Attack on Titan Philosophy: Lessons for Humanity’s Future

Armin Arlert:  

When I was a boy, I believed the walls were the whole world. I thought safety was everything, that if we stayed inside, the monsters outside could never touch us. But I was wrong. The walls did not only keep danger out — they kept us from seeing the truth. And when we finally looked beyond them, we found something far more terrifying than Titans: the hatred of people who looked just like us.

Your world feels the same. Nations build walls, both of stone and of fear, and each side believes the other is the monster. Yet when children are born, they are not born with enemies. They inherit them, like a curse passed down from history.

That is why these conversations matter. Not to decide who is right or wrong, but to ask: can humanity learn to break the cycle, to choose unity over extinction, to protect both freedom and compassion?

I know what it is to live in fear. But I also know what it means to dream of the ocean, of something greater than fear. And so, I invite you to dream with me — not of walls, but of horizons.

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.)

Topic 1: Freedom vs. Security: What Price Are We Willing to Pay?

Before we can speak of unity or hatred, we must face the first question: what does it mean to live free, and what price are we willing to pay for safety? That is where our journey begins.

Armin Arlert (moderator):
In my world, humanity built towering walls to protect itself, but those same walls became prisons. I see echoes of this in your world — digital walls, political walls, even invisible ones built by fear. Let me ask you all: Is it better to live safely but confined, or dangerously but free? What does true freedom mean when security demands compromise?

Margaret Atwood:
Freedom is never free of cost, and neither is security. The dystopias I’ve written about always begin with people surrendering small freedoms for the illusion of safety. Before long, they forget what freedom even feels like. Safety without choice is simply another name for captivity.

Edward Snowden:
I’ve lived this question personally. I saw how governments justified watching everyone in the name of safety. But when you give away too much, you wake up one day realizing you’re no longer living free — just existing under surveillance. The real danger is not chaos outside the walls, but control inside them.

Yuval Noah Harari:
Freedom and security are not opposites; they are illusions of balance. In every era, humans have traded one for the other depending on their fears. What matters is the story we tell ourselves: Are we willing to accept death for liberty, or slavery for peace? Most people, when faced with danger, will choose the latter.

George Orwell:
The truth is that safety is often weaponized to crush freedom. When people are frightened, they become pliable. Leaders exploit this, erecting walls not to protect but to dominate. The price of security is usually your soul, though it’s dressed in the language of protection.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
But there is nuance here. Absolute freedom is chaos, and chaos creates suffering. Societies must find a delicate middle ground. The danger lies in how quickly compromise becomes submission. The moment we stop questioning authority, we’ve already lost both freedom and security.

Armin Arlert:
That tension between compromise and captivity is exactly what haunted us behind the walls. Let me ask a second question: When a society faces existential threats — war, terrorism, pandemics — how much freedom should we sacrifice for the collective security? Where is the line?

Edward Snowden:
The line must always be drawn where security becomes permanent. Emergency powers, once given, are rarely returned. In my world, temporary surveillance became eternal. Fear justifies control, but freedom dies quietly when we stop asking: “When does this end?”

Margaret Atwood:
I agree. History shows us the dangers of normalizing exceptional measures. The collective should never forget that liberty is fragile. The excuse of “just for now” becomes “forever.” The question isn’t how much to sacrifice, but how much vigilance we are willing to keep.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
And yet, in real crises, society does need protection. During pandemics or wars, freedoms must sometimes bend. The challenge is to bend without breaking. That requires trust in institutions — which is sorely lacking today. Without trust, every act of protection looks like an act of oppression.

George Orwell:
Yes, but trust is a fiction easily manipulated. Once fear is lit, it spreads like wildfire, and men in power seize the flames. The so-called line is invisible because most people don’t see it until they are already behind bars. The price of safety is always liberty, and it is rarely returned.

Yuval Noah Harari:
Perhaps the answer lies in transparency. If citizens clearly see the trade-offs and the timeline, the balance can survive. But secrecy breeds tyranny. The future will not be decided by who has more weapons, but by who controls more data. That is where freedom will live or die.

Armin Arlert:
You remind me of our struggle with truth — we never knew if the walls were protection or prison until we saw beyond them. So my last question is this: In an age of digital surveillance, climate anxiety, and growing authoritarianism, how can humanity protect both freedom and security? Is coexistence possible, or must one always triumph over the other?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Freedom and security can coexist only when rooted in accountability. Leaders must be watched as closely as they claim to watch threats. A society that forgets to guard its guardians is already enslaved.

George Orwell:
I am less hopeful. Power corrupts, and fear justifies power. Humans will always lean toward safety, until the cost becomes unbearable. Only rebellion reminds them that freedom is worth pain. But rebellion comes too late for many.

Margaret Atwood:
I think coexistence is possible, but it must be actively reimagined every generation. Young people must redefine what freedom means in their era. Otherwise, the old story of fear will write their fate for them.

Yuval Noah Harari:
I agree — and would add that technology is the battlefield. If technology is wielded by corporations and governments alone, freedom will erode. If it is democratized, perhaps humanity can escape the prison of fear. The future hinges on who holds the keys to data.

Edward Snowden:
Ultimately, the answer lies not in systems but in courage. Freedom requires people who refuse to stop questioning, who are willing to sacrifice comfort for principle. If enough do, then freedom and security may not be enemies — but partners. If not, the walls will rise again.

Armin Arlert (closing):
Hearing you all, I realize the paradox remains unsolved. In my world, the walls crumbled, and with them came both terror and liberation. Perhaps that is the truth: freedom will always be dangerous, and security will always tempt us into silence. The question is not which to choose, but whether humanity has the courage to live without certainty.

Topic 2: The Cycle of Hatred: Can We Break Free?

Armin Arlert (moderator):
On Paradis, we were taught to hate the Titans, but later we learned the world hated us as “devils.” The cycle of vengeance seemed endless, passed down like a curse. I want to begin with this question: Are enemies truly born, or are they created by history and fear? What is the root of hatred?

Elie Wiesel:
No child is born hating. I saw it myself in the camps — hatred was taught, justified, normalized. It came from fear and ignorance, but also from deliberate propaganda. Enemies are not born; they are sculpted by those who profit from division.

Malala Yousafzai:
Yes, hatred grows in the soil of fear. In my own country, extremists taught boys that girls like me were threats simply because we sought education. They were not born hating us; they were told lies until lies felt like truth.

Jonathan Haidt:
Psychology tells us that human beings are tribal by nature. Our brains are wired to form “us vs. them.” Hatred is a default switch, but it is activated by stories and leaders. The capacity for hatred is innate, but its direction is always shaped by culture and history.

Desmond Tutu:
Enemies are a fiction. Behind the label of enemy is a human being with fears and wounds like ours. In South Africa, we learned that hatred was not an essence, but a cloak draped by apartheid. Remove the cloak, and you find the same humanity.

Arundhati Roy:
But let us not forget — hatred is also political. It is not only born of fear, but cultivated as a weapon. Nations and corporations engineer hatred to distract from injustice. To say it is only “human nature” absolves those who profit from division.

Armin Arlert:
That cloak of hatred weighed heavily on both sides in my world. When cycles of vengeance stretch across generations, reconciliation feels impossible. My second question: How can societies trapped in generational hatred break free? Is forgiveness truly possible, or only a dream?

Desmond Tutu:
Forgiveness is not a dream; it is the only reality that heals. In South Africa, we chose truth and reconciliation over vengeance. It was imperfect, but it prevented blood from flooding the streets. Hatred cannot be negotiated away; it must be confessed and forgiven.

Arundhati Roy:
I am less certain. Forgiveness without justice can be another name for erasure. In India, in Palestine, in so many places, asking the oppressed to forgive without addressing the root injustices is a cruelty. True reconciliation demands dismantling the structures that bred hatred.

Elie Wiesel:
Forgiveness is sacred, but it cannot be forced. I do not forgive the Nazis — I cannot. But I refuse to become them. Breaking the cycle does not always mean forgiveness; sometimes it means choosing not to mirror the hatred inflicted on you.

Malala Yousafzai:
I agree. Forgiveness must walk hand in hand with change. When I forgave the men who tried to kill me, it was not to absolve them, but to free myself from hate. But it must come with education, with justice, with building something new for the next generation.

Jonathan Haidt:
Psychology shows us that reconciliation is possible when groups discover shared identities. If “us vs. them” can be replaced with a larger “we,” cycles weaken. The key is not only forgiveness, but creating a new narrative in which enemies see themselves as part of the same story.

Armin Arlert:
A larger “we.” That is what we never found until it was too late. For my last question: In today’s fractured world — with wars, nationalism, and polarization rising — what lessons does the cycle of hatred teach us about the future of humanity? Can we ever learn, or are we doomed to repeat the curse?

Arundhati Roy:
The lesson is that hatred is always profitable for someone. Unless we confront the systems — economic, political, military — that feed on division, we will repeat the curse endlessly. Humanity’s future depends on unmasking not only hatred, but those who manufacture it.

Elie Wiesel:
The lesson is memory. To forget is to repeat. Humanity may not escape hatred entirely, but we can remember where it leads — to ashes, to silence, to graves. Memory is our weapon against the cycle. Without it, the curse returns.

Desmond Tutu:
I believe in hope. I have seen oppressors embrace the oppressed, seen bitterness give way to laughter. We are not doomed unless we choose doom. God made us for harmony, not destruction. The future of humanity depends on daring to believe in the possibility of love.

Jonathan Haidt:
Realistically, polarization will always exist. The task is not to eliminate it but to manage it — to channel differences into constructive competition rather than destructive hatred. The cycle can be softened, if not erased, by building strong institutions that prize dialogue over dominance.

Malala Yousafzai:
And I believe education is the key. Hatred grows strongest where knowledge is weakest. If every child, no matter where they are born, can learn truth, compassion, and critical thinking, then maybe the curse will finally end with us.

Armin Arlert (closing):
Hearing your voices, I think of my own comrades — those who chose forgiveness, those who chose vengeance, and those who were simply too tired to choose at all. Perhaps humanity’s curse is not hatred itself, but forgetting that hatred is not inevitable. If we can remember, if we can teach, if we can forgive without surrendering justice, maybe the walls in our hearts will finally fall.

Topic 3: Power, Propaganda, and the Manipulation of Truth

Armin Arlert (moderator):
When I first saw the ocean, I thought it would mean freedom. But then I realized it was only another battlefield, another story told to us by those in power. In your world, I see similar struggles — not just wars of weapons, but wars of words and stories. My first question is this: Who decides the truth in society, and how does propaganda shape our understanding of good and evil?

Noam Chomsky:
The truth is rarely decided by the people themselves. It is constructed by those who control media, corporations, and governments. Propaganda is not a side effect; it is the system itself. From advertising to news, the powerful manufacture consent by shaping what people believe is true.

Hannah Arendt:
Propaganda thrives not only because it spreads lies, but because it destroys the very idea of truth. Once people no longer trust any truth, they accept whatever the powerful declare. Totalitarianism does not demand belief — only obedience to the narrative.

Maria Ressa:
I see this daily. Authoritarian regimes weaponize social media to spread lies faster than facts. In the Philippines, disinformation campaigns turned criminals into heroes and journalists into villains. Propaganda doesn’t just shape truth — it rewrites morality itself.

Christopher Hitchens:
But let us not forget: people are complicit. Propaganda works because people often want it to work. It flatters prejudices, gives easy answers. The public must take some blame — for truth is not handed down like bread, it must be demanded.

Zeynep Tufekci:
And now algorithms amplify this problem. Truth is decided not by reason but by engagement metrics. If outrage spreads faster than nuance, then outrage becomes truth in the digital square. The battlefield is no longer just newspapers, but billions of glowing screens.

Armin Arlert:
That resonates with me. In my world, we were taught Titans were monsters, until we became the monsters in someone else’s story. My next question: When lies are so deeply woven into history and identity, how can societies ever rediscover truth? Is it even possible to untangle propaganda from reality?

Maria Ressa:
Yes, but only through courage and transparency. We must expose not just the lies but also who spreads them and why. Fact-checking alone is not enough — we must rebuild trust in institutions and demand accountability from platforms that profit from chaos.

Christopher Hitchens:
I’d argue truth can be rediscovered, but not without pain. Once a lie is woven into a nation’s fabric, tearing it out feels like tearing the fabric itself. But if society refuses, it lives in a haunted house of illusions. Better to suffer disillusionment than live comfortably in deceit.

Noam Chomsky:
The key is education and skepticism. Propaganda thrives when people stop questioning. A society that teaches critical thinking from childhood will not be immune to lies, but it will be resilient. Without skepticism, there is no democracy — only managed perception.

Hannah Arendt:
But beware: once truth collapses, rebuilding it is arduous. People cling to lies because they provide meaning, even identity. To rediscover truth, we must create spaces where people can face reality without humiliation — otherwise they double down on falsehoods.

Zeynep Tufekci:
Technology complicates this further. Lies today spread faster than any truth could catch them. Untangling requires not only education but structural change: slowing the spread of falsehoods, rewarding nuance instead of rage. Without systemic redesign, truth will always lag behind.

Armin Arlert:
You all remind me of our own revelations: every truth uncovered carried pain, but also possibility. For my last question: In an era of AI, deepfakes, and mass disinformation, what must humanity do to safeguard truth for the future? Is there hope, or will propaganda always win?

Hannah Arendt:
Hope lies in responsibility. Truth will not safeguard itself. Every citizen must act as a guardian — questioning, remembering, refusing to surrender facts to power. Propaganda wins only when the majority abdicates this duty.

Zeynep Tufekci:
We must rethink our digital ecosystems. Platforms designed for profit will always privilege what shocks and divides. If we do not regulate and redesign, deepfakes and AI-driven disinformation will drown truth. Hope lies in courage to reshape the tools before they reshape us.

Christopher Hitchens:
Yes, but we must also remember that lies are seductive because they are easy. Truth is complicated, often unpleasant. The antidote is not simply technology, but cultivating a love of truth itself — a stubborn insistence that reality matters more than comfort.

Maria Ressa:
I believe hope lies in communities. When people come together in solidarity, defending truth not as abstract but as survival, propaganda loses power. We must link arms — journalists, citizens, educators — and remind the world that truth is worth fighting for.

Noam Chomsky:
The struggle will never end. Power will always distort truth to maintain itself. But the future depends on whether enough people remain vigilant, skeptical, and willing to resist. Propaganda may never be defeated, but it can be restrained. That restraint is what keeps democracy alive.

Armin Arlert (closing):
Listening to you, I think of our histories rewritten, our memories stolen. Propaganda made us blind, and by the time truth returned, it was already too late for many. Perhaps the lesson is this: truth will never be safe, only defended. Like freedom, it is fragile, requiring constant guardianship. The question is whether humanity will have the courage to guard it before the lies become walls too high to climb.

Topic 4: The Burden of Leadership and the Ethics of Sacrifice

Armin Arlert (moderator):
When Erwin Smith led us into battle, he knew most would die. Yet we followed him, because his vision gave meaning to our sacrifice. Leaders often face such choices: whose lives must be risked so others can live? My first question is this: What defines moral leadership in times of crisis? Is it ideals, pragmatism, or the ability to balance both?

Nelson Mandela:
Moral leadership is the ability to hold ideals even when surrounded by darkness. In prison, I had nothing but my belief in justice and reconciliation. Yet when I became president, I had to balance forgiveness with the reality of politics. A leader without ideals is dangerous, but a leader without pragmatism is powerless.

Winston Churchill:
I agree. Ideals without steel are fantasies. During the war, I had to inspire with words — but also make brutal choices. Leaders are defined not by what they dream, but by what they dare to decide when there is no good option.

Angela Merkel:
Leadership requires steadiness. Ideals are important, but citizens look for reliability when the world shakes. In Europe’s crises, I found that compromise, not purity, often saved lives. The task is not to be perfect but to be trusted.

Abraham Lincoln:
I would say moral leadership is holding the Union of principles and pragmatism together. I despised slavery, but I delayed its abolition until the nation could bear it. Leadership is the art of timing — too soon, and ideals die; too late, and justice rots.

Viktor Frankl:
Moral leadership is giving people meaning. Even in the camps, those who had meaning could endure suffering. A leader’s task is not only to make decisions, but to help people see that their sacrifices are not in vain. Without meaning, sacrifice becomes despair.

Armin Arlert:
I’ve seen leaders burdened by impossible choices, and sometimes their followers doubted them. My next question is this: When lives must be sacrificed for the greater good, how should leaders make that decision? Can any human truly bear that weight?

Angela Merkel:
No leader bears it alone. They may make the final decision, but it must be grounded in institutions, advisors, and shared responsibility. A leader who claims sole judgment risks arrogance. Sacrifice must be collective, not imposed by one person’s will.

Winston Churchill:
Yet in the end, it often does fall to one. In war, hesitation costs more lives than a hard choice. I had to send young men into battles knowing most would not return. Did I bear the weight? Yes, but the alternative was national death. Sometimes leadership means carrying unbearable burdens.

Nelson Mandela:
The only justification for sacrifice is if it brings reconciliation and healing. To sacrifice people for pride or ideology is immoral. But if some suffering can lead to a peace that spares future generations, then a leader may have no choice. Still, it must be carried with humility, never triumph.

Viktor Frankl:
Yes, humility is vital. No one is fit to decide who lives and who dies unless they remember the sacredness of every life. A leader may be forced into the calculus of sacrifice, but the weight is not theirs to bear lightly. They must suffer it, not justify it too quickly.

Abraham Lincoln:
I agree. During the war, I signed orders that led to thousands of deaths. I often asked myself whether it was worth it. I never knew for certain, but I prayed it was. Leadership does not free one from doubt; it chains one to it forever.

Armin Arlert:
I’ve wondered that myself — whether meaning is enough to justify loss. My final question: What does true leadership demand of the future? As humanity faces climate change, war, and uncertainty, what must leaders embody to guide us without repeating old mistakes?

Viktor Frankl:
They must give meaning, not only policies. Without meaning, people sink into despair or hatred. The crises of the future will not only be technical — they will be existential. Leaders must remind humanity why life is worth enduring.

Abraham Lincoln:
They must embrace empathy. A divided people cannot survive. I learned that unity, though imperfect, is stronger than vengeance. The future demands leaders who heal, not merely command.

Winston Churchill:
But let us not mistake empathy for weakness. The coming storms will test resolve. Leaders must embody courage, or the world will drift into chaos. Empathy is noble, but without resolve, it collapses under pressure.

Angela Merkel:
And courage must be paired with patience. The world will face long, grinding crises. People will need leaders who do not burn brightly and fade, but who endure steadily, adjusting and compromising without surrendering core values.

Nelson Mandela:
Above all, leaders must embody hope. A leader is not simply a decision-maker but a symbol of possibility. The world is fractured, but leadership can remind people that reconciliation is possible, even after centuries of hatred. If humanity is to survive, its leaders must believe in humanity.

Armin Arlert (closing):
I think of Commander Erwin, who gave his life leading us into the jaws of death. He never claimed to know if it was right — only that it was necessary. Perhaps leadership will always be this: carrying burdens too heavy for one person, and yet lifting them anyway. If the leaders of the future can balance courage with empathy, resolve with hope, then maybe humanity won’t repeat our mistakes.

Topic 5: Humanity’s Future: Unity or Extinction?

Armin Arlert (moderator):
When we broke free from the walls, we thought we’d found freedom. Instead, we found a world divided and ready to destroy itself. I fear your world faces a similar fate — borders, nations, and conflicts that may doom you before unity can save you. My first question is this: Is humanity destined to remain divided, or can we truly transcend tribalism to become one people?

Jane Goodall:
I’ve spent my life with chimpanzees, and what I saw in them I also see in us: aggression, yes, but also compassion and cooperation. Division is not inevitable. If we nurture our capacity for empathy, if we remember that we are one species sharing one planet, unity is possible.

Albert Einstein:
Nationalism is a disease, one I warned against in my time. Humanity clings to flags and borders, yet we are particles of the same universe. Division is not destiny; it is immaturity. The question is whether we will grow up before it is too late.

Greta Thunberg:
The climate crisis shows us the truth: we either act as one, or we fail as one. The atmosphere doesn’t care about borders. Extinction will not respect nationality. Unity is not a dream; it is survival.

Buckminster Fuller:
Yes, survival depends on design. The world’s divisions are artifacts of old systems — money, politics, competition. We can transcend them by creating new tools, new economies, new structures that make cooperation more efficient than conflict. Unity must be engineered.

Carl Sagan:
When we look at Earth from space, we see no borders, only a pale blue dot. That perspective reveals our folly: we fight over fragments of dust while drifting together through the cosmos. Unity is not a question of possibility — it is a question of awareness.

Armin Arlert:
I’ve seen how fear and vengeance blind people to their shared humanity. My second question is this: What role does empathy play in ensuring our survival? Can compassion truly counterbalance the forces of greed, fear, and hatred?

Albert Einstein:
Compassion is the only force that can balance destruction. Our intelligence has given us power beyond measure, but without empathy, that power turns inward. A civilization without compassion will collapse under the weight of its own cleverness.

Jane Goodall:
Yes. I’ve seen children transform their communities with small acts of care — planting trees, protecting animals, helping one another. Empathy is contagious. It spreads outward, softening the hard edges of greed and fear. It may seem fragile, but it is stronger than we think.

Carl Sagan:
Empathy widens the circle of “us.” Once it included only family, then tribe, then nation. Our task now is to widen it to the species, and beyond — to life itself. Without that widening, we are doomed. With it, survival becomes possible.

Buckminster Fuller:
But empathy must be practical. Goodwill alone cannot counter greed. We must design systems where empathy is rewarded, where cooperation is more profitable than exploitation. Only then will compassion scale beyond noble intentions.

Greta Thunberg:
Compassion is not weakness; it is courage. It means listening to those not yet born, defending those who cannot speak — animals, forests, oceans. Without empathy, humanity’s future will be short and brutal. With it, we may yet endure.

Armin Arlert:
Your words remind me of comrades who sacrificed themselves so others could live. For my final question: Looking ahead, do you believe humanity will choose unity and survival, or division and extinction? What hope, if any, do you see for the future?

Greta Thunberg:
I believe there is hope, but only if we act now. Young people around the world are demanding change. We refuse to inherit a dying planet. If leaders will not unite us, then we will force unity by our actions.

Buckminster Fuller:
Hope lies in design. If we can create systems that make war obsolete, that turn scarcity into abundance through technology, humanity will choose unity because it will be the logical choice. We must engineer a future worth surviving.

Carl Sagan:
Hope lies in perspective. If we can learn to see Earth as it truly is — fragile, alone in the vastness — then perhaps we will awaken. I have faith that the awe of existence can overcome the arrogance of division.

Jane Goodall:
I find hope in people, in their capacity to change. I’ve seen former enemies embrace, seen communities rise from despair. Humanity has an extraordinary ability to adapt. If we nurture empathy and resilience, we can choose survival.

Albert Einstein:
I am cautious. Humanity has great genius, but also great folly. If we remain enslaved to fear and nationalism, extinction is likely. But if enough people awaken to the truth of our shared existence, then yes — unity is possible. The future depends on whether wisdom can catch up to power.

Armin Arlert (closing):
I look at all of you and think of my own comrades, who dreamed of a world without walls. Some lived to see it, some did not. Your words tell me the same truth: unity is not guaranteed, but neither is extinction. The future rests on courage — the courage to widen our empathy, to design new ways of living, to see the Earth not as fragments but as one fragile home. Humanity may yet choose survival, but only if it remembers it is one people.

We’ve reached the horizon of our questions, but the answers remain fragile. Before I close, let me speak from my own heart — of what I’ve seen, and what I still hope for humanity.

Final Thoughts By Armin Arlert

I have seen comrades die believing their sacrifice would build a better world. I have seen enemies who were no different from us, only trapped in another story. I have seen hatred pass from father to son, mother to child, until it seemed eternal. And yet… I have also seen forgiveness, fragile and trembling, like the first light after a storm.

Perhaps humanity will never be free of walls. Perhaps fear and division will always tempt us. But the choice is still ours: to see only monsters in one another, or to see the possibility of family.

If the future belongs to anyone, it belongs to the children who have not yet learned to hate. What kind of story will we leave them? Will it be one of vengeance, or one of courage?

The world is vast. Larger than any wall, larger than any enemy. And though I carry the weight of all I have lost, I still believe in the horizon — a place where humanity can finally stand together, not as fragments of fear, but as one.

Short Bios:

Armin Arlert is a central character in Attack on Titan, known for his strategic brilliance, empathy, and vision of a better world beyond walls of fear.

George Orwell was a British novelist and essayist, best known for 1984 and Animal Farm, works critiquing totalitarianism and propaganda.

Edward Snowden is a former intelligence contractor who exposed global surveillance programs, sparking worldwide debates on privacy and freedom.

Margaret Atwood is a Canadian author of The Handmaid’s Tale, renowned for her explorations of dystopia, power, and human resilience.

Yuval Noah Harari is an Israeli historian and author of Sapiens, Homo Deus, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, examining humanity’s past and future.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist and writer focusing on freedom, women’s rights, and the challenges of cultural integration.

Elie Wiesel was a Holocaust survivor, Nobel laureate, and author of Night, who bore witness to the dangers of hatred and silence.

Desmond Tutu was a South African archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner, a global voice for reconciliation and justice after apartheid.

Arundhati Roy is an Indian novelist and activist, acclaimed for The God of Small Things and her critiques of nationalism and inequality.

Malala Yousafzai is a Pakistani Nobel laureate and education activist who survived an assassination attempt and advocates for girls’ rights worldwide.

Jonathan Haidt is an American social psychologist whose work explores morality, tribalism, and polarization in modern society.

Hannah Arendt was a German-born political theorist known for her works on totalitarianism, propaganda, and the nature of power and evil.

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, philosopher, and political activist widely recognized for his critiques of media, power, and U.S. foreign policy.

Maria Ressa is a Filipino journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has fought disinformation and authoritarianism in the digital age.

Christopher Hitchens was a British-American writer and critic, known for his fierce debates, essays, and unflinching challenges to ideology.

Zeynep Tufekci is a Turkish-American sociologist and author focusing on technology, social media, and their impact on society and truth.

Winston Churchill was the British Prime Minister during World War II, remembered for his wartime leadership and powerful oratory.

Nelson Mandela was South Africa’s first Black president, a Nobel laureate who dismantled apartheid and championed reconciliation.

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States, who led the country through the Civil War and ended slavery.

Angela Merkel is a German physicist and stateswoman who served as Chancellor for 16 years, guiding Europe through multiple crises.

Viktor Frankl was an Austrian neurologist, psychiatrist, and Holocaust survivor, best known for Man’s Search for Meaning.

Carl Sagan was an American astronomer and science communicator who inspired millions with Cosmos and his vision of humanity’s cosmic place.

Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, Nobel laureate, and humanitarian, celebrated for his theories of relativity and advocacy for peace.

Jane Goodall is a British primatologist and UN Messenger of Peace, known for her groundbreaking work with chimpanzees and environmental advocacy.

Buckminster Fuller was an American architect, inventor, and futurist who envisioned sustainable designs to solve global challenges.

Greta Thunberg is a Swedish climate activist who has mobilized millions of young people worldwide to demand urgent climate action.