21 Lessons for the 21st Century Book Summary

The liberal story that dominated global politics in recent decades is under threat. According to this story, humankind was moving towards a single global society of free markets and democratic politics. Many expected the world to converge around liberal values after the end of the Cold War. However, nationalism, religion and culture are now returning to divide humans into hostile camps. Economic inequality is rising. Instead of a single global society, the world is fracturing.

Section: 1, Chapter: 1

As artificial intelligence advances, machines may soon be able to outperform humans at most cognitive tasks. Robots and 3D printers could produce most of the products and services that people need. If this happens, the majority of humans may lose their economic value. The economy wouldn't need their labor or purchasing power anymore. A small elite may own the all-powerful algorithms and robot factories, making unprecedented profits. But the masses may become an economically irrelevant "useless class." Inequality could skyrocket to previously unthinkable levels.

Section: 1, Chapter: 2

One proposed solution to the threat of mass unemployment caused by automation is universal basic income (UBI):

• The government would tax a portion of the immense wealth generated by artificial intelligence and use it to provide all citizens with a guaranteed livable income, regardless of whether they work or not.
• This could help prevent mass joblessness from leading to total economic and social collapse. Even if most people lost their jobs to machines, they would still have enough income to meet their basic needs and consume products and services.
• UBI could be combined with universal free education, enabling the unemployed to gain new skills for the remaining human jobs. It could also be supplemented with socially useful make-work or jobs focused on human interaction.
• However, UBI may not give unemployed people a sense of meaning and social status previously provided by jobs. Societies may need to radically change how they view work, leisure and the purpose of life as automation progresses.

Section: 1, Chapter: 4

Humans have bodies, and throughout history we have depended on physical communities for our survival and wellbeing.

• Communities provide us with meaning, support, and a sense of belonging. They are crucial for our physical and mental health.
• However, communities also restrict our freedom, pressuring us to conform to social norms and traditions. They can be stifling and oppressive, especially to minorities and outliers.

In the 21st century, many of our physical interactions and dependencies are being replaced by virtual ones. More and more of life is moving onto cyberspace and online networks. This is liberating in many ways, but may leave our bodies and local communities neglected, making us feel unmoored and alienated.

Section: 2, Chapter: 5

For most of history, religion was seen as the ultimate source of authority, values and knowledge. However, the scientific revolution radically undermined religion's monopoly:

• Science offered far more convincing and useful explanations for natural phenomena based on observation and logic, not faith. Lightning was proven to be an electrical phenomenon, not the wrath of Zeus.
• Technology derived from science became indispensable for modern societies to function. It was impossible to reject physics while accepting radios, impossible to reject biology while accepting vaccines and impossible to reject chemistry while accepting fertilizer.
• Philosophers argued that values and morals too should be defined by reason and evidence, not religious dogma. Influential thinkers like John Locke derived human rights from logical arguments, not divine fiat.

Today, the place of religion has been largely replaced by science, in terms of defining what is objectively real, and by secular humanism, in terms of defining what is ethical and meaningful.

Section: 2, Chapter: 8

How should a multicultural society deal with intolerant subcultures in its midst? It's a hard dilemma with no easy answers. Consider:

• A tolerant society that accepts diversity will inevitably include some intolerant groups that reject diversity, like religious fundamentalists who oppose gay rights or immigrants who refuse to integrate.
• If a society is too tolerant of intolerance, it risks letting hateful groups undermine its core values and institutions. But if a society is too intolerant of intolerant groups, it becomes a bit intolerant itself.

There's no clear solution, but here are some principles to consider:

• Insist that all groups, no matter how traditional, respect the fundamental human rights of their members.
• When groups express bigoted views, counter them openly with arguments and data, don't just ban the expression. Outlawing ideas risks letting them fester underground.
• Focus on integrating the younger generation of minorities through mixed schools and neighborhoods.

Section: 2, Chapter: 9