> A growing demographic of highly-skilled college-educated liberals will transform government’s role to be about directly investing in citizens, funding them to become as entrepreneurial, civic, and healthy as possible.

> The ultimate goal is to make life as close to the college experience as possible: a life dedicated to research, exploration, and creativity, while automation ensures that everyone has enough food and leisure time to pursue their unique contribution to the world.

I read through the charts and think the conclusion is a bit of a stretch.

My (admittedly anecdotal) experience with those in the industry seem seem to be wary of formalized education.

Also, not sure about how the representative sample (time? sample size?) was obtained and some of the questions seem like they were designed to elicit a certain response.

Example: Do personal decisions, such as eating healthy, affect most people in society, thereby justifying government involvement in our everyday decisions?

I imagine the response would have been very different if everything preceding the "thereby" was excluded

The "one world government" one surprised me. The believe that that is an improvement should be dispelled by the awareness that there are no silver bullets and that a diversity of opinions and thought tend to produce better solutions. A one-world government is basically a monoculture and we all know why those are bad. They focus on an implementation over interfaces. Implementations bake in inefficiencies and bad ideas in a way that makes them hard if not impossible to dismantle.