Rutger Bregman in conversation with D.A. Wallach at Live Talks Los Angeles

Rutger Bregman in conversation with D.A. Wallach
discussing his book,
“Humankind: A Hopeful History“

Rutger Bregman, a historian and writer at The Correspondent, is one of Europe’s most prominent young thinkers. His last book, Utopia for Realists, which was translated into thirty-two languages, was a New York Times bestseller. He lives in Holland. We did an in studio interview with Rutger Bregman for is last book, Utopia for Realists. Watch the video

D.A. Wallach is a venture capital investor and an acclaimed recording artist. He began his career as one half of the duo Chester French, releasing two full-length albums through Interscope Records and touring with Lady Gaga, Weezer, Pharrell, and Blink 182.. In 2011, he stopped touring in order to focus on his other passion, investing. He has since built a parallel career as a venture capitalist, backing technology companies including Spotify, SpaceX,Ripple, The Boring Company, and Memphis Meats. Since 2015, D.A. has focused almost exclusively on biotechnology and healthcare, seeking to reinvent medicine through breakthrough start-ups like Beam,Glympse, Doctor on Demand, Devoted Health, and Neuralink. He is the co-founder of Inevitable Ventures and Time BioVentures, both Los Angeles-based investment firms, and is an advisor to The Dreamers Fund, a partnership with the actor Will Smith. He is the co-founder of the non-profit Franca Fundfor preventive genomics. For more info, visit his website. He previously interviewed Michael Nesmith at Live Talks Los Angeles.


“I greatly enjoyed reading Humankind. It made me see humanity from a fresh perspective and challenged me to rethink many long-held beliefs. I warmly recommend it to others, and I trust it will stir a lot of fruitful discussions.”
―Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

“Some books challenge our ideas. But Humankind challenges the very premises on which those ideas are based. Its bold, sweeping argument will make you rethink what you believe about society, democracy, and human nature itself. In a sea of cynicism, this book is the sturdy, unsinkable lifeboat the world needs.”
―Daniel H. Pink, author of When and A Whole New Mind

If there is one belief that has united the left and the right, psychologists and philosophers, ancient thinkers and modern ones, it is the tacit assumption that humans are bad. It’s a notion that drives newspaper headlines and guides the laws that shape our lives. From Machiavelli to Hobbes, Freud to Pinker, the roots of this belief have sunk deep into Western thought. Human beings, we’re taught, are by nature selfish and governed primarily by self-interest.

But what if it isn’t true? International bestseller Rutger Bregman provides new perspective on the past 200,000 years of human history, setting out to prove that we are hardwired for kindness, geared toward cooperation rather than competition, and more inclined to trust rather than distrust one another. In fact this instinct has a firm evolutionary basis going back to the beginning of Homo sapiens.

From the real-life Lord of the Flies to the solidarity in the aftermath of the Blitz, the hidden flaws in the Stanford prison experiment to the true story of twin brothers on opposite sides who helped Mandela end apartheid, Bregman shows us that believing in human generosity and collaboration isn’t merely optimistic—it’s realistic. Moreover, it has huge implications for how society functions. When we think the worst of people, it brings out the worst in our politics and economics. But if we believe in the reality of humanity’s kindness and altruism, it will form the foundation for achieving true change in society, a case that Bregman makes convincingly with his signature wit, refreshing frankness, and memorable storytelling.

[kobayoda]

Very nice appointments. D.A.at around 1:14 I think you point out the most important misunderstanding of what it would mean to democratize our society. There´s no doubt that detailed expert questions should be discussed, developed and answered by qualified experts in certain to educate people of the different options. And then get to vote. And then yes, can we expect that people will be able to decide for their own good. I think we should and I´ll go completely on Rutger´s way. We should change back perception of our own. I am not a bad person. Did I make mistakes in my life? Yes. Do I want to make them? No. I am a good person. And I think most of the people would straight answer the same. We should build our system around that idea. Really love that. Thank you both for this very inspiring talk.

[invictusb]

Very relevant talking points. Great discussion!

[rawalshadab]

28:55, was that a sly little dig at a very particular hack author? (I love it).

[crimsonlofi]

D.A. aks some good questions ! but he doesnt seem to understand that platforms like facebook polarise by showing content in a specific not diverse direction by design ( correct me if im wrong )

[kobayoda]

We should explain democracy more practically sometimes. You both hit the point but nobody will understand it. We should explain where constitutional "democracies" can disrupt real democracy. In Chile, for example it´s Art.3 of the constitution where the trick starts. It turns the country into a presidential democracy where the strongest minority will govern. Why? Because in 2 election rounds with the given rules, the strongest minority will succeed. Are there other models today? Yes there are. And I hoped to hear more proposals at this point. Today we know different democratic systems and yes, they are executed today. And they have very different outcomes. Why don´t you name that more? You make really good points both but at the end there is no proposition, even if it would only be based on existing real time examples and their differences and consequences. Why don´t we talk directly about direct democratic systems? Get back to what balance and power means? How law can be created and executed? Simple maths. What does it means when the chief of state is elected by the votes of the strongest minority while the rest of the society won´t be represented anymore in any legal action on institutional level?
Could we get forward to something that would have majority and minority on the same boat?
Shouldn´t we talking more about proposals? How could we write a new democratic constitution? How can we stop the war between rich and poor? In terms of football language spoken, it would be very much easier. It´s 11 vs 11. Not 11 vs 5. For too long we didn´t talk about the rules. We really should. Thank you again both.