|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Hello, everyone! I’m so excited to bring you a powerful conversation today, one that touches on the very core of our existence in this rapidly changing world. We’re diving deep into the lessons we all need to understand for the 21st century, and who better to guide us than the brilliant mind behind 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Yuval Noah Harari?
But it doesn’t stop there. Joining him in this conversation are two incredible thought leaders: His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who reminds us of the importance of compassion and mindfulness as we face global challenges, and renowned futurist Jacques Attali, who envisions a future shaped by technology, innovation, and global cooperation.
Together, they’ll tackle the most pressing issues we face today - climate change, inequality, technology’s impact on humanity, and the future of civilization itself. This is an imaginary conversation you don’t want to miss, so let’s get started!
Technology, Work, and Inequality
Nick Sasaki (Moderator):
Welcome, everyone. Today, we’re diving into one of the most critical issues of our time—how technology is transforming work, human freedom, and inequality. As automation and artificial intelligence reshape industries, we need to consider how these shifts will affect our societies and what steps we can take to mitigate inequality. Yuval, since this conversation draws heavily from your work in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, could you start us off with your thoughts?
Yuval Noah Harari:
Thank you, Nick. As I explore in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, technology—especially artificial intelligence and biotechnology—has the potential to radically change the world of work and deepen existing inequalities. The question we should be asking is not just about which jobs will disappear, but also about what kind of power these new technologies will confer to those who control them.
For the first time in history, machines are not just taking over physical labor but cognitive tasks as well. They can process information, make decisions, and even replace human judgment. This threatens to create a new elite—an economic and political class that controls these technologies, while the majority of humanity could become economically irrelevant. The danger lies in a future where a small group of highly skilled individuals and corporations reap the benefits of AI, while the rest struggle to find meaning and economic security in a world where their labor is no longer needed.
At the same time, AI could exacerbate inequalities between countries. Wealthier nations will likely develop and control the most advanced AI technologies, leaving poorer nations further behind. Therefore, this isn’t just a national issue—it’s a global one. The challenge is figuring out how to democratize access to these technologies and ensure that the benefits are shared by all of humanity, not just a privileged few.
Nick Sasaki:
A global challenge indeed, Yuval. Elon, you’ve often spoken about the potential of AI to change the future of work. How do you view this tension between technological progress and growing inequality?
Elon Musk:
Yuval’s absolutely right—AI and automation are not just reshaping work but fundamentally changing the structure of our societies. As we develop more advanced technologies, particularly AI, many jobs will be automated out of existence. But it’s not just factory workers and truck drivers; even jobs like doctors, lawyers, and accountants could be affected as AI improves in cognitive tasks. This is going to create massive upheaval in the job market, and we need to prepare for it.
One of the solutions I’ve talked about before is Universal Basic Income (UBI). If machines are doing most of the work, we’ll need to find a way to support people who are displaced from the workforce. But I don’t think it’s just about giving people money to survive—it’s about giving them the ability to thrive in this new world. People need to have opportunities to pursue education, creative endeavors, and meaningful work, even if it’s not in the traditional sense of having a “job.”
At the same time, we need to decentralize the control of AI and other technologies. If only a handful of companies or governments control the most advanced AI systems, they will have disproportionate power, both economically and politically. Open platforms and transparent AI development are essential to making sure everyone benefits from these advancements, not just a few powerful entities.
Nick Sasaki:
You raise a crucial point, Elon, about how control over technology could deepen inequalities. Shoshana, you’ve extensively written about surveillance capitalism and how data has become the new currency of power. What do you see as the key risks in terms of inequality and technology?
Shoshana Zuboff:
What both Yuval and Elon have touched on is the concentration of power in the hands of those who control technology—whether it’s AI, data, or biotech. But it’s not just about job displacement or economic inequality. We are witnessing the rise of what I call surveillance capitalism, where companies collect vast amounts of personal data and use it to predict and manipulate behavior. This creates a new form of inequality, what I refer to as epistemic inequality—the inequality in who knows and who decides.
In traditional economies, wealth inequality means that some people have more material resources than others. In a surveillance economy, the inequality is about knowledge—about who has the data, who controls it, and how it’s used to shape the behavior of individuals and populations. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are not just platforms for communication or shopping—they are systems of control. They monitor everything from our purchases to our emotions, and this knowledge gives them the ability to influence everything from consumer choices to political outcomes.
The danger is that this new system not only deepens economic inequalities but erodes democratic freedoms. When a few corporations know more about us than we do ourselves, they can shape our desires, our choices, and even our beliefs. And this imbalance of knowledge creates a kind of invisible inequality, one that people may not even be aware of but that profoundly affects their lives.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s a sobering perspective, Shoshana. If we look at this trend of increasing inequality—from job loss due to automation to the commodification of our personal data—how do we move forward in a way that addresses these challenges? Yuval, from your perspective, what solutions should we be considering?
Yuval Noah Harari:
I think we need to address these challenges on multiple fronts. One of the most important areas is education—not just education in the traditional sense of acquiring skills, but lifelong learning that helps people adapt to the rapid changes brought by technology. In the future, people may have to reinvent themselves multiple times throughout their lives as new technologies emerge. The ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn will be crucial.
But we also need to think more philosophically about what it means to live a meaningful life in a world where work is no longer central to human identity. For most of history, work has been a key source of meaning and purpose for many people. What happens when that is no longer the case? How do we find meaning in a world where many traditional jobs no longer exist? This is where UBI and other forms of social support come in, but they are not enough by themselves. We need to create systems and institutions that help people find purpose beyond economic productivity.
Finally, and this echoes what Shoshana was saying, we need to ensure that the power of data and AI is not concentrated in the hands of a few corporations or governments. This requires global cooperation, regulation, and new forms of governance that can keep up with the pace of technological change. If we fail to do this, we risk creating a future where inequality and authoritarianism thrive, rather than a future where technology benefits everyone.
Nick Sasaki:
Thank you, Yuval. It’s clear that education, governance, and finding new sources of meaning are essential to navigating the challenges we face. Elon, Shoshana, how do you see us building these new frameworks—both in terms of regulation and social structures—to ensure a more equitable future?
Elon Musk:
One thing we need to remember is that technology itself is neutral—it’s how we use it that matters. AI, for example, could either lead to incredible advancements that improve everyone’s quality of life, or it could concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few. I believe that open-source platforms are one way to democratize access to these technologies. If we can give more people access to AI and the ability to build on it, we’ll create more opportunities for innovation and collaboration across industries.
We also need to think about how we’re training the next generation. It’s not just about coding or technical skills—it’s about teaching people to think critically, to solve complex problems, and to work together. The jobs of the future may not exist yet, but if we equip people with the right mindset and skills, they’ll be able to adapt to whatever comes next.
Shoshana Zuboff:
I agree with Elon that education is vital, but we also need to develop strong regulatory frameworks that prevent the monopolization of knowledge and data. Without regulation, companies will continue to harvest and control the data that drives their profits, deepening inequality in ways we can’t fully predict yet. Governments need to step up and establish laws that protect people’s privacy, limit the power of corporations, and ensure that data is used ethically.
But beyond regulation, we need a cultural shift. We need to start thinking about our digital lives in the same way we think about our physical rights and freedoms. Just as we protect people from physical harm, we need to protect them from the invisible harms of surveillance capitalism. This means empowering individuals with the knowledge and tools to take control of their own data and digital identities.
Nick Sasaki:
Thank you, Shoshana, Elon, and Yuval. You’ve all highlighted the need for a multifaceted approach—one that combines technological innovation with ethical governance, education, and individual empowerment. As we wrap up this topic, it’s clear that the future of work, technology, and inequality will depend on the choices we make today. Let’s continue this dialogue as we move on to our next topic.
Politics, Globalization, and Nationalism
Nick Sasaki:
We’re now moving into a topic that has been central to global discussions in recent years: the tension between politics, globalization, and nationalism. As the world becomes more interconnected, we’ve seen a resurgence of nationalism, and many countries are grappling with the challenges of immigration and cultural identity. Yuval, could you start by discussing how these forces are playing out in the 21st century?
Yuval Noah Harari:
Certainly, Nick. The 21st century presents a paradox in terms of globalization and nationalism. On one hand, globalization is inevitable; technology, economics, and even climate change have made the world more interconnected than ever before. No country can isolate itself from these forces. However, as we’ve seen over the past decade, the rise of nationalism is a reaction to this interconnectedness. Many people feel that globalization has undermined their national identity, their economic security, and their control over their own lives.
The reality is that globalization creates winners and losers. For some, it brings prosperity, access to new markets, and opportunities for innovation. For others, especially in less developed or economically stagnant regions, it can mean the loss of jobs and a sense of cultural dislocation. This leads to a resurgence of nationalist ideologies, where people seek to reclaim a sense of belonging and security by turning inward—whether it’s through anti-immigration policies, protectionist economic measures, or the rejection of international agreements.
The challenge is finding a balance between embracing the benefits of globalization while addressing its downsides. We need to rethink how we manage global systems to ensure that more people benefit from them, rather than just a small global elite. If we don’t, the political backlash against globalization will only grow stronger.
Nick Sasaki:
That balance is critical. Angela, as someone who has led a country through times of immense change, especially in terms of immigration and global cooperation, what’s your take on how nationalism and globalization are affecting politics today?
Angela Merkel:
Thank you, Nick. As Yuval mentioned, globalization brings both opportunities and challenges. In Germany and across Europe, we’ve seen firsthand how these dynamics play out. The refugee crisis of 2015, for example, brought into sharp focus the tension between our commitment to humanitarian principles and the fears of citizens who felt that their communities and economies were being threatened by an influx of newcomers.
Nationalism, in many cases, stems from fear—fear of losing cultural identity, economic stability, or security. But in my experience, turning inward and retreating from the world is not the solution. Global problems like climate change, pandemics, and economic instability cannot be solved by individual nations acting alone. The only way forward is through cooperation. However, we must also recognize that we need to do a better job of managing globalization so that its benefits are more evenly distributed.
For example, in the European Union, we’ve worked hard to create policies that promote solidarity between countries, particularly in times of crisis. But we’ve also had to confront the fact that many people feel left behind by globalization, and we need to address their concerns through stronger social safety nets and job retraining programs. Nationalism is often fueled by economic anxiety, so addressing the root causes of that anxiety is essential.
Nick Sasaki:
You touch on an important point, Angela—the economic anxiety that fuels much of the nationalist sentiment. Fareed, you’ve written extensively about global politics. How do you see the balance between globalization and nationalism, especially in countries where this tension is most pronounced?
Fareed Zakaria:
Thanks, Nick. Yuval and Angela have both outlined the core of the issue very well. What we’re seeing today is a kind of backlash against globalization, but it’s important to recognize that globalization isn’t going away—it’s too deeply embedded in the structure of our world. Trade, technology, and communication have linked nations in ways that can’t be undone, short of a major catastrophe. The question is not whether globalization will continue, but how it will evolve.
One of the key problems is that the benefits of globalization have been unevenly distributed, both within countries and between them. In advanced economies, we’ve seen a hollowing out of the middle class, with wealth concentrating at the top while many workers face stagnant wages and job insecurity. This has led to a sense of resentment and disillusionment, which fuels populist and nationalist movements. In the developing world, globalization has lifted millions out of poverty, but it has also exposed countries to economic shocks and competition that they are not always prepared for.
In terms of politics, we see leaders using nationalist rhetoric to exploit these fears and anxieties. They promise to protect their citizens from the perceived threats of globalization—whether it’s immigration, free trade, or international agreements. But the reality is, as Angela pointed out, that the problems we face today—climate change, pandemics, economic crises—are global in nature and require global solutions. Nationalism may win elections, but it doesn’t solve these problems.
So, I think the challenge moving forward is to create a form of globalization that is more inclusive, that addresses the concerns of those who feel left behind, while maintaining the global cooperation necessary to tackle our most pressing challenges.
Nick Sasaki:
Yuval, Angela, Fareed—you’ve all emphasized the need for cooperation in an increasingly globalized world. But how do we address the legitimate concerns of those who feel left behind or threatened by globalization? Yuval, how can we navigate these fears while still promoting the benefits of global cooperation?
Yuval Noah Harari:
It’s a complex question, Nick, because these fears are real, even if they are sometimes exaggerated or manipulated for political purposes. One of the key challenges is to make globalization more equitable. This means not only redistributing economic resources but also giving people a stronger sense of agency and control over their lives. Many people feel powerless in the face of global forces, whether it’s trade agreements, multinational corporations, or immigration flows. If we can give people more say in how these processes are managed, we can reduce some of the anxiety and resentment.
For example, we need to strengthen local governance and give communities more control over the policies that directly affect them. At the same time, we need to ensure that international institutions are more transparent and accountable. If people feel that global decisions are being made behind closed doors by elites who are disconnected from their daily lives, they will continue to reject globalization in favor of nationalist alternatives.
Another critical area is education. We need to educate people not only about the economic benefits of globalization but also about the shared challenges we face as a global community—whether it’s climate change, pandemics, or technological disruptions. If we can foster a sense of global solidarity, where people see themselves as part of a larger human project, rather than just isolated individuals or members of a single nation, we can create a more inclusive form of globalization.
Angela Merkel:
I agree, Yuval. Strengthening democratic institutions at both the local and global levels is essential. In Europe, for example, we’ve worked hard to ensure that the European Union remains accountable to its citizens, but there is always more to do. One of the lessons we’ve learned is that communication is key—if people don’t understand the decisions being made at the global level, they will naturally feel disconnected from them. We need to do a better job of explaining why global cooperation is in everyone’s best interest, while also addressing the legitimate concerns people have about economic security and cultural identity.
Fareed Zakaria:
Absolutely. And I think it’s important to recognize that nationalism doesn’t have to be entirely negative. There are healthy forms of nationalism that emphasize pride in one’s country and a sense of belonging, without being exclusionary or xenophobic. The problem arises when nationalism becomes a tool for demagoguery, when leaders use it to stoke fear and division. What we need are leaders who can balance a sense of national pride with a commitment to global cooperation—who can show that these two things are not mutually exclusive.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s an excellent point, Fareed. It seems the solution lies in finding a balance between national identity and global responsibility. As we move forward, addressing the concerns of those who feel left behind by globalization while promoting cooperation will be key. Thank you all for your insights on this crucial topic. Let’s continue this discussion in our next conversation.
War, Security, and Information Warfare
Nick Sasaki:
We’re shifting our focus now to a topic that’s increasingly relevant in today’s world: war, security, and the rise of information warfare. As conflicts evolve, we’re no longer just talking about traditional warfare; cyberattacks, misinformation, and the manipulation of truth are becoming central to global security concerns. Yuval, can you start us off by discussing how these dynamics fit into your broader understanding of 21st-century challenges?
Yuval Noah Harari:
Certainly, Nick. One of the most significant developments in the realm of war and security in the 21st century is the shift from physical to digital battlefields. Historically, wars were fought with guns, tanks, and soldiers, but today, much of the conflict takes place in cyberspace. We’re moving into an era where the most important asset isn’t land or natural resources—it’s information.
Countries and corporations are now investing heavily in cyber capabilities, not only to protect their own systems but also to launch offensive operations. We’ve already seen the effects of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, from power grids to financial systems, and this kind of warfare doesn’t require the same resources as traditional conflict. A small group of hackers can inflict as much damage as a military battalion, perhaps even more, and often without leaving any trace of who was responsible.
What makes information warfare particularly dangerous is the ability to manipulate reality itself. In a world where fake news and misinformation can spread instantly, it becomes harder for people to know what’s true. Governments and corporations have realized that controlling the narrative is just as important as controlling resources. This creates a world where the battlefield is not just external but internal—within people’s minds. The challenge for us is how to defend against this kind of warfare, which can destabilize entire societies without firing a single shot.
Nick Sasaki:
Yuval, your point about the battlefield shifting to the digital realm is crucial. Edward, you've been at the center of debates around information warfare and surveillance. How do you see the future of conflict evolving, especially in terms of cyberattacks and government surveillance?
Edward Snowden:
Thanks, Nick. Yuval’s absolutely right—today’s wars aren’t fought just with bombs and bullets, but with bits and bytes. What worries me most is that we’re living in an era where governments and corporations are gaining unprecedented levels of control over individuals through digital surveillance. What we used to consider private—our thoughts, our conversations, even our behaviors—are now being tracked, stored, and analyzed by algorithms.
The rise of cyber warfare has opened the door to a different kind of conflict, one that takes place largely out of the public eye. It’s not just about stealing data or attacking systems—it’s about influencing populations and manipulating outcomes. For example, election interference has become one of the primary ways in which cyber tools are used to disrupt democratic processes. These kinds of attacks don’t require armies or missiles; they simply require access to the digital networks that now govern so much of our lives.
The problem is that these surveillance tools—whether used by governments or corporations—are being normalized. People are getting used to the idea that their personal information is up for grabs, and this normalization makes it easier for authoritarian regimes or unscrupulous corporations to exploit individuals. In the future, the line between peace and war will blur even further, as these digital tools are used not only for national security purposes but for controlling and manipulating societies at large.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s a chilling perspective, Edward. The idea that war is being waged on a digital front, without most of us even knowing, is alarming. Peter, as someone who has studied the future of conflict, how do you see this trend developing? Will traditional forms of warfare become obsolete, or will cyber and information warfare simply be added to the mix?
Peter W. Singer:
Thanks, Nick. What we’re seeing now is a hybridization of warfare. Traditional forms of conflict—tanks, drones, and troops on the ground—are still relevant, but they’re increasingly supplemented by cyber and information warfare. In fact, the most effective military strategies in the 21st century will be those that combine these different forms of warfare into a cohesive approach.
Take Russia’s actions in Ukraine, for example. It’s a perfect case of hybrid warfare—on one hand, you have conventional military operations, but on the other, you have cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and attempts to destabilize the country from within by manipulating public opinion. The goal is to create confusion and division, making it difficult for a country to respond coherently.
In terms of the future, I think we’re going to see more emphasis on information warfare. As Yuval and Edward have pointed out, controlling the narrative is just as important as controlling the battlefield. This means that in the future, we won’t just be defending our physical borders; we’ll be defending the minds of our citizens. We’re already seeing the weaponization of social media platforms, where state and non-state actors spread misinformation to destabilize societies and influence elections. In this sense, warfare is becoming more psychological—it’s about undermining trust in institutions, creating divisions, and eroding the social fabric.
Nick Sasaki:
You’ve all made it clear that the nature of war is changing, and the digital and psychological fronts are becoming just as important as traditional military tactics. But how do we defend against this type of warfare? Yuval, you’ve spoken about the importance of education in countering misinformation. Could you elaborate on that?
Yuval Noah Harari:
Absolutely, Nick. Education is one of our most powerful tools for defending against information warfare. The reason misinformation and propaganda are so effective is that they exploit people’s cognitive biases and emotional triggers. If we want to defend against these attacks, we need to teach people how to think critically, how to question the information they receive, and how to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources.
In a world where anyone can publish anything online, traditional gatekeepers of information—like journalists and academic institutions—have lost much of their influence. This is both a good and a bad thing. On the one hand, it democratizes information; on the other, it opens the door to mass misinformation. We need to equip people with the skills to navigate this new information landscape. This doesn’t just mean teaching people how to spot fake news—it means fostering a deeper understanding of how information can be manipulated and how to build mental resilience against these tactics.
But education alone isn’t enough. Governments and tech companies need to take responsibility for regulating the digital space. Just as we regulate physical spaces to ensure public safety, we need to create rules for digital spaces to protect against cyberattacks and disinformation. However, this is a delicate balance, because over-regulation could stifle free speech and innovation. It’s a complex issue, but if we fail to act, we risk creating societies where truth becomes irrelevant and trust is eroded.
Nick Sasaki:
Critical thinking and regulation—two important pillars in defending against these threats. Edward, you’ve advocated for increased transparency and accountability when it comes to surveillance. How do you see transparency playing a role in combating information warfare?
Edward Snowden:
Transparency is crucial, Nick, because it’s the only way to hold those in power accountable. When governments or corporations engage in surveillance or manipulation, they often do so behind closed doors, under the guise of national security or protecting the public. But what we’ve seen, time and time again, is that these powers are often abused.
In terms of information warfare, transparency can help by exposing disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, and the entities responsible for them. For example, if we know that a foreign government is trying to interfere in an election or that a corporation is harvesting personal data to manipulate consumer behavior, we can take action. But without transparency, we’re flying blind. People need to know who’s behind the attacks, what the intentions are, and what the potential consequences could be.
The problem is that governments and corporations often have incentives to keep these activities secret. That’s why whistleblowing, investigative journalism, and open-source intelligence are so important. By shining a light on these activities, we can create public awareness and demand accountability. Ultimately, transparency is about empowering people to make informed decisions and to resist manipulation.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s a powerful argument for transparency, Edward. Peter, you’ve worked extensively on understanding the future of conflict. How do we build frameworks that balance the need for security with the rights of individuals in this new era of warfare?
Peter W. Singer:
It’s a difficult balance, Nick. On the one hand, we need to protect against real threats—cyberattacks, disinformation, and state-sponsored hacking are all very real dangers. But on the other hand, we need to protect civil liberties and prevent governments or corporations from abusing their power.
One potential solution is to develop international agreements and norms for cyberspace, much like we’ve done with nuclear weapons. Right now, there’s very little in the way of international law governing cyber warfare or information warfare. Countries are essentially operating in a digital Wild West, where anything goes. We need global cooperation to establish rules of engagement and accountability mechanisms for the digital realm.
At the same time, we need better public-private partnerships to secure critical infrastructure and combat disinformation. Governments can’t do it alone—tech companies play a massive role in shaping the information environment, and they need to be part of the solution. But again, this needs to be done in a way that respects individual rights. It’s a fine line, but if we don’t walk it, we risk sliding into a future where the tools of war are turned against the very people they’re supposed to protect.
Nick Sasaki:
Thank you, Peter. You’ve raised an important point about the need for international cooperation and public-private partnerships in navigating this complex digital landscape. As we’ve discussed, balancing security with individual rights is critical but challenging. Yuval, I’d like to bring you back into the conversation. Given the rapid advancements in technology and the increasing importance of information in warfare, what steps should global leaders take to prevent the escalation of cyber and information warfare into a full-blown global crisis?
Yuval Noah Harari:
The first and most important step is international cooperation. As Peter mentioned, we need a global framework, much like the arms control treaties that were developed in the 20th century. Cyberattacks and information warfare are borderless by nature, so no single country can tackle these issues on its own. However, the challenge is that many governments see cyberspace as a battleground where they can gain an advantage over their rivals. This makes it difficult to reach international agreements.
Still, if global leaders don’t cooperate to create some form of regulation, we may see a new type of arms race—this time in the digital domain. Just as nuclear weapons posed an existential threat to humanity in the 20th century, uncontrolled cyber warfare could destabilize the global order in ways we can’t yet fully comprehend. Imagine a future where critical infrastructure in every country is vulnerable to attack, where elections can be easily manipulated, and where misinformation can undermine trust in every institution. This is a recipe for chaos, and it’s something we need to address urgently.
Second, as Edward and Peter have pointed out, we need to be transparent about the use of these technologies. This means both governments and private corporations must be held accountable for their actions in the digital space. At the moment, too much of the digital world operates in the shadows, with decisions being made behind closed doors. This lack of transparency creates an environment where abuses can thrive, and where individuals and societies are vulnerable to manipulation.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to shift the focus away from technological solutions and back to human resilience. Technology will always evolve, and new threats will always emerge. What we need to do is strengthen the human capacity to deal with these changes. This goes back to education—teaching people to think critically, to question what they’re being told, and to resist manipulation. But it also means fostering social cohesion. Divided societies are far more vulnerable to information warfare than united ones. If we can create stronger, more inclusive communities, we’ll be far more resilient in the face of these digital threats.
Nick Sasaki:
Yuval, you’ve touched on a crucial point—building resilience in people and societies is as important as securing systems. This goes beyond just technology; it’s about fostering a mindset that can resist manipulation and division. Edward, in your experience, how can we foster this kind of resilience, especially when individuals feel powerless against the vast amounts of data collected about them?
Edward Snowden:
That’s a great question, Nick. The truth is, many people do feel powerless in the face of surveillance and information warfare. It’s easy to become overwhelmed when you realize just how much data is being collected about you—everything from your location to your personal preferences to your political views. But I think one of the key steps in building resilience is awareness. People need to understand the ways in which their data is being used and the risks associated with it.
Once individuals are aware of the risks, they can start taking steps to protect themselves. This doesn’t mean that everyone has to become a cybersecurity expert, but there are simple things that people can do—using encrypted communication tools, being mindful of the information they share online, and questioning the sources of the information they consume. It’s also about understanding that you have the power to push back against these systems, whether it’s demanding better privacy protections from the companies you interact with or holding your government accountable for its surveillance practices.
At a larger scale, though, fostering resilience means creating a culture of transparency and accountability, not just in governments but in corporations as well. When companies operate with transparency and respect for user privacy, it sets a standard for others. But when they exploit people’s data for profit without any accountability, it weakens the social fabric and makes people feel more vulnerable. So, fostering resilience isn’t just an individual responsibility; it’s a societal one.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s a powerful call for both individual action and systemic accountability. Peter, you’ve been involved in developing strategies for how nations can defend against these new forms of warfare. What should governments be doing to build both technological and psychological resilience in their populations?
Peter W. Singer:
Governments need to take a multi-layered approach to this issue, Nick. First, on the technological side, they need to invest in cybersecurity infrastructure. This means protecting critical systems—like power grids, financial networks, and healthcare systems—from cyberattacks. But it also means securing the integrity of democratic processes, particularly elections. In recent years, we’ve seen how vulnerable election systems can be to foreign interference, and protecting these systems needs to be a top priority for any government that values its democratic institutions.
Second, governments need to work with the private sector, as so much of the digital infrastructure is owned and operated by corporations. Public-private partnerships are essential for defending against cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns. Tech companies have the resources and expertise to play a leading role in securing cyberspace, but they need to be incentivized to prioritize security and transparency over profits.
On the psychological side, governments should invest in public education campaigns that promote digital literacy and critical thinking. As Yuval mentioned earlier, this is about teaching people how to recognize misinformation and question the sources of the information they consume. But beyond that, it’s about creating a sense of national unity. Divisive politics and social fragmentation make societies much more vulnerable to information warfare. When people trust their institutions and feel a sense of belonging to their communities, they’re much less likely to fall victim to disinformation or manipulation.
Finally, we need international cooperation to develop norms and regulations for cyber and information warfare. Right now, there’s very little in the way of global governance for these issues, and that’s dangerous. Just as we have treaties that govern the use of nuclear weapons, we need agreements that set boundaries for how nations can engage in cyber operations. This won’t be easy—cyber and information warfare are much harder to monitor and regulate than traditional forms of conflict—but it’s necessary if we want to prevent these tools from being used recklessly.
Nick Sasaki:
It’s clear that resilience—both technological and psychological—is going to be crucial as we move forward in this digital age. Whether it’s through education, public-private partnerships, or international cooperation, we need to rethink how we approach both war and security in the 21st century. Thank you all for your insights on this critical topic. Let’s continue the conversation as we move to our next discussion.
Ethics, Religion, and Secularism
Nick Sasaki:
In this next topic, we’re shifting from the technological battlefield to more philosophical terrain: ethics, religion, and secularism. As the world modernizes and technology advances, traditional religious frameworks are being challenged, and secularism is on the rise. At the same time, people are still searching for meaning and ethical guidance in their lives. Yuval, your writings often explore the intersection of these forces. Could you start by explaining how ethics and meaning are evolving in the 21st century?
Yuval Noah Harari:
Thanks, Nick. In the 21st century, many of the ethical frameworks that have guided humanity for centuries are being challenged by both technological advancements and the shifting nature of global society. For much of human history, religion was the primary source of meaning and morality. However, with the rise of secularism and scientific thinking, many people are now looking to non-religious frameworks to guide their ethical decisions.
One of the key changes we’re seeing is the growing importance of individualism. In the past, ethical systems were often based on collective beliefs, whether it was religious communities or nation-states. Today, more and more people are asking themselves, “What does it mean for me to live a good life?” This shift towards individual meaning can be liberating, but it also presents new challenges. Without the traditional anchors of religion or collective morality, people can feel lost or disconnected.
At the same time, technological advances—particularly in fields like biotechnology—are forcing us to rethink our ethical frameworks. For example, if we develop the ability to genetically engineer humans, what are the ethical implications? Who decides what is “right” or “wrong” when it comes to manipulating life? These are questions that our current ethical systems, whether religious or secular, aren’t fully equipped to answer.
Secularism, for its part, has provided a new foundation for ethical thinking, based on reason, empathy, and a shared sense of human rights. But even secularism has its limits. It’s clear that many people still seek meaning in something greater than themselves, whether that’s through religion, spirituality, or philosophical systems. The challenge in the 21st century is to find a balance between secular ethics and the deep human need for meaning, while addressing the new moral dilemmas that technology and globalization have created.
Nick Sasaki:
That idea of finding balance between secular ethics and deeper meaning is at the heart of today’s conversation. Karen, as someone who has extensively studied world religions, how do you see religion adapting to the challenges and ethical questions posed by modern society and technology?
Karen Armstrong:
Thank you, Nick. Yuval raises some very important points about how traditional ethical frameworks are being challenged, particularly in the face of technological advances and the rise of secularism. Religion has always been about more than just rules and dogma—it’s about providing people with a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, and a way of making sense of the world around them. These are needs that transcend time, and even though the modern world is increasingly secular, those needs haven’t gone away.
However, many of the world’s religions are struggling to keep up with the pace of change. One of the key issues is that religious institutions often rely on ancient texts and traditions, which can feel disconnected from the realities of modern life. For example, the ethical questions posed by artificial intelligence or biotechnology simply didn’t exist when most religious doctrines were written. As a result, religious communities need to find ways to reinterpret their teachings in light of modern challenges.
At the same time, we’re seeing a resurgence of interest in spirituality, but not necessarily in traditional religious forms. Many people are looking for a spiritual connection that isn’t tied to organized religion—whether that’s through mindfulness practices, meditation, or even environmental activism. In some ways, this mirrors what Yuval was saying about individualism. People want a personal sense of meaning that resonates with their own lives, rather than a set of rigid rules imposed from the outside.
Religion, in its best form, offers a sense of compassion, empathy, and ethical guidance that is deeply needed in the modern world. But it has to evolve. It has to become more inclusive, more flexible, and more open to the questions that technology and globalization are bringing to the forefront.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s an important perspective, Karen—especially how religion and spirituality are evolving in response to modern challenges. Sam, as a prominent voice in secular ethics, you’ve argued that we don’t need religion to lead ethical lives or to find meaning. How do you see secularism providing that framework in today’s world?
Sam Harris:
Thanks, Nick. I’ve always maintained that we can have a robust ethical system without relying on religious doctrines. In fact, I believe secular ethics—grounded in reason, empathy, and a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures—offers a more adaptable and universal framework for addressing the complex moral questions we face today.
Religion, in many cases, is based on outdated moral assumptions. For example, many religious texts condone practices that we now consider immoral, like slavery or the subjugation of women. While some religious leaders try to reinterpret these texts for the modern era, the fact remains that these ethical systems are often rigid and resistant to change. Secular ethics, on the other hand, can evolve with our understanding of the world. We don’t need to rely on ancient texts to tell us what’s right and wrong—we can use reason and science to guide our moral decisions.
Take the example of biotechnology that Yuval mentioned. The question of whether we should genetically engineer humans is a profoundly ethical one, but we don’t need religious doctrine to answer it. Instead, we can ask: What will promote the well-being of individuals and society? What are the potential risks and benefits? These are questions that science and reason can help us answer.
At the same time, I acknowledge that many people turn to religion not just for ethical guidance, but for meaning. And I think it’s important to distinguish between the two. You can lead an ethical life without religion, but finding meaning is a deeply personal journey. For some, that journey might involve religion or spirituality, while for others, it may come from philosophy, art, or personal relationships. The key is to allow for flexibility in how people find meaning, while promoting a shared ethical foundation based on human well-being.
Nick Sasaki:
Thank you, Sam. It’s interesting to see how secular ethics provides a flexible framework for modern challenges, while still recognizing the importance of personal meaning. Yuval, how do you see the tension between religious and secular ethics playing out in the context of global issues like climate change or inequality?
Yuval Noah Harari:
That’s a great question, Nick, and it’s something I’ve thought about a lot. When it comes to global issues like climate change or inequality, both religious and secular frameworks offer valuable insights, but they also face significant limitations. On the one hand, religious ethics often emphasize stewardship of the Earth and compassion for the poor, which can provide a strong moral imperative to address these problems. On the other hand, religious frameworks can sometimes be limited by their reliance on supernatural explanations or divine intervention, which may not align with the scientific realities we face.
Secular ethics, as Sam mentioned, are grounded in reason and empathy, which makes them well-suited to addressing global issues that require practical solutions. For example, the science is clear on climate change—human activity is driving global warming, and we need to reduce our carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic consequences. This is not a question of faith, but of evidence and action. Secular ethics can mobilize people to take action based on the well-being of future generations and the planet as a whole.
However, one challenge for secular ethics is that it sometimes lacks the emotional or spiritual resonance that religion provides. Climate change, for example, is a vast and complex problem that can feel overwhelming. For many people, religious frameworks offer a sense of hope or divine purpose in the face of such challenges. Secular ethics, while logical and evidence-based, can sometimes struggle to inspire the same level of commitment or sacrifice that religious narratives can.
This is why I think we need to integrate the best of both approaches. Secularism provides the tools for solving practical problems, but religion and spirituality can offer the emotional and ethical motivation to inspire collective action. The key is finding a way to bridge these two frameworks, so we can address the existential challenges of the 21st century in a way that is both practical and meaningful.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s an insightful perspective, Yuval. Karen, do you see opportunities for religion and secularism to collaborate on global ethical issues like climate change and inequality?
Karen Armstrong:
Absolutely, Nick. I think there’s a real opportunity for collaboration between religious and secular communities, especially when it comes to addressing global challenges. As Yuval mentioned, religious traditions often emphasize values like compassion, stewardship, and social justice, which are directly relevant to issues like climate change and inequality. But religion, at its best, can also provide a sense of purpose and motivation that secular ethics sometimes struggles to offer.
At the same time, secularism brings an evidence-based approach that is essential for finding solutions to these complex problems. For example, science tells us what is happening to the climate and what needs to be done to mitigate the damage. Religious communities can take that knowledge and mobilize people to act, not just out of fear, but out of a sense of moral duty and connection to the Earth and future generations.
We’re already seeing examples of this kind of collaboration. In the fight against climate change, many religious groups have embraced the scientific consensus and are working alongside secular organizations to promote sustainable practices. Pope Francis, for example, has been a vocal advocate for action on climate change, grounding his call for environmental responsibility in both religious and scientific principles. His encyclical Laudato Si’ emphasizes the need for ecological stewardship, drawing from Catholic teachings while also acknowledging the scientific reality of climate change.
This kind of collaboration can be a powerful force. Religious communities have a vast reach and can mobilize large numbers of people around moral and ethical causes. When religious values like compassion and justice align with secular goals such as fighting inequality or protecting the environment, the result can be a unified effort that transcends cultural or ideological differences.
However, for this collaboration to be successful, it’s important that both sides remain open to each other’s perspectives. Religious groups need to embrace the scientific evidence and be willing to adapt their teachings to the realities of the modern world, just as secular organizations need to recognize the deep emotional and spiritual motivations that drive religious communities. Together, they can offer a more holistic approach to addressing the moral and practical challenges we face today.
Nick Sasaki:
It’s encouraging to see that kind of collaboration already happening in some areas. Sam, from your perspective, how do we ensure that this collaboration between religious and secular communities remains productive, especially when there are fundamental differences in their approaches to ethics?
Sam Harris:
I think the key to productive collaboration is recognizing that while religious and secular approaches to ethics may differ in their origins, they often converge on the same practical outcomes. For example, most religious traditions emphasize compassion, charity, and justice—values that secular ethics also upholds through a focus on human well-being and fairness.
What’s important is to find common ground on these shared values, while agreeing to set aside metaphysical disagreements. If we can focus on the practical implications of ethical behavior—how it impacts individuals and society—we can work together, regardless of whether our motivations are religious or secular.
However, I do think it’s crucial that secular values remain rooted in reason and evidence, particularly when dealing with global issues like climate change or public health. These are areas where empirical data is essential for making informed decisions. Religious communities can certainly contribute moral guidance, but they need to respect the scientific process and accept that facts should guide policy. When this balance is struck, we can have a productive partnership.
Ultimately, it’s about pragmatism. We need to ask ourselves: What’s the goal? If the goal is to reduce human suffering, address inequality, or combat climate change, then we should be willing to work with anyone who shares that goal, regardless of their philosophical or religious background. Collaboration is about finding practical solutions, not winning ideological battles.
Nick Sasaki:
Sam, that’s a very pragmatic approach, and it speaks to the importance of focusing on shared goals rather than differences. Yuval, Karen, and Sam, you’ve all brought up the need for flexibility and collaboration in how we approach ethics in a rapidly changing world. As we wrap up this topic, what are the most important steps we can take to ensure that both religious and secular frameworks contribute to a more ethical, just, and sustainable future?
Yuval Noah Harari:
I think the most important step is to cultivate humility—both in religious and secular communities. No single tradition, philosophy, or framework has all the answers, especially when we’re dealing with unprecedented challenges like climate change, artificial intelligence, or global inequality. If both religious and secular communities can approach these problems with an open mind and a willingness to learn from each other, we’ll be much better equipped to find solutions.
We also need to create spaces for dialogue—spaces where people of different backgrounds can come together and explore ethical questions in a constructive, respectful way. Whether it’s about biotechnology, environmental stewardship, or social justice, we need platforms for cross-cultural and interfaith conversations that prioritize shared values and common goals. When we focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us, we can start to build the kind of ethical consensus that’s necessary for tackling the global issues of the 21st century.
Karen Armstrong:
I completely agree, Yuval. Humility and dialogue are essential. In addition to that, I think we need to reframe the conversation around ethics and meaning in a way that’s inclusive of all people, regardless of their religious or philosophical backgrounds. Whether someone finds meaning through religion, spirituality, or secular humanism, the important thing is that we’re all striving to live ethical, compassionate lives.
Religious traditions can offer a deep sense of connection and purpose, but they must be open to reinterpreting their teachings in light of modern knowledge and the challenges we face today. At the same time, secular approaches to ethics need to acknowledge the emotional and spiritual dimensions of human life—dimensions that are often overlooked in purely rational frameworks. If we can bring these perspectives together, we can create a more holistic approach to ethics that addresses both the practical and existential needs of humanity.
Sam Harris:
I agree with both Yuval and Karen. One of the most important things we can do is promote a shared ethical framework based on reason, empathy, and a commitment to human well-being. This doesn’t mean that everyone needs to abandon their religious beliefs, but it does mean that our ethical decisions—especially on global issues—should be guided by evidence and a concern for the greater good.
At the same time, we need to respect the fact that people derive meaning and purpose from different sources. As long as those sources promote compassion, justice, and ethical behavior, they should be valued. The more we focus on shared values, the more we can build a future that is not only ethical but also sustainable and just for all.
Nick Sasaki:
Thank you, Yuval, Karen, and Sam, for your deep insights on this complex and important topic. It’s clear that in the 21st century, we’ll need to draw from both religious and secular traditions to navigate the ethical challenges ahead. Finding common ground, fostering dialogue, and building ethical frameworks that are both inclusive and flexible will be essential as we move forward. Let’s continue this journey into our next topic.
The Future of Civilization
Nick Sasaki:
As we wrap up our series of discussions, we now turn to a broader question—what is the future of civilization? With globalization, climate change, rapid technological advancements, and social transformation, humanity stands at a crossroads. Yuval, you’ve written extensively on the trajectory of human civilization. How do you see the future unfolding, and what are the greatest challenges and opportunities ahead for us as a global community?
Yuval Noah Harari:
Thank you, Nick. The future of civilization is an immense topic, and while it’s impossible to predict with certainty, we can outline the most pressing challenges and opportunities based on current trends. In the 21st century, humanity faces unprecedented threats but also unprecedented opportunities.
One of the greatest challenges we face is ecological collapse. Climate change is accelerating, and if we don’t take drastic action, we risk not only devastating natural ecosystems but also destabilizing global societies. Rising temperatures, extreme weather, and sea level rise could lead to mass migrations, resource conflicts, and the collapse of vulnerable economies. This isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s an existential threat to human civilization.
Another major challenge is the rapid pace of technological advancement, particularly in AI and biotechnology. These technologies have the potential to fundamentally change what it means to be human. If handled responsibly, they could solve many of our problems—curing diseases, extending human life, and perhaps even helping us mitigate climate change. But if misused, they could lead to new forms of inequality, authoritarianism, and even the erosion of human autonomy. The future of civilization will depend on how we manage these technologies.
The opportunity, though, is that for the first time in history, we truly have the potential to create a global civilization. Our technological and economic systems are already interconnected, but we still face deep divisions—whether it’s between nations, religions, or ideologies. If we can overcome these divisions and cooperate on a global scale, we have the potential to solve many of the problems we face. This won’t be easy, of course, but the alternative is fragmentation and conflict.
In essence, the future of civilization will be determined by our ability to balance technological progress with ecological sustainability and ethical responsibility. We need to create systems that promote human flourishing while protecting the planet and ensuring that technology serves humanity, not the other way around.
Nick Sasaki:
Yuval, you’ve highlighted the dual edge of technology and the environmental crisis as both the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity. Dalai Lama, you’ve long spoken about the importance of compassion and mindfulness in addressing global problems. How do you see these principles helping humanity navigate the future?
Dalai Lama:
Thank you, Nick. Compassion and mindfulness are more important than ever in today’s world. As Yuval mentioned, we face many challenges—climate change, technological disruption, and increasing inequality. But I believe that the root of these problems lies in the way we treat one another and the Earth. If we can cultivate a sense of compassion for all beings, we will be better equipped to make decisions that benefit not just ourselves but future generations and the planet.
Mindfulness helps us stay present and aware of the impact of our actions. Too often, we make decisions based on short-term gains or immediate desires, without considering the long-term consequences. Mindfulness teaches us to pause, reflect, and make choices that are in alignment with our highest values. This applies to everything—from how we use technology to how we address climate change.
Moreover, we need to extend our compassion beyond national or religious boundaries. The future of civilization is global, and we must see ourselves as part of one human family. If we act with compassion, we can reduce conflict, heal divisions, and work together to solve the problems that affect all of us. Compassion is not just a personal practice; it is a foundation for global peace and sustainability.
Nick Sasaki:
Thank you, Dalai Lama. Your focus on compassion and mindfulness provides a grounding perspective in these times of rapid change. Jacques, as a futurist, you’ve often looked at the long-term trajectory of human civilization. How do you see the role of innovation and technology in shaping our future, particularly in addressing challenges like climate change and global inequality?
Jacques Attali:
Thank you, Nick. As both Yuval and the Dalai Lama have pointed out, the future of civilization is at a critical juncture. Technology and innovation will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping that future, but whether they lead us to a more just and sustainable world or to greater inequality and ecological disaster depends on the choices we make today.
In terms of innovation, I see two main areas of focus. The first is environmental technology. We already have many of the tools we need to combat climate change—renewable energy, energy storage, and carbon capture technologies, to name a few. The challenge now is to implement these solutions on a global scale, which will require unprecedented levels of international cooperation and investment. We need to see innovation not just as a business opportunity, but as a moral obligation to future generations.
The second area is social innovation. Technology is not just about machines and gadgets; it’s about how we organize societies. The rise of AI, for instance, could lead to massive unemployment and greater inequality if not managed carefully. But it could also free people from repetitive, meaningless work and allow us to rethink how we distribute wealth, how we educate future generations, and how we care for one another. We need to innovate not just in terms of products, but in terms of the structures that govern our societies.
Finally, as Yuval mentioned, we need to ensure that technology remains a tool for humanity, not the other way around. This means developing ethical frameworks for the use of AI, biotechnology, and other emerging technologies. We need to ask ourselves: What kind of future do we want to create? If we allow market forces or political interests to drive technological development, we risk losing sight of the human and ecological costs. Innovation must be guided by a vision of a just, equitable, and sustainable world.
Nick Sasaki:
Jacques, you’ve touched on the importance of both technological and social innovation. Yuval, Dalai Lama, and Jacques, you all seem to agree that cooperation—whether through compassion, innovation, or global governance—will be essential in navigating the future. Yuval, how do you see global cooperation evolving in light of current geopolitical tensions? Can we realistically expect nations to come together to solve global problems?
Yuval Noah Harari:
Global cooperation is not just an ideal—it’s a necessity if we want to survive the 21st century. The problems we face—climate change, pandemics, nuclear proliferation, cyber warfare—are global in nature, and no nation can solve them alone. However, the rise of nationalism and geopolitical rivalries makes cooperation more difficult than ever.
The challenge is that many of the institutions that were built to promote global cooperation, like the United Nations, were created in a different era, and they’re struggling to adapt to the complexities of the modern world. We need to rethink how global governance works. This might mean reforming existing institutions or creating new ones that are better suited to dealing with the interconnected nature of today’s challenges.
One of the keys to fostering global cooperation is recognizing that we all have a shared interest in the survival and flourishing of humanity. This is where education and awareness come in. If people and leaders understand that the well-being of their own country is tied to the well-being of others, they will be more likely to support cooperative solutions. Climate change, for example, doesn’t respect national borders. Pandemics don’t either. We need to cultivate a global mindset that transcends nationalistic thinking.
Another potential path forward is through regional cooperation. Even if global governance remains difficult, we can strengthen regional alliances to address issues like trade, security, and environmental protection. Regional cooperation can be a stepping stone toward more robust global partnerships.
Ultimately, I’m cautiously optimistic. While geopolitical tensions are real, we’ve also seen moments of remarkable cooperation, like during the COVID-19 pandemic when scientists from around the world worked together to develop vaccines. If we can build on these moments of solidarity, there’s hope that we can create a future where cooperation, not conflict, defines human civilization.
Nick Sasaki:
That’s a hopeful note to end on, Yuval. The future of civilization clearly hinges on our ability to cooperate, innovate, and act with compassion and responsibility. Dalai Lama, Jacques, and Yuval, thank you for your insights on how we can navigate these uncertain times. The challenges ahead are daunting, but as you’ve all pointed out, they are also opportunities for growth, connection, and transformation. Let’s continue striving toward a future where technology serves humanity, where compassion guides our actions, and where global cooperation creates a more just and sustainable world.
Short Bios:
Yuval Noah Harari:
Historian and best-selling author of Sapiens, Homo Deus, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Harari explores the intersection of history, technology, and the future of humanity.
Dalai Lama:
Spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and global advocate for compassion, peace, and mindfulness. His teachings emphasize inner peace and ethical responsibility in a rapidly changing world.
Jacques Attali:
Economist, futurist, and author, Attali is known for his forward-thinking ideas on technology, innovation, and global governance. He has advised global leaders and written extensively on the future of civilization.
Elon Musk:
CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, Musk is a visionary entrepreneur focused on revolutionizing space travel, electric vehicles, and artificial intelligence. He is a leading advocate for sustainable energy and the future of humanity.
Shoshana Zuboff:
Professor emerita at Harvard Business School and author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Zuboff is a leading thinker on the implications of digital technologies, data privacy, and the power dynamics of surveillance economies.
Edward Snowden:
Former NSA contractor turned whistleblower, Snowden exposed global surveillance programs, sparking worldwide debates on privacy, government accountability, and personal freedoms in the digital age.
Peter W. Singer:
Strategist and senior fellow at New America, Singer is an expert in modern warfare, cybersecurity, and the intersection of technology and global conflict. He is the author of several influential books on the future of warfare.
Karen Armstrong:
Religious historian and author, Armstrong is known for her deep understanding of world religions and interfaith dialogue. Her works promote compassion, empathy, and the ethical role of religion in modern society.
Sam Harris:
Neuroscientist, philosopher, and best-selling author, Harris advocates for secular ethics, mindfulness, and reason. He explores the relationship between science, religion, and human well-being in his writings and podcasts.
Angela Merkel:
Former Chancellor of Germany, Merkel is widely respected for her pragmatic leadership, particularly in times of crisis. Known for her strong stance on global cooperation, immigration, and economic stability, she has been a key figure in European and global politics for over a decade.
Leave a Reply