The purpose of this seventh lecture was to understand the deep nature of change. And I think we made some progress using fixed point, fixed point. The last video, it's like the ultimate change to me. And I'll be very provoking in this video. It's about causality. It's about causality. Let's take an example. Six, seven years ago there was, what do you call, the deep financial crisis. And, of course, when something like that happens, we want to understand why it happened. And some people came with answer, and I collect the answers. According to certain people, the financial crisis because of the sub-primes. You know those products where really are giant bones and sold to people who didn't understand exactly, et cetera. Giant bones was the cause of, federal sub-primes was the cause of the financial crisis. For other people, they say no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Financial crisis because the rating agencies didn't do the job. You know, you had Moody and others, they had to assess the, the quality of the product. And so they were not good at assessing the product. This is the cause of the final crisis. Okay. According to other people, this is a third answer. Financial crisis because the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Brothers. That's this bank. And again, you could say, yes indeed, there is like a causal chain of effects. Of course, it is so. But it's another answer. And you can go on and on. Some people say financial crisis because now, some banks are speculating against countries, against Greece or Portugal or Italy. Didn't happen before. That's why, why crisis. I can at least propose a fifth answer. The financial crisis because banks are expected to offer 15% on their equity, 15%. Now, a bank cannot offer 15%. If you want to really take 15% out of your equity in a bank, you have to take risk and large risk, and this is another way to explain why the financial crisis. What's the outcome of this? If you have at least five different ways to explain why, who is right? Who is wrong? And are pro, pro, provoking? It doesn't matter. To me, the why is an old question, is an old question. To answer the question why. To understand why things happen, is a very old mindset. I'm convinced, today we should forget to spend time about the why. In the end, the real challenge is, what are we going to do? What are we going to do? Remember there was a, a meeting at the BCG, it was partners, it was six, seven years ago. There was a debate in front of all the partners about why the financial crisis. [SOUND] And at a given time, the Chinese partner raised his hand to say, you western people, you're really funny. Still busy with the chicken and egg issue. Is the chicken because of the egg or the egg because of the chicken? And he said, in China we eat both. Of course, it's was a joke. It was a joke but we got, we got the message. We got the message. Maybe we are too much of Aristote. It's a bit paralleled with me. But sometimes you have to use Aristote to cap, to distance from Aristote, because the world is changing. And probably on this particular point, we should forget Aristote. Why? Hm. And it happens all the time. I was last week flying back to Brussels and the plane was late, so I heard from the from the, I don't know who, the plane to Brussels is going to be delayed by 30 minutes due to late arrival of the aircraft. I said to myself, this is really nothing, because it's exactly the same as to tell the plane is late because the plane is late. So, where is the explanation? If I hear, okay, the plane is late because the, the pilot didn't find his key. Or I don't know. There was some explanation. But we tend to give to the fake or weak, or use less explanation to the why question. So, this is how I want to wrap up this lecture. It's provoking. It's provoking. But let's spend less time on the why, on the why things happen, and much more time on, what are we going to do?