What Kids Learn in School Today Will Be Irrelevant in 20 to 30 Years

May 10, 2017

WRITER

In part one of his conversation with Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, author of the critically-acclaimed New York Times bestseller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and his latest book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Glenn dove into democracy and the free market.

"You say [democracy and the free market] will collapse once Google and Facebook show us a better way to know ourselves, and authority will shift from individual humans to network algorithms. You just kind of mentioned it there, but tell me what that means exactly," Glenn asked.

Essentially, Dr. Harari contends that our capability as humans will lessen as we depend more and more on technology for answers.

"It means that as they gather more and more information about us and have the computing power to analyze all that information, they can make more and more decisions on our behalf. And people will increasingly just rely on these systems to make the most important decisions of their lives," Dr. Harari said.

Everything will change over the next 20 to 30 years --- and in ways we haven't even begun to understand.

"Yuval, what do we do with our kids right now? Can you give any hint as to, you know, college, no college, debt, what they should study. What should we be doing?" Glenn asked.

Dr. Harari believes most of what kids learn today in school will be irrelevant by the time they are 40, and won't help them much in the job market.

"The one thing they will definitely need --- I mean, nobody knows what the job market will be like and precisely because of that --- the one thing they will need is the ability to keep learning and to keep reinventing themselves throughout their life," Dr. Harari said.

Because of that need to stay nimble, flexible and relevant to the future job market, Dr. Harari named two things that will be more important than any lesson in history, mathematics or chemistry: emotional intelligence and mental balance.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: So one of my communist progressive friends just wrote to me this morning. He said, "This is crazy what's going on. Last night, after the firing of Donald Trump (sic), the thing that seemed so crazy was moments after the firing, everyone on both sides was expected to switch sides and have a perfectly reasoned and thoughtful statement for doing so." How true. Mike Lee will be joining us here in just a moment at the top of the hour to talk about that and the firing. He has an interesting perspective.

We're talking to Yuval Harari. He's the author of Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow.

I want you to talk a little bit about democracy and the free market. And you say it will collapse once Google and Facebook show us a better way to know ourselves, and authority will shift from individual humans to network algorithms. You just kind of mentioned it there, but tell me what that means exactly.

YUVAL: It means that they -- as they gather more and more information about us and have the computing power to analyze all that information, they can make more and more decisions on our behalf. And people will increasingly just rely on -- on -- on these systems to make the most important decisions of their lives.

It starts to happen today, with very simple things. Like, you -- you want to find your way around the city, so you increasingly trust Google Maps and not your own instincts. You reach an intersection, your gut feeling says, "Turn right," but Google says, "No, no, I have better information. Turn left." And you learn from experience to trust Google.

And then very soon, you lose the ability to find your own way around the city because it's a use it or lose it situation. You lose the ability.

GLENN: Man. Ray Kurzweil and I talked about this. I said, "Ray, if you can upgrade yourself, you're going to lose just remembering things." We've already done this. We can Google anything. We lose the ability to reason. We lose the ability to think. He said, "No, you'll just use that space for other things." I don't think so.

You, for instance, I have security -- I have 24-hour security. When my security is not with me, it is almost impossible for me to function outside because I've lost the sense of normal situational awareness.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

YUVAL: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And you lose -- you lose that, and you don't realize how important just that simple situational awareness is.

JEFFY: Big time.

GLENN: But it goes away.

YUVAL: Yeah. And the same thing will increasingly happen with more important decisions, like you need to choose what we study at college. So previously, you rely on your own feelings and on the influence of your family, friends, and so forth. But increasingly, people will just ask Google or Facebook, hey, you know me much better than my mother. And you know the university and the job market much better than my friend.

So what do you say? What should I study? And it's an empirical question. If people will receive good answers, they will increasingly trust these systems, until they will reach a point that they can't make any important decision by themself because they lost the ability.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. And that's when we turn into pets.

The -- you tell a story about Gorbachev coming over to London. And he notices that there's no bread lines. And he asks, can you put me in charge of -- who is in charge of bread? Because we can't really get this working in the Soviet Union.

And this is an example of the old way of doing things and the really old think of the Soviet Union. And this is kind of what you're talking about, how the information in the Soviet Union, they couldn't process all of that in a central bank.

Now we can.

YUVAL: Yeah. I mean, in a way you can think about it as kind of perfect communism. There is a theory that communism in the end failed because they couldn't process all the information fast enough and efficiently enough. And in order to plan, say, the bread supply for the Soviet Union, just so much information about hundreds of millions of people, that they just couldn't do it. And the free market worked much better because it decentralized, it distributed the -- the process of -- of gathering information and making decisions, basically everybody makes their own mind.

But theoretically, if you reach a point when you have enough information and enough computing power, you can create a central system of decision-making, which will actually work better than individual choices.

GLENN: Okay. So now this is where we -- this is where the rubber meets the road. I believe that, and I believe that is almost the free market system, almost. I mean, it is predictive in its nature. It's putting the resources where the resources need to go because it's predicting the human behavior. But at some point, where is the dog, and where is the tail? And the other part is -- and this is critical -- you talked about that -- that worthless class. You -- part of the reason why the Soviet Union failed is because you no longer had a drive to seek, to learn, to expand. And communism really took that human spark and in many cases, snuffed it. How do we not snuff that spark?

YUVAL: That's a big question. And, again, part of the problem is that you could preserve a creative elite. I mean, the problem is not with the elite. The problem is with the masses. The real danger -- I mean, if you talk about, say, medicine -- so you will always or at least for the foreseeable future, you will need extremely creative researchers to discover new medications (inaudible), or whatever. But you won't need the average general practitioner, the average doctor in the front line, because you would have a much better doctor on your smartphone. And this is likely to happen in more and more fields. So creativity will be preserved, but it will be the monopoly of a very small elite.

GLENN: How do ... Go ahead. Go ahead.

YUVAL: The big problem is what will happen to the masses. Now, in the 20th century, even in the most brutal dictatorships, the elite still cared about the masses because it needed them. Even if you look at Nazi Germany. So Hitler and the Nazis, they cared a lot about the education and health and welfare of the average German worker because they knew, they will not have a strong army and they will not have a strong economy unless they have millions of poor Germans who serve as soldiers and as factory workers. But in 50 years, you won't need that because you will have all the robots and AI and so forth to fuel your factories and armies.

GLENN: So then how does one avoid the George Bernard Shaws of the world that say, "Sir or madam, line up in front of us. Justify your existence because we can't afford to take care of you anymore?" How does the person -- how does the worthless class have access to any kind of real health care, when they're not needed by anyone?

YUVAL: Well, some people say the answer will come from universal basic income, that the government will just provide them with a basic income to cover health services and basic education and food and so forth, even though they don't work. And they're not needed by the economy.

GLENN: That's crazy.

YUVAL: This may work in a place like, I don't know, Sweden or Denmark, or Switzerland. But in most of the world -- especially if I think about developing countries, like Nigeria or India or Brazil or Mexico, it won't work there. And, frankly, we have no idea how to solve this problem. And I think neither on the left nor on the right, there is today any real political vision of where humankind will be in 30 years.

GLENN: Zero. Zero.

YUVAL: You know, what will -- where will humankind will be in 2050? I don't hear a vision about that from anybody.

GLENN: I will tell you, I've talked to people in Silicon Valley, I've talked to people on Capitol Hill, and then I've talked to people in the middle of the country. Silicon Valley is -- is in a world of its own. It is so far ahead. And the rest of the world is -- the rest of the country from the political leaders to the -- the baker on Main Street, they're all talking about things like the firing of Comey. Well, that might be important today, in today's news cycle. But in ten years, that's nothing. We have to be preparing for what is coming and have this real conversation. And talk to the media elites, their eyes glaze over. They don't have any concept of what you're talking about in your book.

YUVAL: Yeah. I agree. The only place you hear people talking seriously about the future of humankind is Silicon Valley and places like that. And that's very dangerous. Because, yeah, they're very creative and intelligent. And most of them are also, you know, good people, good-hearted. But they don't represent anybody. And it's very dangerous to entrust the future of the entire human species in the hands of a few -- of you a small technological elite. And, you know, it's not a problem we can think about in 20 or 30 years. If you look, for example, at education, then this is a problem we need to think about today because the question is, if I have a son or daughter who begins school today and they are six years old, what should I teach them today so they will have a job in 30 years?

GLENN: So let me --

YUVAL: And nobody knows the answer.

GLENN: Let me give you a break. And come back. And see if you can come up with at least somewhat of an answer: What do we do with our kids? We'll do this here in a second.

[break]

GLENN: We're talking to Yuval Harari. Homo Deus. A book that I think every single person in this audience should read. A Brief History of Tomorrow. It will explain what's coming. It is not a science fiction book. But, boy, I'll tell you, you will read it and begin to understand why I have been talking about technology, technology, technology. Everything's about to change. And change in ways that you don't even begin to understand. It's why, even though I disagree with the -- with the minimum income, it's why we've talked about it on this show and have said, "We have to consider it." Until you understand what's coming, you won't know why we have to look at things and start to turn every stone over before our politicians -- looking to blame a loss of jobs on somebody -- say, "You know, it's this group, that group, or it's those evil people in Silicon Valley." Because they will look evil at some point.

Yuval, what do we do with our kids right now? Can you give any hint as, you know, college, no college, debt, what they should study, what -- what should we be doing?

YUVAL: Well, I guess most of what kids learn today in school will be irrelevant by the time they are 40 and won't help them much in the job market. The one thing they will definitely need -- I mean, nobody knows what the job market will be like. And precisely because of that, the one thing they will need is the ability to keep learning and to keep reinventing themselves throughout their life.

I mean, previously, life was divided into two main parts: The young person, you mostly learned. And then as an older person, you mostly made use of what you learned as a teenager or something.

GLENN: Right.

YUVAL: But in the future, you won't have this division. If you want to stay in the game, you have to keep learning and changing throughout your life. And for that -- for that, I think the most important thing will be emotional intelligence and mental balance. It will be much more important than anything you can learn in a history lesson or mathematics lesson or chemistry lesson.

GLENN: So, Yuval, I'm really gravely concerned about this move of safe spaces and everything else. Because our universities are now beginning to teach the exact opposite. They're beginning to teach conformity. Conformity of thought. And it's the worst thing you could be teaching to this generation right now. Agree or disagree?

YUVAL: I completely agree. Because, again, it -- they will need to change more than any previous generation in history. And to adapt to change. And generally, people don't like that. Beyond a certain age -- when you're 15, you like change. But when you're 40, you don't like it. And in the future, you won't have much of a choice about it. And if people don't learn how to stay flexible -- and stay flexible, not just in the body, above all, in their minds, they're going to be in a very, very difficult situation. And, again, talking about the job market, we don't know what new jobs will appear, but they will most likely require creativity. Anything which is routine, a computer will be able to do better than humans.

GLENN: Yuval, I would love to -- if you're ever in the United States, I would love to have you come here personally. I'd love to spend some real time with you. And we'd love to have you back and delve some more into this. Your two books, Homo Sapiens and this one, Homo Deus, are remarkable, remarkable books. And I thank you for what you're doing. Thank you so much, Yuval.

YUVAL: Thank you for having me here. And if when I'm in the states, I'll be happy to -- to meet.

GLENN: Great. Thank you. Yuval Harari. The name of the book is Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.