% were decidedly not, and that this 1% had a vastly disproportionate effect on human history? The fact is that such a powerful and nasty 1% of the population does exist. Actually the number is more like 3%. These people are called psychopaths The pioneering work describing these people was done by Robert Hare, who wrote a series of popular books with titles such as Without Conscience and Snakes in Suits. They have these characteristics: They have no conscience. They lie continuously. They have a tremendous sense of their own entitlement. And they leave a broad trail of misery behind them wherever they go. Does any powerful politician come to mind when you look at this list? How about kings, emperors, conquerors?
@@davidford694 Rutger actually criticizes that statement by Confucius in his book, as it assumes that people would want the same as you, which is not always true. It's better to ask people what they want rather than assume.
There are 3 people I would trust to run the world and together they could assemble a system to permit those in the 21st century to hold their heads high and say, "I was part of that movement." Rutger Bregman, Mark Cuban, and Andrew Yang.
Can someone sugest some history and political book/authors that explains socialism vs capitalism and economy? Im interest too learn about this subjects
Is this a journalist doing the interview? He seems very biased, and he asks very loaded questions while being pretty condescending, congratulations to Bregman for keeping his patience with it
I´d never heard of Rutger Bregman before. As far as I can judge from this interview, though, his views remind me a lot of CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS, in ’Sad Tropics‘, obviously, but also in his latest publications and Memoirs, in which he confessed to have become more and more critical about ’progress‘ and ‘civilisation‘ (at least as these have developed in the so-called western world). Does any of Bregman’s regular reader know more regarding that possible influence? Thank you.
"Are you not coming dangerously close to an being apologist for Hitler's forces..." That's where I turned off this interview. That's not a good faith question, and he's not really looking for answers.
Rutger: "There is evidence to suggest most people are good most of the time" Interviewer: "Nazi apologist!" Rutger: "Hu?" Rutger: "I think capitalism has done some good, but as it currently stands, it is based off the a flawed premise that people are fundamentally selfish, and does not provide for all of peoples needs." Interviewer: "So your a Marxist and want to take us back to the stone age!" Rutger: "Hu?"
The interviewer used sceptical questions as a way to get the best answers from Rutger (so he can show the merit of his ideas when scrutinized), not because he fundamentally disagrees. However I do think that that was a bit of a cheap question.
I lose more respect for the accusatory interviewer as the interview went on. He attempted to talk over the guest several times and I don’t even get how he even got ‘anti-progress’ out of what Rutger said; did this man used to connect the picture of an apple with the word elephant back in kindergarten? Rutger did an excellent job defending himself without falling into the trap of wasting too much breath on the brain dead accusations. He didn’t lose his cool once and was polite throughout. Meanwhile, this interviewer stared at Rutger as if he’s a mad man throughout the interview for saying very vanilla things. How narrow is his mind?
@@lauram669 Same, when the Netherlands was done celebrating the end of German occupation, we were like "let's go get Indonesia back now" and I can't understand how the government (and the people) didn't see the blatant hypocrisy.
Babies will play with other babies no matter what color or social background just fine until older people influence them from their social ideas or fears.
Maybe it's "our" economic and monetary system that makes us act stupidly in this system of evil competition?! I think so. I would suggest a Resource-based economic system! That would benefit *everyone!*
This is a reiteration of Marx, even including the disavowal of "Marxism". Marx did not believe ideas to be unimportant, quite the opposite in fact. Another young historian claiming to have discovered the cooperative instinct; seems to be a sign of the times.
Yup. Entire rehash of marx. Another postmodernist, neomarxist, fashionable, young academic. He couldn’t even decide whether it was better to be born a hunter gatherer or now. Another confused human. Sakur went easy.
I hope it is in keeping with the interviewees perspective. But I would like to paraphrase something I heard come out of China 15 years ago. Let's take what works and call it capitalism. Other than that have a nice day
R an W are extremely hard to pronounce for Dutch speakers, I always try to pronounce Real World in English and it is a real tongue twister for us lol, but yeah likely second language, we learn English from about 5/6 years old and have subtitled tv instead of dubbed.
At first I was irked at how defensive the interviewer was. Some may call it Boomer logic. But that's the thing, our current day systems are helmed by boomers. However, I think he was posing as the status quo, how many of us currently perceive the ideas that Bregman challenges in his books.
What a terrible interviewer, just looking to "debunk" and create controversy rather than trying to understand and think along, be positive and stop looking to tear down new ideas please
He's not, it's an interview technique to give Rutger the chance to show how his ideas hold up when put under scrutiny. If the host was just trying to debunk him, he wouldn't give him so much space to talk and get his point across. At one point he's straight up playing devils advocate (the part with the Milgram experiment) and takes the default position of mainstream assumption, even though he already read the book and knows how Rutger debunks it.
‘For every toilet paper hoarder there are 1000 nurses trying to save people’ - sorry, that’s just such an oversimplification on so many levels I stopped watching at that point. Should I give it another go?
No, dont waste your time. There is no need to study to know the reality. All it takes is walk around and see real people's attitutes. Everyone was on its own. When someone offered help, no one accepted it. Fearing to be abused, because this is the rule. Look how bad look poorer, older, lonely people They barely can walk.
Rutger is so composed it’s admirable. Unfortunate shit starter of an interviewer though. Trying to put words and ideas in someone’s head is so patronising, not to mention displaying poor to absent interview skills. Tells us more about the interviewer than the interviewee. Shining through this BS is an accomplishment 👏🏼
This guy is pretty much like Alice in Wonderland. His ideas are so nice that maybe kids would love them but I frankly do not recall any of his views to be reflecting reality and human nature.
Check out his book. It's full of examples about how most of our preconceptions about 'how people are' come from experiments like the stanford prison experiment (which turns out to be completely false), literature like lord of the flies (which turns out to be unrealistic), and last but not least the news (which is another word for Negative Exceptions With Spotlights on them). I understand, if you only listen to him so briefly, it sounds 'too good to be true'. But the examples in his book are truly mindblowing. And as a society, we usually only focus on the bad stuff that happens, which clouds our judgement.
@intempify That's a fact, people got crazy, they accused other people for breaking the rules ( like walking with your kid nearby your home) and called the police.
Rutger is becoming more and more prolific. He works really hard, respect.
3:21 “Twitter and social media is not real life.”
Bang on!
it's anti life twitter etc
I love how Rutger Bregman use facts and history to slap us and give us hope at the same time. 😍 We are flock animals, but should try to not be sheeps. 😅
Stephen sympathises Rutger!! He tried to be HARD but how can you resist the divine meaning of cooperation? Love you Rutger!
They should “Hard Talk” with the monarchy. But you will not see that in BBC.
I live in the Netherlands and on our public channels (that are funded by tax payer money, just like the BBC) there are plenty of programs that butcher the royal family completely. Isn't there any program on the BBC that Isn't afraid to have this viewpoint because that would be very worrisome to me if I lived in the UK to be honest. (here is our dutch equivalent of John Oliver who basically calls for the monarchy to be abolished by the way th-cam.com/video/EIOHmOOQA9k/w-d-xo.html )
@@friendlyperson1202 I knew your link was going to be Zondag met Lubach! Love the guy XD Also, our culture and attitude towards the royal family is so different to that of Britain, so I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much anti-monarchy sentiment (apart from a bit of innocent comedy) on the BBC. Don't know for sure though.
Why
... Its an "okay, Boomer" moment. The book is brilliant. Rutger Bregman must be given more credit.
The interviewer is asking hard questions and disagreeing so Rutger has a better chance to show the merit of his arguments, not because he really disagrees. It's a common interview technique.
We have to start listening to smart people more ...
Rutger makes great comments loved his TED talk wish we would all listen to him a bit more
What I really like about this interviewer, is that after peppering him with the usual sceptical questions, he actually stops and gives him an opportunity to expand on his thesis. I feel like if the interviewer, a la Cathy Newman stylee, just straight pummeled him with nonstop smug cynicism, it would have been a much shallower conversation
2:40 we have tons of studies that prove what i m saying
2:51 yea whatever, but i have just looked on social media and it's saying this...
21st century boomer logic.
Great interview...talented interviewer and a talented guest, I now understand Bregmans's position much better and more clearly
Exellent interview. I appreciate an interviewer actually opposing in an argumentative ways.
Okay, time for grandfather to retire. It's like he wants to be combative and totally fails. Rutger is right on.
He is being contrary isn’t he? But maybe he’s behaving the way he thinks people expect him to behave. Oh wait... that’s what Rutger is saying about humans!
@intempify I think it's really helping Rutger here, because his arguments seem even more solid, given a bit of adversity. I'd like to see him tackle with someone who REALLY fights back.
its called hardtalk, thats the idea of the show
@@jamesrowsell9346 like 60 Minutes is an hour. lol
We can only say this is the best time to be alive because we can’t see what the future holds, maybe 100 years from now will be better, or worse, what matters most is the ideas we promote and celebrate now, and the actions we take. We can recognise how privileged we are while intentionally planning to share that privilege with our future...
This guy is so intelligent...
7:11 Steven literally didn't read the book did he? Milgram's experiments in particular get destroyed in Rutger's book...
Or Steven actually read the book and gave Rutger a chance to talk about "what really happened in the experiments".
It's more interesting if the interviewer takes the position of "current beliefs" and gives the interviewee a chance to convince him otherwise.
It’s not corporations paying more, they pay very little, we are talking about paying there fair share. Corporate loop holes and tax breaks don’t trickle down, it trickles or more accurately flows to China and 3rd world countries.
@@chipsellarole267 I think you're replying to the wrong comment
@@burnheart123 Yeah I thought it was pretty obvious that he was just playing "devils advocate" so Rutger could explain his point better. He does express true scepticism at other points I think, but again it's not to antagonize/disagree, but to hear Rutger out on what his ideas are.
Rutger is spot on we need change;-)
Watching this interview I understand why Joe Rogan is so popular. This host speaks with this weird intonation and clearly doesn't give a crap about answers to the questions he is asking.
You are comparing Hard Talk to the Joe Rogan Experience? Clearly you do not get this format then!
One thing I wish Rutger Bregman would address more--what, specifically, motivates veneer theory and the pessimistic view of human nature? I think it's ideological. It is quite clearly serving the economic interests of the ruling class.
Rutger, I like your phylosofical approach and you deserve a real respect.
I really do not get the people in the comment section complaining about how the interview was conducted, it's tone or Stephen Sackur's intent!! I think, as always Stephen Sackur pushed hard, and Rutger Bregman's answers made the interview great to watch!
The book is AMAZING 😊👍
yep
i finished read his book the Humankind, a hopeful history, and now i am big fan of him. he introduced me with the term ' the banality of evil'
This is a HIGHLY FASCINATING subject that could keep me glued here for hours.
I endured hard time on a few occasions. I also had great times as well. So, two years ago I set off on a mission: to observe Nature around while I read lot of psychology, history, religion, and at the same time closely observe myself.
I came to one simple but articulated conclusion. Humans, animals, and also plants fight the closer you pack them together. But the difference between plants and animals (having now included humans in them) is that plants DO NOT have EYES. So, if they are far enough from each other, they can live in harmony.
On the good side, we humans are Mammals and therefore we have an EMPATHIC brain.
That said, if something or someone takes anyone of us to the bottom of Abraham Maslow's pyramid, then history teaches us that even a monstrous and unimaginable thing like CANNIBALISM will come out of humans HOWLING as an EVIL and repressed OFFSPRING.
Sorry to tell you, but that's not an articulate conclusion. One might intuitively infer the main notion of you argument, but a variety of loosely related, poorly understood, semi-scientific observations leaves an aftertaste of confusion rather than clarity. Nonetheless, keep up the good work of thinking. Peace
@@transliuotoriai thanks for sharing. As a common mortal, I do not think my thoughts are 'water proof'. I am glad to have dropped long ago striving to be the BEST or to arrive the FIRST. In the tortous path to here, I become almost addicted to the pursuit of one day becoming COMPLETE; a concept which is, as master Carl Jung once said, an EXTREMELY HARD TASK indeed. Take good care.
@@0129581s hey.. Hey.. Slow down there. I've never questioned your integrity nor your motivation. It's a common mistake nowadays to confuse the message with the messenger. To attribute flaws of the idea to the mind which has muttered it. I commit no such mistake, hence don't take it personally. I am only judging your IDEA in this public forum, not YOU. All the best
Regarding Maslow's pyramid, one of the things Rutger Bregman points out in his book is that people living through disasters in which they lose their homes tend to help each other. I have seen this myself during and in the aftermath of an earthquake. It was quite the opposite of cannibalistic behaviour. Sensationalism, for which humans have a soft spot and which dominates the media, emphasises exceptional and negative behaviours in circumstances like these. This is one of the reasons why so many people think that humans will turn into cannibals when disaster strikes and their basic needs are no longer certain.
There should be a debate between Rutger and Zizek. It would be more productive than the one with Jordan Peterson
Stephen tried hard to derail Rugter but was no match.
I do not think it is an attempt to derail. He is helping by asking challenging questions to make him more credible.
I'm inclined to agree with Nikola ...challenging ideas is how to get them explained more clearly
Is this the first time you are watching Hard Talk? As someone else said it, it's the format!
This is the (quite useful) BBC interview style. Nothing about the journalist's personal opinion here. He's just presenting challenges as Rutger might get in any debate. If anything the interviewer sets up Rutger quite nicely to make his case ;)
The anchor definitely needs to sensationalize things a little less
It really felt like he wanted talk in black and white... for instance the part where he said : but hoe can it be posible that hunter gatherer times were good but also the capitalist model has delivered is into the best conditions so far..... why should only one be right in all aspects. If each was fundamentally wrong they would not have prevailed.... nor is there a solution that is perfect for ever. Only the fundamental laws of science are ansolute.... gravity, you can’t argue away gravity.... you can stop buying shit you don’t need and go live in a tree... you can do that tomorrow if you want
@@mjferroni Agreed. Hopefully anchors get to a point of discussing pros and cons of various solutions without biases.
I think he wants to do justice to the title of his show.
Good lord! Where have you people emerged from. This is Hard Talk. It's meant to be like this!
@@advityat Why though?
Expectations drive perception which drives actions ... Did I get that right?
Yea. And it is powerful to realize that :)
Yeah it's weird but it works. First thing I got told going into teaching was to expect the best from my students. Just wish I could apply it to myself
Something like confirmation bias leads to self-fulfilling prophecy?
Thank you. ZIMBABWE 🇿🇼
Mr Bergman Islam does not state mankind are born sinners, it states that we all begin with a clean slate and whatever is imprinted on us from our society or how our environment is created around us shapes our dissonance.
I'm not sure if I missed it, but I think he only said Christianity believes in original sin.
That was very enlightening! Great job all around!
Most people are good to some people...
Yes, and usually just to their immediate family and friends. They don't care about the underpaid person who made their smartphone on the other side of the world.
The human psych contains drivers that are both selfish and cooperative. Most of the time these are kept in balance but when circumstances and stresses are excessive negative aspects will find expression, history illustrates this well.
Why is it that philosophers and psychologists always want to talk about what "people" are like? With such a wide range of behavior visible, is any kind of average meaningful? And if 99 percent of the population was actually fairly decent would this matter in the least if 1% were decidedly not, and that this 1% had a vastly disproportionate effect on human history?
The fact is that such a powerful and nasty 1% of the population does exist. Actually the number is more like 3%. These people are called psychopaths The pioneering work describing these people was done by Robert Hare, who wrote a series of popular books with titles such as Without Conscience and Snakes in Suits. They have these characteristics: They have no conscience. They lie continuously. They have a tremendous sense of their own entitlement. And they leave a broad trail of misery behind them wherever they go. Does any powerful politician come to mind when you look at this list? How about kings, emperors, conquerors?
Totally agree: medium.com/the-gentle-revolution/goodbye-democracy-and-capitalism-355b68ae5147
If you don't know the "average", how would you define decent and not decent behavior?
@@HisDivineShado Don't do unto others as you would not want done to you - Confucius. Repeated since he said it by all major religions.
@@davidford694 Rutger actually criticizes that statement by Confucius in his book, as it assumes that people would want the same as you, which is not always true. It's better to ask people what they want rather than assume.
There are 3 people I would trust to run the world and together they could assemble a system to permit those in the 21st century to hold their heads high and say, "I was part of that movement." Rutger Bregman, Mark Cuban, and Andrew Yang.
Can anyone tell me the name of the French Sociologist he mentions at 8:03? I can't quite cetch the name.
It's Thibault Le Texier
Can someone sugest some history and political book/authors that explains socialism vs capitalism and economy? Im interest too learn about this subjects
Trots op je jongen!!
I don’t think he is a “jongen” anymore. But agreed.
Is this a journalist doing the interview? He seems very biased, and he asks very loaded questions while being pretty condescending, congratulations to Bregman for keeping his patience with it
You should compare this with Tucker Carlson's.
I´d never heard of Rutger Bregman before. As far as I can judge from this interview, though, his views remind me a lot of CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS, in ’Sad Tropics‘, obviously, but also in his latest publications and Memoirs, in which he confessed to have become more and more critical about ’progress‘ and ‘civilisation‘ (at least as these have developed in the so-called western world). Does any of Bregman’s regular reader know more regarding that possible influence? Thank you.
Rutger coming out strong w/ the hard facts, lol
Assumption of good will, baby ❤️🤘🏽🙏🏽
"Are you not coming dangerously close to an being apologist for Hitler's forces..." That's where I turned off this interview. That's not a good faith question, and he's not really looking for answers.
Rutger: "There is evidence to suggest most people are good most of the time"
Interviewer: "Nazi apologist!"
Rutger: "Hu?"
Rutger: "I think capitalism has done some good, but as it currently stands, it is based off the a flawed premise that people are fundamentally selfish, and does not provide for all of peoples needs."
Interviewer: "So your a Marxist and want to take us back to the stone age!"
Rutger: "Hu?"
The interviewer used sceptical questions as a way to get the best answers from Rutger (so he can show the merit of his ideas when scrutinized), not because he fundamentally disagrees. However I do think that that was a bit of a cheap question.
Good conversation but we couldnt get answer that what will be change?
"basically good," no, "symbiotic," yes
I lose more respect for the accusatory interviewer as the interview went on. He attempted to talk over the guest several times and I don’t even get how he even got ‘anti-progress’ out of what Rutger said; did this man used to connect the picture of an apple with the word elephant back in kindergarten? Rutger did an excellent job defending himself without falling into the trap of wasting too much breath on the brain dead accusations. He didn’t lose his cool once and was polite throughout. Meanwhile, this interviewer stared at Rutger as if he’s a mad man throughout the interview for saying very vanilla things. How narrow is his mind?
Europe needed two world wars to learn what are human rights.
we might need a third tbh.
I don't think it worked. For example, right after the second World War France went to Vietnam and killed hundreds of thousands.
@@lauram669 Same, when the Netherlands was done celebrating the end of German occupation, we were like "let's go get Indonesia back now" and I can't understand how the government (and the people) didn't see the blatant hypocrisy.
Why is accumulation considered hoarding when it is the bedrock of capitalism?
0:25 "Collective interest."
There is only collective psychosis.
Brilliant
Rutger has thick skin man, and that's going to be his saving grace on this mission.
Food and fear of hunger = humans #1fear 😱
Babies will play with other babies no matter what color or social background just fine until older people influence them from their social ideas or fears.
kindness??? i did not see it here in france
Maybe it's "our" economic and monetary system that makes us act stupidly in this system of evil competition?! I think so.
I would suggest a Resource-based economic system! That would benefit *everyone!*
Thanks, Rutger Bregman 🌹
... Bit of a bottom shelf discussion...
There it is 1.3.8
Rutger a few dutch I like. In Honduras there is one dutch thieve by the name Arie Sanders, and a big neoliberal.
22:25 Yes, we remember Davos. What has changed since then? If Trump gets re-elected, NOTHING.
Biden is a disaster.
This is a reiteration of Marx, even including the disavowal of "Marxism". Marx did not believe ideas to be unimportant, quite the opposite in fact. Another young historian claiming to have discovered the cooperative instinct; seems to be a sign of the times.
Yup. Entire rehash of marx. Another postmodernist, neomarxist, fashionable, young academic. He couldn’t even decide whether it was better to be born a hunter gatherer or now. Another confused human. Sakur went easy.
I hope it is in keeping with the interviewees perspective. But I would like to paraphrase something I heard come out of China 15 years ago. Let's take what works and call it capitalism. Other than that have a nice day
What do you expect from the BBC? Same as MSNBC or CNN etc.
Peter Pinker paints a pessimistic picture
Steven.
@@jacquesbouysset2346 Poetic license.
Your point being?
@@jacquesbouysset2346 No point, no issue, no axe to grind. Just liked how the sentence sounded.
Global health emergency?
On toilet paper hoarding, if you don't you won't. If you get my drift? TheReaper!
Also, BERNIE FOREVER ✊🏾
why this video looks like made in the last century
It's the BBC innit.
Other than how he pronounce the R and O and several “cadence”; Can you believe this guy is Dutch and English is probably his third language?
His pronunciation is great indeed, but English is most probably his second language.
R an W are extremely hard to pronounce for Dutch speakers, I always try to pronounce Real World in English and it is a real tongue twister for us lol, but yeah likely second language, we learn English from about 5/6 years old and have subtitled tv instead of dubbed.
Is that a fucking skyrim map
Na, wer von Euch Allen ist geboostert ❓️🤣🤪
The dishonesty of this Stephen Sackur. SMH.
Put people like this on the front lines of battle. He is useless
At first I was irked at how defensive the interviewer was. Some may call it Boomer logic. But that's the thing, our current day systems are helmed by boomers. However, I think he was posing as the status quo, how many of us currently perceive the ideas that Bregman challenges in his books.
What a terrible interviewer, just looking to "debunk" and create controversy rather than trying to understand and think along, be positive and stop looking to tear down new ideas please
He's not, it's an interview technique to give Rutger the chance to show how his ideas hold up when put under scrutiny. If the host was just trying to debunk him, he wouldn't give him so much space to talk and get his point across. At one point he's straight up playing devils advocate (the part with the Milgram experiment) and takes the default position of mainstream assumption, even though he already read the book and knows how Rutger debunks it.
‘For every toilet paper hoarder there are 1000 nurses trying to save people’ - sorry, that’s just such an oversimplification on so many levels I stopped watching at that point. Should I give it another go?
No, dont waste your time. There is no need to study to know the reality. All it takes is walk around and see real people's attitutes. Everyone was on its own. When someone offered help, no one accepted it. Fearing to be abused, because this is the rule. Look how bad look poorer, older, lonely people They barely can walk.
Rutger is so composed it’s admirable. Unfortunate shit starter of an interviewer though. Trying to put words and ideas in someone’s head is so patronising, not to mention displaying poor to absent interview skills. Tells us more about the interviewer than the interviewee. Shining through this BS is an accomplishment 👏🏼
This guy is pretty much like Alice in Wonderland. His ideas are so nice that maybe kids would love them but I frankly do not recall any of his views to be reflecting reality and human nature.
I think you are living in wonderland mate
Check out his book. It's full of examples about how most of our preconceptions about 'how people are' come from experiments like the stanford prison experiment (which turns out to be completely false), literature like lord of the flies (which turns out to be unrealistic), and last but not least the news (which is another word for Negative Exceptions With Spotlights on them). I understand, if you only listen to him so briefly, it sounds 'too good to be true'. But the examples in his book are truly mindblowing. And as a society, we usually only focus on the bad stuff that happens, which clouds our judgement.
@zdillz you are right, they are utopian, that's why we still have them, just not declared.
@intempify That's a fact, people got crazy, they accused other people for breaking the rules ( like walking with your kid nearby your home) and called the police.
@@GlennLeinster Yes, particularly in the last three months or so, I would actually say it's surreal.
The demise of neoliberal capitalism can't come soon enough.
The interviewer must have a style of being purposefully annoying.
I am afraid I am unable to agree to what he is saying about humanity. To me, his is the religious fanatic view on humanity. He is contradictory.
He is the communist version of Yuval Noah Harari.
It's the world that shape the people tho so maybe it's time we get more social instead of capitalism