So, welcome back. This is our third lab discussion and I think this is going to be a really exciting one. Just to refresh everybody's memory, we started out in the first lab session and we talked about this idea of establishing principles that we want to be operating under in the year 2068. The principles that right now, we want to start working towards. So that by the year 2068, a little over 50 years from now we'll be living under [INAUDIBLE] kind of defining what the basic operating system of our planet is. And so we talked about a format to provide that. And the format was basically an over arching principle. Followed by how we can get there? And why we should get there? We incorporate this principle that we are able to achieve this principle? What would that mean for society for our civilization? When we talk about the principle, we said that those principles should be a sentence of two. And they should be quantifiable. And we should be able to know if you've arrived. If you've achieved that principle? And it should have an objective. What's the objective of the principle? How is that objective define and who does it affect? And everybody is done a great job, incredible job of coming up with principles and I encourage everybody to continue to come to my forum. And the best way to make sure that we see them is to promote or 2068 Facebook page. And since we've moved on to the other weeks in we spread. So that was the first week. The second week then, I talked about how we want to present these principles to the UN. At the UN General Assembly in September. So we started out with a draft manifesto that we hoped to present to the UN. And I asked for your comments on that. And they were great comments and we're going to get into that in a second. This discussion now is we got our principles, we got how we're going to communicate the principles and now how do we get there? What's the road map? And so, I'm asking you to back scope a road map to navigate us to our imagined education. So what needs to happen by 2050, by 2040, etc. And in all the areas that we talked about, we talked about a lot, basic human rights, poverty, crime, violence, tourism, environment, education, energy, the list goes on and on. And so I think a good way to jump into that discussion. Would be to go back and to talk about what you're comments were. What you brought up in the voice spread about the manifesto. And again a manifesto is the foundation of the manifesto is the principles that we want to be operating in the year 2068. And I don't think I'm going to have to remind everybody, but we're framing this as 100 year drive through space. From 1968 to 2068 from the first moment we saw the planet hanging in the blackness of space. And realizing that we are one people traveling on one planet [INAUDIBLE] future. And to hopefully make a midpoint correction in the trajectory of this [INAUDIBLE] mission to space in 2018, to finally catch up with what the Earth [INAUDIBLE]. And then to put in a path a roadmap to nudge this trajectory to get us to the future that we want to live in the year 2068. And so, I'm going to stop here for a second and see if anybody has any questions or any points that they want to bring up. What I'm going to do next is just actually go through each of the comments that you guys put online and hopefully start a conversation on each one. So hey, just out of curiosity, is anybody here from the University of Florida? No. Okay, we've got to figure out how to get some Gators in the conversation. [LAUGH] If you're watching this tape later, we want you in that conversation, Gators. So come join us, here in these live sessions. Okay so the first point was on education. Education is a common theme. A lot of people commented on the need to provide free education for everybody, up to and including advanced degrees. And there's a lot of resistance for that, there's a lot of resistance to provide the entire planet, the entire population of the planet, education. [LAUGH] If you're educated you have the tools to become self sufficient. If you're self sufficient, by definition you don't depend on society. And so it's in societies' best interest to have a population of self sufficient force. Education also provides the tools that we need to solve the problems that we all face. Engaging, and providing the means to solve problems to the population. It's just common sense that we'll have a lot less problems. Education overturns stereotypes. It reduces crime, it reduces violence. it leads to a more peaceful world. And I think education is rightfully, and you all brought it out, a very, very high priority. The problem with education, well not the problem with education, the problem with our view of education. Is that the benefits from investment in education, we don't see for decades to come. And that's a problem in our present political cycle that's very, very focused. The time horizon of our political environment does not see the benefits 20 years down the road as being very important right now. And so, again, by this time in the course, you should realize that part of the overall perspective is taking a long-term view on the problem-solving process. And we need to figure out what it is to bring that long-term planning. Once you put the time horizon out 20 years, invest in education makes undeniable sense. If you're short sighted, then it doesn't make as much sense to you. So, comments on education? And this again is comments on the manifesto, and education was not specifically in the manifesto and it should be. And so we need to figure out ways to word the principle and what we want to say about education. And Neil, did you have something that you want to say? If you're speaking I think you might be muted. Okay, let's see, I think there is one more person left. All right, so again, just jump right in if you have something to say. Okay, just one more, just in case there's somebody wants to say something about education before we move on. I encourage you to jump in the conversation. Josh are you trying to say something? No, sorry, I think that's just an aside about the phone. But I can get jump in, just kind of, the thing that I talked about last week when were actively discussing the manifesto, is just about the accountability, not accountability. Having the people required, or requiring them to, how do I word this, actually want to do or make the changes. I think I mentioned in my VoiceThread response to the manifesto about having people actively forward thinking, and thinking about the long-term effects and actually doing that. Not just understanding the long-term effects of the decisions, but actively pursuing them. And so finding a method to communicate that better, and get better people who are more equipped to actually contribute these ideas, would help with actually securing that future education. Or not future education, securing whatever means are required for actually proceeding with this education, making America more smarter. >> So do you have any suggestions along those lines on how we can do that? >> [LAUGH] I don't know, personally, I'm not necessarily the biggest news follower. But I feel like a lot, on every side of whatever aisle you want to call it, a lot of the politicians now just aren't doing enough, aren't working hard enough to make these changes. So I feel like, not replacing them, but just start clean, brand new people with better ideas, better, I think I used the word gumption. I like that word. Just to try to fix landscape of decision making for our government. >> Yeah, and we're going to get into that, because there's some other comments along the same lines. But all people, and all people to some extent are decision makers, need to have accurate information with which to base their decisions on. And if we, if our technology and our culture evolves to the point where we can incorporate long-term, accurate truth data. So based on all the parameters that we have, that we can measure, this is the predicted effects of decision x or decision y. And when that's, and you said that the politicians are not working hard enough. Well, that might be true, but it would be nice if it didn't require a lot of hard work to arrive at the truth. If it was user-friendly, if we had ways for this data to be presented, and it was transparent and open, I think that would go a long way. And I think decision makers, especially politicians, would be very grateful to have that. Okay, if for any reason you're having trouble with your mic or your audio, feel free to type a question here. And we can bring it to Ron's attention. Yeah, I agree, thanks team. Okay, so that's a good segue into the next point that you guys brought up. And I'm just going to read it, or paraphrase it. Checks and balances, that we need checks and balances to make sure that the system is not taken advantage of. A sense of accountability must be present. The people making the decisions yield a great deal of power, and they often need to be reminded that they serve the people. The type of environment that was present during the construction of the ISS needs to be replicated. So there's a lot there, and it hints at this need to have trust in the people who are making the decisions. And one of the ways we have trust is through openness and transparency. If we know the decisions that are being made, we know why those decisions were made. If we know the data that was used to make those decisions, because they're all open source, then there will be a higher level of accountability. And a higher level of accountability leads to a higher level of trust. And the system that was in place that the student referred to with the ISS was a system of trust. The partners in the International Space Station partnership, through openness and transparency and accountability. And through living up to delivering what they promised, a certain level of trust developed. And trust is required to have effective collaboration. You have to trust that the people you're collaborating with are going to deliver on what they promised. Because if you're having to oversee everything they do, because you don't trust that they're going to do it, then that's a lot of wasted effort. Okay, so Orsel said, I was going to say that our teachers need to start getting well paid as a long-term goal. So going back to education, I agree with that. And that's part of this idea of an investment, right? And so if you raise the pay of teachers, that's an investment in our future. But we have to be able to have long-term vision to see that that is a good investment. So anybody have anything to say about the checks and balances? And there's a saying that information is power, right? And a lot of people like to hoard power, and they see hoarding information as a way to do that, or controlling information. And so I'm a very, very big proponent of open source, open data, of transparency. Because a lot of problems can't live in the lightness, in the light, I should say. And so let's see, so you guys, anybody have anything they want to talk about for this openness and transparency? Again, openness needs to be put in the manifesto, and is presently not there. >> Hello? >> We can hear you. >> Hi, so I was going to add, with our checks and balances, that there also needs to be a level of accountability in that entire scenario. Because even right now in our government, we have a president who's surrounded with like-minded people. And there's no sort of accountability there. Because if you're all Republicans, one person isn't going to try to defect or go against the status quo. And we just saw that last night, as he fired someone that went against the status quo, so to speak. So there needs to be also a level of accountability, or an even playing field, to have, I guess, perfect checks and balances. >> Yeah, and I'm sorry, who was speaking? >> Orsel from Drexel. >> Okay, I don't see any indication of who actually is speaking. So I think a good ground rule for everybody is, if you want to say something, introduce yourself, who's speaking and where you're from. But yeah, so again, [LAUGH] I guess just to reiterate, if we don't have a transparent, visible political process. Or not just political process, but all our processes, then we can't build that level of accountability, we can't build that level of trust. And that's a serious impediment. To progress. It's a serious impediment to being able to problem solve, and overcome the challenges that we face on our planet. Okay the next two topics that were brought up were basically folks that agreed what we were saying, but thought that we were suggesting things that were unrealistic and impossible. One of my main points that I hope I bring across in this course is that nothing is impossible and that we need to to really, really think big but, we also have to be somewhat pragmatic about how we achieve things that are impossible. Things that had not been done before are normally considered impossible. If you would have thought if somebody 300 years ago said that we could fly to the moon and back, people would have thought you were crazy. So every truly amazing accomplishment first seems impossible. So, in this course I don't want us to limit ourselves to a narrow view of what we are capable as humans to accomplish. And the only way that we'll be able to accomplish these seemingly impossible challenges is by working together. Pulling the resources of our creative genius, our collective creative genius, seven brand problem solvers, and to put that to bear. So this one is about poverty. No, this is about the environment. So perhaps this is my own pessimism, but I do not think we will have progressed so far by the year 2068 that we will be able to fully control the Earth's constituents. We are already in 2017 fully aware of calamities, like global warming, but we are still unable to control it. Therefore I believe this statement is too far-reaching, and beyond the scope of what humans are capable of doing. Rather I am fully confident that by the year 2068, we will have enough technology in place that we will be able to accurately predict the course of nature, in the sense that we would be aware, due to algorithmic improvements and trend analysis, so that our method of measures can be taken. Therefore, I would like to restate this mission in the following way. We see a future where we have progressed technologically to the point where we have the ability to make accurate predictions of the behavior of the Earth's oceans and atmosphere. And thereby execute preventative measures, to ensure the viability of all those systems that support life on our planet. I will say that that reworded suggestion has been put into the manifest for consideration. Because although nothing is impossible, at a minimum that statement could be a step along the road map to get to what originally was stated, which is complete control of the chemical constituents of the Earth's land, oceans, and atmospheres, thereby having the ability to control things like the climate and the temperature of the planet, etc. So anybody have any comments on the possibility of the impossible, or the descoping, if you will, of that part of the manifesto. >> Hi this is Brandon from UA. I think that the impossible is what was done in the space program. 50 years ago when we sent this huge building basically up to the moon 200,000 miles and brought people there was impossible to people from millennium. And if we can do something like that, then there's no doubt that we can do any problem that we can face no matter. >> Okay, thank you. I think you got cut off at the end there Brandon, but I agree with you. And maybe to just give one more example. If you would have told me 30 years ago that I would fly to space on a space shuttle, I would think, wow, that's amazing. That's really, really cool. If you would have told me 30 years ago, or even 25, 20 years ago, that I would fly to space as a fully integrated member of a Russian spacecraft crew or a Russian spacecraft from a previous top secret Soviet military installation, I would have thought you were crazy. I would have thought that that was impossible. And so, it's hard to say what's going to be possible in 50 years and what's not going to be possible. So going in the same trend, the next comment about poverty I think also takes this view. So when we see a future where all humanity is lifted out of poverty and all have the opportunity to realize their greatest potential, then they're able to contribute to our planetary society to the maximum extent possible. Given that nearly half of the global population so that's the statement of principle in the manifesto. So given that nearly half of the global population lives in some form of poverty now, and that the population should continue to rise at a fast rate, I feel as though that portion of the statement may be unrealistic. Being able to allocate the resources to not only raise all the people currently living in poverty, but also the people that will be born into poverty over the next 50 years, while continuing to advance the global economy, might not be obtainable at the moment. With some countries focusing combating their own domestic issues, a unified attack on global poverty might get off to a slow start. However, I feel that if we were to focus on assisting a certain percentage of the poverty population yearly even if it grows to global population, a significant reduction of poverty can be expected by the year 2068. So there's some really, really good points in there think that the best point is that we can't possibly reduce poverty to zero if we don't have any continental plan of how we're going to get there. There's a lot of people that say, that we've always had the poor, and we're always going to have the poor. There's always going to be people that are living below their basic needs, where they don't have enough food to eat, they don't have enough clean water to drink, etc, ect. And they don't have the opportunity for advancement. They don't have the opportunity for education, because of the poverty that they're in. And I truly believe that it is possible to lift the entire population of the planet out of that form of destitute poverty. I think it's not only possible, I think it's imperative that we do that. Poverty has, just like education, poverty and education are two really big factors that affect everything else. Poverty leads to violence, it leads to crime, it leads to wars, it leads to an us versus them mentality. So it's linked, poverty and conflict are linked. That way they're also linked to the opposite direction. That years of work, decades of work of trying to do poverty alleviation can be wiped out in five minutes during a conflict. And so again, when we zoom out to the orbital perspective, we're not only looking at a long time frame, but we're looking at all these different factors affect each other. And if you move one number, one is at zero over here. But what we tend to do is we tend to solve or try to solve the promise that we face as though they don't affect anything else. They just see if they move this one letter, then that's going to change in the direction that we want. And I might do that. I might do that in short term, but probably not in the long term. And so I think there was a few people trying to chime in, so who has something they want to say? No, okay, all right. So this is again something. So, this comment about manifesto, I think is a great comment. And actually all the comments. I'm really, really impressed with everybody's inputs on Voice Thread. It really shows that you have all thought really deep about this and you're coming up with some great stuff. And this one, I think is appropriate for the road map. This is how we get there. The principle was that everyone has their basic needs that nobody lives below the poverty line. And this suggestion, I think, is part of the road map. Okay, anything on poverty before we move on? Yeah, this is really, really important. Okay, this next one is really, really interesting and it's something that I had never really thought about. At least not to the extent that I think we need to. And so I'll just read it. As the manifesto outlines, a lot of barriers we should knock down like social, political, cultural, etc. I can't help to think how monetary value plays a role in that. I think it's something I would like to add to the manifesto while we are in a money-oriented society. I think it brings out a lot of the ugliness in humans. It promotes consumerism which might cause distress in a harmonious society. I think money is also good in society as well. It gives people a sense of freedom, decision and a flexibility to act. And experience life as they wish. Overall, I'd like the manifest it to address how money and if money can play a role in a peaceful, prosperous and all encompassing society. So what I got out of that is, it got me thinking about the role of monetary systems. And so what will money look like in 2068? Are we going to be carrying wallets around with dollar bills in it? What are bitcoins going to look like in 2068? Are we going to be in some type of different barter society? And what do all these possibilities mean to achieving the principles that we want to live under in the year 2068. So I don't have a lot of answers for this one. I hope some of you guys do, because my feeling is that this has a big impact on the type of monetary systems we have in place have a big impact on our ability to solve these problems. So anybody have any thoughts on that? Any economists in the group? Nobody, I'm getting tired of nobody, I have to tell you. It's only me talking to myself, so help me out here. So access to credit is part of a monetary system, right? And so one of my personal heroes, a good friend of mine, Muhammad Yunus, who invented microfinance. If poor people don't have to go to loan sharks to try and break the cycle of poverty, and they can actually get access to the same type of financial services that somebody with great collateral has, and a great credit score. Then I think that goes a long way to lifting people out of poverty. So, certainly I think that would be part of the monetary system that we need to put in place. Everybody has access to some level of basic credit for things like starting a business and getting an education and things like that. Neil typed in, just as a general comment. I hope that by 2068, money will not be viewed as the main metric of success. So, Neil, what do you think should be the main metric of success in 2068? So I should stop asking the follow-up questions because I think it's [LAUGH] discouraging people from making a comment. Ideally happiness was the answer. Yeah, but then we get into a whole discussion on how do you define happiness and Okay, let's, I see that the time is scaling down. So let's move on because there's a lot of really, really good points here. And jump in, join in if you can jump in. At least audio if not audio and video so we can have a conversation. All right, one of the key points that I think should be included in the manifest presented to the UN is a non-aggression pact and a way for countries to end disputes nonviolently. If there was an effective framework for dealing with disputes among countries, a great number of casualties could be avoided currently. We have the United Nations, the international courts. But these governmental bodies have not been effective in preventing widespread war. What is needed is an international governing body that has full authority to step in and end conflicts when they turn violent. Obviously, such a governing body would need widespread support from the most powerful countries in the world. China, the US, Russia and Europe would have to come together and put aside their differences in order for this to work. But with any luck, by 2068 the world would come to their senses and decide to end wars for good. So again, the reason for the UN was to do just that. So let's spend a couple of minutes talking about what would be different, what could potentially be different that would allow a governing body like this to actually prevent or stop wars? Anybody, Bueller? Bueller [LAUGH] So why do you think that the UN has not been as effective as we would want it to be in stopping conflicts and preventing conflicts? What would lead countries to set aside their differences and work together? >> Hi, this is Charlotte joining from Drexel. >> Hi Charlotte. >> I absolutely agree that this is a major issue, and I think that the main problem with the UN is how are they going to >> enforce this without inflicting violence. How are they going to stop violence without using violence? So I think that's a really difficult issue to attack and to address. One suggestion could be going back to the monetary, perhaps there could be some sort of fine so for governments that have conflict or something to try to have an incentive to stop the violence. >> Yeah, and this goes to back to what we started this conversation off with it, is one of the biggest Factors, is this lack of transparency and openness. And a lot of wars are started, and a lot of conflicts are started over a difference of opinion. [LAUGH] And if everything is out in the open, well, it is, it's started for a number of reasons, one is some countries might think that they can get away with something because nobody will realize the truth or what's really going on. Again, because they don't have, what they're doing is not transparent. The other thing is when you have disagreements, you get trade disputes or human rights' violations, territorial disputes, resources disputes, a lot of times each side believes that they're right because they believe that the data that they have is correct and truthful. In fact, when It may not be. And the reason why it may not be is because not everything is out in the open. And so the more information that is out in the open, the more that our processes and our procedures are transparent, the less misunderstandings we have, the less disputes will arise, the less violence, the less wars. And so that's I think both really bring up a great point Charlotte, about the monetary system. If there is ways and we kind of do that now with sanctions, economic sanctions. But if there's a way to be a little bit more effective? I can always sanction through a different monetary system and if you couple that with a transparent open society, I would say a lot less. Did you have something that you wanted to say? >> Yeah. In front of the UN, I think my biggest concern with the UN is that it's too centered around the five current members which is China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. And I don't really think that there's true international representation in that council because if you like, the only things that they tend to lead are the strategic interests of those political members. So it's really hard for a smaller country to try and get things done to try to resolve conflict when those five big members are only going to be interested If it matters to them. >> Right, that's a really good point. And it also brings up another point, in that every nation, the politicians that make the decisions in every nation, are elected or picked, or whatever the process is for that particular country, with the idea that they will be making those decisions in the best interest of their particular country. Disregarding those policy issues are completely corrupted. Just trying to do their own personal goals, but when you have leaders that are trying to do what's best for their country, they're doing their job. Right? That's what they're elected to do. The problem is that some of these politicians and leaders do not realize that they have to do that within the context of the rest of the world. It can't be an all or nothing. And again, a lot of times, what's good for a country in the short term, at the expense of the rest of the world, is actually bad for that same country. in the long term. Because of the effect that it has on the rest of the world. So, a lot of these decisions that are made with best interest of a country or nation are made with a short time frame vision, which masks the benefits of cooperating with the rest of the world when you look at it from the long-term. There's thousands examples of how that works. So I want to make a comment about, there's a lot of comments coming up in the chat window, and that's great. But when this gets posted, and for the, you know, everybody who is going to join through the mook, they're not going to, I don't believe they're going to be able to see those comments. So the best way to make sure that your views are being communicated as wide and far as possible is to speak up. Well, so let me try and read some of these [INAUDIBLE]. Okay, this places say a whole in any new start ups with innovated vision implements [INAUDIBLE] that only generates wealth. Okay, you mean, do not generates wealth but also a portion of that wealth is automatically utilized to solve poverty, health or educational problems faced by people in those countries. They also hope that all developing countries of today become developed nations. So those are the type of things we're talking about. How do we get there? Monitoring an internationally militarized governing body is that it would likely make situations worse because they would be stopping violence with the threat of violence. That's a good point. That's from Neil. I also feel that concepts such as empathy, compassion, and gratitude are integrated both at home and at school so children learn those values early in their lives is influenced by This one inspired them to work together. So that's a good point. Going back to education. And those should be things that are taught in education. Okay, why don't we move on. Okay, just in one of the invitations in the manifest. So we invite you to help us break down cultural and political barriers, cooperation, and to acknowledge the fact that we'll not be able to tackle the challenges facing us all unless we learn how to work together. I would like to expand on the importance of cultural competence. I think it's important that we not only break down cultural barriers, but that we also embrace cultural diversity. Acknowledging cultural differences is a good first step, but there is a process towards cultural competence that I believe is important to undergo. Moving away from the ethnocentric views toward more ethnorelative views would allow people to achieve a greater level of respect for others. And further they make stronger ground for collaboration. Examples of this effect were mentioned in your perspective on American's collaborating. In Russia, realizing that simple things like not bringing jars of peanut butter from the US as opposed to trying Russian foods could go a long way in connecting with the Russian colonies .You cannot think that people should have to give up their own culture. But I think it would go a long way to have at least, at the very least an appreciation respect for diversity. I agree with everything you said. I think on of the big things that we need to overcome to be able to accomplish everything else that we've talked about, peace, and lifting people out of poverty, and everything else, is this idea that there's an us and a them. And that If we have this idea that there's not us and then them, that it's just we, we don't have to lose our cultural identity in the process. We don't have to become homogenous. That our cultural and other diversities are part of the strength that enables people who are problem solvers to see problems from different perspectives, to add different pieces of the puzzle is really important. So that was a really thoughtful contribution. But my question is what were we missing in the manifesto when we said that we have seen that these truths are amplified and maybe more beautiful, where we can put them into the context of our different religious, national, and cultural identities. And that the awe and wonder space of our spaceship earth is a common bond that we all share. What's missing from that statement that is not incorporated in the student's statement? [INAUDIBLE] Okay. I don't know, that's why I'm asking. So think about that. Go to voice threads, look at that posting, and then compare it to the statement that I read from the manifesto, and please help me know what is missed. Okay, does anybody have anything? If not, I'll move on. We're almost through the list. Okay, the scientific and political communities must collaborate much more closely on a majority of issues from economics and environmental. Too often political agendas and legislation are guided by anecdotal testimony rather than empirically generated data. It is imperative that the capacity for the application of scientific data to productive, positive, real-world change is communicated to lawmakers. Likewise, international communication between legislators needs to occur. That's for example laws regarding energy usage in the United States certainly impact the environmental balance throughout the world. All political leaders and elected representatives should have the opportunity [INAUDIBLE] interface with international communities. This is very, there's a very relevant quote from a Stephen Hawking speech. It has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together, and build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking. And the importance of legislators communicating is to force the political side effects of law and the complexity of issues so that consequences cannot be ignored or shifted on to human. Out of the country, or out sight. So that's a really, really good point, that [LAUGH] first of all, politicians or decision-makers of all kinds need to have at their access, at the ready, actionable data, usable data, truthful data. Based on the best information that we have at the time and once they're provided with that, then they should be held accountable to use that data and not ignore that data. I think that, I don't know how we can enforce something like that. And so if anybody has any ideas along those lines, that's great. But there's two issues here. One is, a lot of times decision-makers don't have the information that they need, for whatever reason and sometimes they do have it, they just ignore it. Because it's not politically expedient. It's not politically beneficious to them and we have too much at stake to be ignoring facts and ignoring truths. So what do you guys have to say about that? That should spark some conversation, I hope. [BLANK AUDIO]. >> I believe that a lot of politicians and decision makers that >> Brandon, I think I got it cut off because- [INAUDIBLE] >> You're cutting out. >> Can you hear me now? >> I can hear you now, yeah. >> A lot of politicians are so short sighted. And decision makers that they only want to make sure they get re-elected in the four years. So they do what's in best interest to the people that will vote for them not necessarily what's the best interest for their communities or the world, global, as a whole. >> I agree with you 100% and I think one of the biggest ways to overturn that is to take a long term vision. Because a lot of times, again, they're not only catering to their very narrow constituency, they're also catering to them in the short term only. And so if we're able to communicate, effectively communicate the long term effects of the decisions. A lot of those same people, those same people that they're hoping the cost just hoping that we'll get they're vote. We'll say yeah this is going to work for the next year or two but it's going to start to get really bad in year fifteen. If we do it the other way over a long timeframe it's going to be much, much personal but that gets back to human nature and how we have been programmed. To look at, you know, short attention span. >> And if they have a finite, let's say they're elected for ten years and only ten years, they know that they can get stuff done and not have to worry about their reelection. Like a lot of president's, their second term is much more not profitable. But better for the economy and for the people, because they don't have to worry about getting elected again. >> Well, that's double-edged sword too. [LAUGH] Because if you're not worried about getting elected, that means you are free to do what's right, but you're also free to do what's wrong. You don't have to get worried about not getting reelected too, so I think that could be a double edge. >> Okay, let me read this next one. In regards to one of the vision statements, we see a future where decision makers everywhere have the tools they need to understand the, effects of their decision. I would like to expand on the availability of said tools and information. To the greatest extent possible, every person should have the right to access these tools. But to view the data and information behind them. The underlying value for these tools will allow for greater transparency, accountability in relation to decision makers. And it will allow for all people to see the long term effects of their actions. This tools will also empower more people to become decision makers in their regions and the world. >> Tools when it's awe, will allow users to be aware of the ripples that actions make in the world. More people who are consciously making the decisions gearing towards bettering the future. The faster we can achieve the goal outlined in the manifesto and by therefore proposed a small modification in statement we see a future for all people. Have the tools they need to understand the long-term effects of their decisions in all aspects, environmental, economical, political. Not just from the locally but how the interactions ripple around over the entire planetary ecosystem. So on this perfect point, I agree with 100%. When we wrote the manifesto, we considered decision makers actually what we call people. And all people have the ability to make decisions that impact the rest of us. But I see that that's not as clear as it should be, so we have to change the manifesto to incorporate this suggestion, that suggestion so this is a good example how you guys are not just taking a course. [LAUGH] You're helping to steer the direction of this shift that we call project. Which is part of the constellation. All right, so and actually everything that I've said so far, and that I will say, is at least being taken under consideration. And it's being applied, not only to this document, but to the overall direction that this movement is taking. So keep up the good work. All right, Chris Morris, as far as solving conflict, I think most casualties and destruction is due to intrastate conflicts, example civil war, than interstate conflicts between two sovereign nations. And much of that intrastate conflict is due to scarcity of resources, poverty, unemployment, etc. So even if there's difficulty in keeping peace with organizations like the UN, many of the other manifesto goals indirectly reduce conflict. Again, everything is not only interrelated, it's interdependent. So that's why it's so important and it's a major tenant of the Orbital Perspective, that you have to look at the big picture, and how everything affects everything else. You have to take a systems engineering approach, if you will. So we've got ten minutes, so I'm going to try and get through these last couple. As I read through the manifesto, and the what we can see section, it continued to occur to me just how important education will be in facilitating Earthrise 2016 a success. In order for this to work, it's necessary to have a population that not only recognizes that it is capable of actualizing this decision. The first step of this, I believe is facilitating the creation of an environment in which people have the opportunity and the ability to think and act beyond the scope of themselves. In order for people to be able to put aside differences, and work together for the benefit of all humanity. In order to do so, people must have their basic needs met. Yes, but we must go beyond that. Although it isn't the sole solution to the world's problems. Education is a major tool that, not only, provides fundamental developmental skills to children at the primary level, but also allows people to build themselves up at a higher level and thus build up others as well. It is a step in the direction towards a sustainable peaceful world. It is important that education be provided, not just at the primary level, but also promoted up through the higher grades. That being said, I believe that it is also important to address the issue of gender equality in education. Although this may be changing in some aspects. There is still a long way to go in terms of global women's rights. Educating women benefits society. And thus, I believe that it is also very important to highlight the necessity of, not only education, but also equality in education. So to conclude, we must stress that 2016 we should ensure basic and equal education for all, while promoting higher level education as an opportunity for all. So in other word, another way to phrase that, is, as a principle, as regardless of gender, ethnicity, nationality or social economic status, we should ensure basic and equal education for all. While promoting higher level education as an opportunity for all. So going back to what we started off with, again, a major factor affecting all other factors, for all the reasons stated and much more, is education and quality education. So anybody have anything they want to say on that one? So we had already talked about education, but we didn't talk about the quality of education or the equal access to education as much as we probably should have. So that one was brought out there. Okay, well you guys are all getting an education so that's good. [LAUGH] All right, this is the last one. Over the past 50 years we have improved as singular nations, but have yet to tap into the potential on working as a world, united as one to achieve a better quality of life for all. And although it seems as though your individual country will not be as great or will not have as much advantage over lesser fortunate nations, life in every country will improve. Poverty still exists in first-world countries. But just because countries like the United States, Germany, and Russia have a generally high per capita, doesn't mean that they have rid hunger in their country. Hunger, crime, inequality, and lack of education are realities that need to be overcome. The only way to actually rid the world of these realities is for the nations to be unselfish and work in unison. Comments on the manifesto to the UN. Great things come from countries that work together. The ISS would have felt that the United States and Russia, or the Soviet Union, did not set aside differences to collaborate. Just this example should be enough to persuade the United Nations to change their perspective on global misfortunes. The one thing that keeps nations from working together, other than is competition on the global economic scale. But the one thing they overlooked is the fact that the global economy will flourish with more nations having access to better resources and more people on their respective countries contributing to better their own nation. Furthermore bettering the world in which we live. So that in a nutshell, is a comment on the Orbital Perspective. [LAUGH] So the Orbital Perspective, I take in the big picture, that increasing your piece of the pie at all expenses, even if it decreases the overall size of the pie, as long as you get more. Is kind of the world that we live in right now. And it's extremely counterproductive. A mindset that tries to increase the entire pie so everybody gets a bigger slice is, basically, in a nutshell, what that comment was saying. And the increasing the overall health of our society, of our world, of our civilization will naturally increase the well-being of each of the individual nations and communities that make up that. And that's not a given, but it makes it a distinct possibility, which we can then make a reality. And so it's really, really counterproductive to progress to put blinders on, to try and solve problems in a vacuum, without seeing how they affect other factors to basically try and enrich ourselves. Or get as much resources in which we desire at the expense of all else. In the long term, it only hurts us. And so, not only are we basically being unfair to the rest of the world, we're being unfair to our future selves. And that's the part that's missing. That's the part that I don't think people realize. I think a lot of decision-makers realize that a lot of things that they do are at the expense of others. But they don't really realize that it's also at the expense, in a lot of cases, to their future selves, or their descendants, or their children, or their grandchildren. And I think that's part of what needs to be brought into the conversation. So we got four minutes left and this is an hour course. And I think I probably spoke for 56 minutes of it. So I'd like to open the floor for final comments from anybody. >> Based off of what you just said some of the things that, they're. You do things that are detrimental, even though you have to do it. Like in case of, in India. In order for everybody to have access to electricity, they are going through a lot more coal. And a lot more unsustainable energy types. So we need to figure out a way to make that energy available to everyone, whether it be nuclear, or wind, or turbine, or anything like that. Because, in order for them to become a better society, they have to have access to electricity. And sometimes hurting the environment is the only way they can see to do it right now. >> Why do you think hurting the environment is the only way that they see to do it? >> I just watched a documentary that some of the higher ups and government officials in India just can't get the infrastructure to every person in their country, so they have to go by the easiest, cheapest means necessary. >> Yeah, I mean, there's definitely, at times in trying to solve these problems, there's competing inputs, if you will. Because again, some of their reluctance to do that is they're overly focusing on the short-term versus the long-term. So it's in the nation's best interest, as well as the world's best interest, to provide electricity to the people who need it in a way that doesn't destroy the planet in the process, or doesn't affect negatively. Not just destroy the planet, but just if you have environmental damage done, that decreases productivity of the nature, right? And you might not see it for a few years, but it decreases potentially, if you're polluting, it decreases your ability to grow food, which causes a lot of problems. And so, to me, when you consider those factors, so what we need to do is we need to have all the facts, right? And not just short-term facts, long-term facts too. And once you start piling all these facts in and all these detriments of going down the dirty path for energy, for instance, at some point, it probably becomes more expensive and less economically beneficial to go down the dirty path. I mean, I suppose that there's probably cases where that's not true, but I think that's probably the exception rather than the rule. I think again, we keep harping on this, if you go back to having accurate data that's derived out because we have transparency and openness, and you are able to put all the pieces of the puzzle together and consider the long-term aspects of your decision, I think a lot of things would make a lot more sense. And we're actually not doing what's best if you don't take that into account. And with that, I think our time is up. I want to thank everybody for all your thoughtful comments on VoiceThread. I encourage you to translate those thoughtful comments into actual words that you speak [LAUGH] in these live sessions, and also to help share that publicly by going out and copying and pasting, or commenting and interacting with comments on the Facebook page. And I think we'll have a much more fruitful conversation and we'll be much more effective with the progress that we're trying to make. So with that, I'm going to say thanks and we'll see you next time.
