So, welcome back. This is the fourth live session that we've had. We've had three really fruitful discussions so far, and I'm sure this one's going to be as well. And so just a couple of reminders. If you're not speaking, please mute your microphone, that will be great and really encouraging everybody to join in the conversation. And this is going to be a discussion about your thoughts and your opinions on how we get to our co-imagined future of 2068. What are all the things, what's the roadmap that we have to do along the way? 2020, 2030, 2040, etc. And so, I am going to talk about what you have all submitted through voice thread as your ideas to do that so I highly encourage everybody to jump in, stop me, you don't have to raise your digital hand. You can just jump right in and join the conversation. So, last week's discussion in voice thread was this requested back scope the roadmap, right? So specifically, what you were test to do is back scope of roadmap to navigate us to our imagine future in 2068. What means that happens in 2030, 2040, etc., to begin to address one or more of the issues we talked about previously. We talked about a bunch of issues from basic human rights, poverty, crime, violence, terrorism, the environment, education, energy, etc., etc. So I'm going to jump right in. What I try to do is I try to take everybody's comments on voice thread and not everybody actually followed the instructions, not everybody actually gave a roadmap and what had to happen in the year that it should happen by. A lot of people reiterated what they thought the future should look like, which is great, and why certain things are important, which is great. But, we also need a way to get there and so, what I did is I compiled it all together, I put it into different categories and we'll cover that right now. So, one student wrote, an important part of any long-term goal is a feasible, realistic roadmap to achieving it. The goals of Earthrise, 2016 are ambitious. The ending of world hunger or war and global warming are no small feats. For these changes to happen, however, big changes in the way humans live must occur. So here is a tentative roadmap of the changes that must happen for the goals of Earthrise, 2068 to be met. So the first topic that I want to address is energy. And so again, these are all from the students but a tentative roadmap to get to our future is by 2030, more than 50% of humanity's energy would come from sustainable and renewable sources, wind and solar. And, some of the motivation for that is not only would pushing for clean and affordable energy help reduce impacts of climate change, it would also lead to less suffering from illness caused by air pollution. To reach this goal, the positive long term and short term results must be made evident to legislators. So, that points to something that we talked about last week, or last session. And that people who are in the decision making chain have to have accurate data with which to make their decisions. And I think if they do have accurate data, then hopefully, they'll make the right decisions. But if they don't even have the right data, if they don't have the truth data, if they don't know what's really happening, if they don't know really what the implications are of taking course A or course B, it's just a matter of blind luck if we get to where we're going and we don't want to to rely on blind luck. So other things that need to happen, the manufacture and installation of extensive solar and wind harnessing stations will create an opportunity for substantial domestic employment gains. So, there's a tremendous economic benefit for pushing forward rural energy programs. We need to provide greater and this is all by 2030, provide greater incentives for producing and researching and selling renewable energy and one of the students made the point that we shouldn't impose penalties on fossil fuels in the short-term. Their contention was that currently we don't have the infrastructure to handle mass quantities of renewable energy. Thus, any penalties imposed on fossil fuels will not make the electric companies switch sources. It will just drive the prices of energy even higher, striking a huge blow to poorer individuals. And so what they're talking about there is the limits of energy storage. If you're talking about solar, it's whenever the sun is not shining, whenever it's a cloudy day or at night, you have to have battery technology to store, or some type of energy storage device to store the energy, if it's wind then you'll have to store when wind is not blowing. So distance contention which is pretty much true is that we have not gotten to the point where the battery technology to completely account for those downtimes. So what the proposal was, again, we're still on 2030 is to improve renewable infrastructure by investing research and technology. There was a pitch for nuclear. The student thought the only viable replacement for fossil fuels is nuclear or other sources, such as wind solar. Not currently efficient or realistically replace fossil fuel. They go on to talk about the battery issues and not only is it a surge as far as capacity but also that the production of batteries and the disposal of batteries is terrible for the environment. And they've made a strong push for nuclear in the short term. So, the main negative issue with nuclear is the radioactive waste that nuclear energy production creates. So, down the road hopefully, we have fusion reactors [LAUGH] we don't have this problem but we don't have fusion energy production at the moment. All right, so by 2030, we're talking about energy. Anybody having anything they want to say in the time frame from now to 2030 as far as energy goes. >> I just had a thing to say about nuclear real quick. >> Sure. >> Actually, I recently read an article about some new French reactors that were coming online that could take the waste products from American reactors and actually run on those products. And the resulting waste from those reactors is actually substantially less radioactive than the current US design. So, I guess it's just the example of technology simply improving sustainable resources right now, not by 2030, but right now we are all together in this stages. Yes, well that makes it. Yes, I haven't heard about that. But I know there's all types of developments happening that are really changing the whole landscape of energy production and it's that's some good stuff. Okay, moving on, 2045. By 2045 there should be a no additional fossil fuel powered energy allowed on the grid. All new energy will come from renewable and nuclear reactions. Renewable energy sources should continue to be brought through 2068. And borrowing any substantial advances in nuclear energy, i.e.fusion, the nuclear power plant should be phased out without replacement from then forward. And then, the bottom line is, the vision of 2068 is by 2068, 100% of all energy requirements worldwide are provided by renewable energy. So that is a compilation of everything the students had imported on voice shred that had to do with energy. And so before we move on to the next topic, does anybody have anything they want to discuss for energy? This is a huge part of the equation. Energy is incredibly important. Energy, we need energy for every aspect of society. And where we get that energy has tremendous implications for our planet and the health of people and the health of our planet. So this is a really, really critical, very, very important issue that we need to address. >> Hello,can you hear me? >> Yep, you bet. >> I used to be an Environmental Science major and one of the key points in our lectures about renewable energy was to make it attractive for citizens. And one of the discussions we had was about putting windmills up along California to get wind energy, because wind energy is very prominent along the coastal lines of countries. But the reason why people don't want to do that is because they don't want to ruin their view of the ocean size. I think one of the things that should be done is try and make renewable energies more attractive and appealing, possibly even just looks wise, because that was one of the issues that California had. >> Yeah, do you have any suggestions on how we could do that? >> Possibly putting windmills in a concentrated location, like remote, where people don't live around, so that people won't be bothered by the view of windmills. That's all I can think of. >> Yeah, so I think it falls into two categories right? You can make renewable energy transparent or you can make [INAUDIBLE] beautiful. And so for transparent, you can either put it or in places where people aren't going to see it. Or you could make it part of the landscape, right. And so, for instance, if you're building car ports or covered parking, right. If you have to build the covered parking anyway, then you could put solar panels on the top of them and you might not even notice that they're there. There's all types of building materials that can incorporate renewable energy into them. I've seen projects that are working on creating windows that generate electricity and roof tiles that generate electricity. And so again, that's making renewable energy transparent. I'm also seeing very, very beautiful wind turbines that look like sculptures and are very beautiful. And I could see people putting those up for aesthetic reasons, not just for energy production. So that's a good comment. So, related to energy is climate change. And so the next topic that you all talked about was climate change. Down this road map we actually started in the past which is good. We set down some of the historical contacts. And starting in 2015, we noted the success of the COP 21 UN Climate Change Conference. And this is important because for the first time the three highest greenhouse gases nations, China, the U.S., and India and many other countries signed an agreement to reduce CO2 emissions. And hopefully everybody saw the COP 21 video which was one of your assignments to watch that, that's a video we put together, really in three days. And we put it together to support Action Day of the climate summit. Action Day is the day where they actually want to figure out, or put in action, what the results of the conference are going to be. And so we put a call out to World [INAUDIBLE] all the astronauts and cosmonauts and everybody else who has flown to space to tell us what they think about what we can do about climate change. And the results were that video that I think was pretty powerful. The US signed this agreement, as well as China and as well as India and all the other countries. And that actually is being threatened right now with you know, the President, US Administration is trying to pull out that agreement which, I think, will have disastrous consequences, not only long term for the health of our planet, but also for the international community in general. And that, you know, a miracle would be seeing us not living up to its commitments and you know our word is not good. Besides the fact that this is trying to change the trajectory of a disastrous course that we're on. Okay so, Izan, did you have your hand up? Is there something that you wanted to say? I'm sorry I feel like that happened I had my hand up for something else and now I forgot it. >> Okay. >> Really like I really like your idea you have. I just I don't want get too political but knowing that such what the new administration is looking forward to can have a serious impact not just long term but you know it will, as you mentioned is going to hurt our relationship with developing countries. Because this going to impact them more than any other country out there. I just wanted to share that. >> Yeah, and I think one of the ways to frame this is, and I think we've talked about this in the past, is we have this mindset across the globe that our environment is the subsidiary of the economy. When in reality, it's the exact opposite. The economy's a whole called Earth. And a lot of the arguments against any environmental regulation, against reduction of greenhouse gasses always cite the economic impact, negative economic impact that Putting these restrictions will create. But that is a very, very short term vision. There probably would be, in the short run, economic impact. But the first thing that's going to go is going to be the economy. When climate change really starts to creates its havoc, I mean, it already is. But when it starts to get really bad, first thing that's going to go is the economy. And the economy's going to be crippled by it. And so, if you make an economic argument, you're really just selling short term gain, trading it for long term disaster, economic disaster, mostly everything else. Okay, so that was 2015, so now by 2020, organizations like the UN start making deals that are legally binding. That's a good point and that's probably a good topic of discussion. You know right now a lot of the things that we do as a global community, not just like the UN but everywhere else, is not in most cases legally binding. And people went on to give some points about them are habits in manufacturing, especially livestock management [INAUDIBLE] the brink of destruction. If we get on the right course, there will be a space of earth for our future generations. Having a healthy [INAUDIBLE] society is the first step to [INAUDIBLE] world. [INAUDIBLE] talking about all these issues, is if you have mostly functioned life suppresses on the planet then it's kind of a moot point. So we have to ensure the long term survival of our species and all the other species on this planet by making sure we're not destroying the planet. Okay, by 2025, start a public service announcement initiative meant to educate the public in all nations, especially those in most populated areas, about how they could individually stop climate change. This will involve educating the public about agriculture industry. How to use less water, how to reduce waste, how to re-use materials? Additionally, financial incentives should be created to encourage citizens to participate in this effort. However, penalties should also be set in place to ensure the corporations that are extremely wasteful and are disproportionately contributing to the greenhouse emissions curb their emissions. Neil I'm sorry did you have something to you wanted to say? >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay, so this was kind of relating to the last point about legally binding agreements with the UN. And I was just kind of thinking how that would be possible? Obviously it would be a little different than making a legally binding agreement within a country, because it's international. >> Mm-hm. >> So, I thought maybe something like security deposit could be used where the countries that signed this agreement, after clicking out with some amount of capital that they aren't allowed to touch into some point in the future and as long as they kept their promise on the agreement. >> Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. What would you? I'm just trying to figure out how you would get all the nations to participate in that type of system. Because you have wealthy nations and you have developing nations and the ability to. I'm just curious how you'd get the nations with less resources to put up the resources necessary to ensure compliance. >> Yeah, it was just kind of something that popped into my head. I didn't- >> No, no, no, I think it's a great idea and because the issue is, if you have legally binding things dictated by the UN, then you're putting in question national sovereignty, right? Now, the argument against that would be that, well, every nation has the right to sign or not sign, and not join in in whatever treaty it is. Which makes, then in order to have complete participation across the world, you'd need a unanimous consent to unanimous agreement that this is the right path to take. And so if you look at things like the Kyoto protocol, the U.S. for instance didn't sign that. And so there's a really compelling document and plan to avert climate change that the U.S. did not sign onto. So, how do we maintain national sovereignty and still have binding agreements that compel nations to go along with? So it's a difficult, I don't have the answer. >> My hope [INAUDIBLE] and it would be more of a snow ball effect where you have large nations sign it and then more and more nations would want to join it. But as you said the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. So I mean it's not necessarily a given that every nation would want. >> Yeah, cool. And Zach did you have something that you wanted to say? >> Yeah, it's almost like you have to restructure the UN itself. Make it so that countries want to or get some major benefits from being a part of the UN. That way, if they don't follow these trees and they don't follow these legally binding contracts, they no longer get those benefits from the UN. Almost like the UN provided aid, I guess they already do provide aid benefits, but only if they may they cut aid benefits. We can follow treaties but then I guess that gets to our discussion of their cutting aid benefits for the people who need it the most because the government doesn't follow their beliefs. >> Yeah, this is a really tough question, but those are all good suggestions. [INAUDIBLE] did you have something that you wanted to add? >> Yeah, I just wanted to add something to that. I think what I believe, I think that's going to be more efficient or beneficial would be taxation system that is more inadversible than the one we have right now. What I mean by that is, countries that are contributing the most should be regulated the most. Do you see what I'm trying to say? So. >> No. >> What I mean is countries that are contributing the most to this pollution that has the most impact on the chain should be the one that get taxed the most. There should be like a tax system that, you know, that kind of balances out. So the countries that are not contributing to this change should not be regulated the same way as the countries that are. That's just how I feel about this. >> Yeah, there has to be some type of equitable balance there for sure. Okay, moving on, my only comment from this Public Service Announcement in 2025. Why wait till 2025 to do that? That's something that seems like we should be acting right now. And then the other milestone that students suggest is that by 2045 that we become carbon neutral. So by 2035 we should not only have reached that goal but also have increased our dependence on sustainable renewable energy sources to 80%. So here's an interesting thing to think about. And we do hear about being carbon neutral, right? So you're taking as much carbon out of the atmosphere as you're putting in. But I think a really important measure in being carbon neutral is being climate neutral. And climate neutral means living in a way where we produce no greenhouse gases. So, this is achieved by a combination probably, of reducing the amount greenhouse gases that we emit and then use offsets to make up the difference. So going back to carbon of neutrality, there are two countries that have already achieved becoming carbon neutral is Vatican City. They did that in 2013, primarily through offsets, and in Bhutan. And then there's a bunch of other countries that have pledged to become carbon neutral by a certain date, like Norway, 2050. Costa Rica 2021, Maldives 2020, Sweden 2050, Iceland, I'm not sure what year it is, but there's a bunch of other nations that have pledged to become carbon neutral. Let's see. Does everyone understand offsets, what that means? Look at it this way in carbon offsets. Well basically I'll explain it. If a country or a company has committed to reduce their emissions by x amount, then they can reduce a portion of that x amount by actually reducing their carbon emissions. But they could also purchase offsets from other organizations that have reduced beyond their commitments, so that the net effect is what you're looking to achieve. Okay, and moving on to 2068 our magic year. Advanced breakthroughs in technology and environmental science allow for carbon removal techniques which restore our ecosystem to pre industrial [INAUDIBLE]. Human society is filthy and thriving soon to colonize the moon and Mars. So those were a conflicting of all the student comments about climate change. Is there anything else that we want to bring up before we move on to the next topic? Okay, I just want to take one more poll. Is anybody here from the University of Florida? [LAUGH] Our long lost students. Okay, all right so the next topic is crime. And so, one of the students had a suggestion that by the year 2040, the US should have less than 1 million people incarcerated. So that's about 50% of the current prison population. And the logic found in that was people cannot live up to their full potential to help society if they are completely isolated from society for long periods of time. While longer sentences may be more fitting for violent offenders, for non-violent offenders who can benefit from the dropping practices like those in some European countries. In Germany, for example, prison is mostly used when probation or community service is not an option. For the crime committed, and most sentences are less than a year. Is also due to have restrictions on employment and housing when they are released from prison like there are in the US. If we can cut down the number of people incarcerated yearly to 50% of what it is now by 2040, I think we will be well on our way to significantly reducing crime by the year 2068. So the assumption here, is that by reducing sentences and providing a better path back into society as a contributing member, that would reduce the overall crime rate. And that's the only comment we have on crime. So, anybody have any comments on that, any other ideas on how to reduce crime? Or any of the milestones along the way. >> Hi there, hear me? >> Yep, go ahead Brendan. >> Okay, one of the things I was thinking about with crime is if we implement a better education system, for those that are in, whether it be a year, five years, or life. because they can come up with ideas to help other problems and be educated, so that when they come out they can get a job, and be able to be a productive member of society. >> Exactly, because one of the issues and one of the reasons why we have such a high rate of incarceration is we have basically a revolving door. People get out of prison and they have very, very few options. So they get out to become fully functioning, contributing members of society for a lot of the reasons why we mentioned. And inevitably, a lot of them end up right back in jail. And it's a tremendous burden on society, right? It's incredibly expensive to operate these prisons. And again, they go from being a potentially contributing member of society to a member of society that we all have to pay to care for. Okay, the next topic is water. But clean drinking water to all persons by the year 2068, which I guess is the goal there. It involves a from dependency on assistance or improving infrastructure to a cost recovery from water. For operation maintenance and [INAUDIBLE] over time. This includes strengthening the capacity of the community to provide locally managed services and combining it with robust monitoring by the government. In most countries in Central America, subsidies for water supply distorts centers leading to waste. In El Salvador, this is particularly an issue. And then by 2050, all water systems managed by national agencies should be updated or redesigned to be pro poor and to promote compensation. Once this has been accomplished, the rest of the path towards 2068, will involve protecting water sources that are contaminated by agriculture, or industrial waste. An extension filtration, filtration and decontamination strategies must be employed to ensure that water management is first essential and clean. So you understand that they're saying that we should take it away from the or the utilities, and push management, and maintenance, and all the other operational requirements of these systems to the local community. So the counter argument against decentralization and to a counterargument to local managed water infrastructure. It can at times, put an unnecessary and sometimes impossible burden on communities that are impoverished. And one way to think about it is, here in the developed world and industrialized nations, we have professionals that manage our water utilities and other type of utilities. We're not expected to manage Our own systems. And the downside of decentralization is a lot of these systems that get put in don't last because the local population doesn't have the resources or the necessary expertise to properly manage them. So that's just another side if that coding. I understand where the student was coming from, and that was the last comment on water, so obviously water is a very important thing to talk about. Water is life, we can't live without it. And there's about a billion people on this world that don't have access to clean drinking water on a regular basis. And that's a topic that's near and dear to my heart because of all the issues. It's not only issues of water quantity where they just don't have water. But there's also issues where there's plenty of water, it's just not safe to drink. In Rwanda, for instance, one of the main factors leading to death in children under the age of five is water born disease from drinking contaminated water. So any comments on water? >> Even in our own country, we have problems with water. Look at what happened in Flint, Michigan. >> Exactly. >> And it's still a problem it's been how many months and almost a year since that's happened and we still can't even get something as simple as that fixed in a developed countries like US. >> So let's relate this back to how we started this course. And how we started this course was by designating principles that we want to live under in the year 2068. So an example of a principle would be, by the year 2068, every person on the planet has access to clean drinking water, that's a principle. And, so, what that means is that it is a basic human right guaranteed by each of the nations that are participating in the world, that everyone should, however we'll make that possible, everybody should have access to clean drinking water. All right, so related to drinking water is hunger, world hunger. So I'll switch into that topic. Because we're trying to solve all the world's problems in less than an hour, so we've got to [LAUGH] get through these fast. So by 2027, ending world hunger and poverty is entirely possible so that, yeah, so the comment of the student is ending world hunger and poverty is entirely possible if the countries work together. The money needed to end world hunger around $240 billion, I'm not sure where that came from, is achievable, and would be a drop in the bucket for most of all countries. World hunger can be solved within the next 10 to 15 years, once everybody's basic nutritional needs are met, we can then tackle the bigger problems. You then, one of the parts of the road map are, in 2035, genetically modified food along with sustainable farming methods decrease human malnourishment levels to under 10%. So basically, leading to the principle that we talked about where by the year 2068, every person on the planet has all their nutritional needs met to assure that they can achieve their full physical and mental potential. All right, so anything on world hunger? >> A good way countries could help to reduce world hunger is to reduce their own food waste. Like food that's thrown out from restaurants, like fast food restaurants even, just regular restaurants, grocery stores, and reallocate their food to people. >> So, can you translate that into a milestone? Like by this year, this percentage, food waste was reduced to this level. I mean, is there a way that you think that could be actionable? That we could put that in terms that are quantifiable. >> I think that by the year 2020 no less, food waste in countries should be pretty much gone. Food should be redistributed from grocery stores and then by 2025, food waste could also be distributed around the world, focusing more on countries themselves and then, anything that's left over, give it to impoverished nations on top of regular aid. >> Okay, so by 2020, food waste is eliminated. It's eliminated by I would say a combination of redistribution of the food waste and when that's not possible, used it composting. >> Yes. >> Or you could use it for energy production in biogas reactors, and there's lots of ways to just not throw it in the landfill. Okay, cool. All right, the next topic is one that almost everybody commented on. It's something that has really shown up to be a very passionate trend, and that's education. And so the timeline is, by 2020, awareness must be must broaden to address the shortcomings that we as a human race face, that those around the world are suffering and stripped of basic human rights every day. The first steps to saving humanity is education and a changing perspective. It's not us versus them, if we can put time and effort to help our neighbors, no matter how far away they may be, the entirety of the Earth's population benefit to that end. By 2020, we should encourage international education by removing or significantly reducing the cost of going to school abroad. By making studying abroad free or low cost, we would encourage not only language learning, but would also lead to growing levels of empathy for the international community and a greater understanding of our interconnectedness. This increase of empathy would allow us to reduce occurences of violence and terrorism through increased understanding and acceptance. I think that's a great idea. And just jump in at any time. By 2030, volunteers from other countries would be continuously working hand in hand to make sure the entire world is educated to a certain degree. Education is the first step in strengthening the world with every aspect of human rights to clean energy and prevention of climate change. By 2040, those who were taught by volunteers from other countries are now capable of teaching those in their own country. They spread love and knowledge to younger generations. Improving the capacity to learn, and grow as a pinnacle part of humanity. By 2043, education, which I think is the mid point between now and 2068, education is more crucial information that becomes more difficult to learn later in life is taught earlier in life. So what they meant by that is proper education in more languages and cultures could lead to a better understanding of basic human rights and culture that would result in lower violence, crime and terrorism by reducing petty quarrels, quarrels of difference in human nature. Would lend itself to more time and energy being spent on the problem of environmental energy. By 2068, universal education plays a key role in addressing socioeconomic and environmental issues. Schools focus more on broadening students' perspective on various topics throughout history, and better than Philosophical [INAUDIBLE] versus how to pass a common course. Teachers teach again, the students will have to learn people perhaps. So there's a couple of themes that pop out there. One it is by 2068 education should be a basic human right and universal cross the board that every person has access to education., but I also talked about in these multiple students comments [INAUDIBLE] is that they need to change the very nature and education, so and moved away from rote memorization and passing common core tests saying, giving students the tools they need to be fully functional members of the community including developing skills like empathy and altruism and a deeper understanding of cultural diversity for instance. So I know, this is a very important topic today everybody, so if anybody have anything they want to say about education? Hello? >> Yes? >> So kind of touching on a small bit of what you just said, I think it would be beneficial >> If like most schools taught classes that focused on different culture around the world and just kind of tried to introduce students to as many different cultures and some of their basic features and like characteristics just so that people >> Get a wider view of the world and kind of understand a little better the different cultures that exist in it. >> [INAUDIBLE] Do you think that that should stand along courses or do you think that that's type of cultural education trivia could be used in all courses. For most part, main courses. >> Yeah. Ideally, it would be fused in all courses. But, I think in very short term, that wouldn't be as easy as just introducing similar to a history course in high school, you would have Some sort of course that would introduce cultures around the world. I mean, it's similar to, I guess, a world history class. But, less history and more trying to introduce as many different cultures as possible. >> And what age do you think is appropriate to start that education? Well I'm an engineer, so that's more of a question for a psychologist, but I would say as early as possible. A lot of students start learning a second language in school, in elementary school, so it could be like every year you have a course similarly to this where you get introduced to a culture maybe like you try different foods from that culture, or hear the language or stuff like that. >> Awesome. Yeah, my opinion is that the earlier the better. Catherine did you have something on that? [INAUDIBLE] if you're speaking, I can't hear you. I see your hands up though. Okay. [INAUDIBLE] jump in there, because we can't hear you. [INAUDIBLE] Just jump in. Okay the next topic is peace. And again, this is [INAUDIBLE]. It's obvious all of these topics are very interrelated and education is involved in everything, and peace is involved in everything. And we can't really even have a discussion about any aspect of this if we don't have the planet to live on. So, the environmental stuff is important. But certainly, peace is one of these issues that is very interrelated. So, I see a comment is, an issue that is important to peace is the role of the UN and the role of to international governing bodies. I think the ultimate problem with the UN is the question of state sovereignty. Are we willing to give up complete sovereignty for more peace? Is that even necessary? And I feel like that is ultimately a question that will continue to pop up on the path towards 2068. Ultimately its goals will conflict with the desires of certain governments around the world. And I think that there needs to be a conversation that addresses the issues that this brings up. And there's one milestone that a student suggested is that by 2045, global treaties and international pressure effectively end war on a country to country scale. Okay, some big things and what is the role of the UN and national sovereignty and the other can global treaties stand international pressure effectively and a war on a country to country scale. So, those are some big topics, what do you guys think about that? We've already discussed, we didn't come to any conclusions, but we've already brought up the issue, the balance of national sovereignty with being able to have rules and regulations programs, let's put it that way, programs that benefit the whole world, be enacted by the whole world, how do you balance the need for having enforceable treaties, and contracts, and procedures without losing national [INAUDIBLE]. And the other thing is, do you think that global treaties and international [INAUDIBLE] alone can end wars on a country-to-country basis by the year 2045. So, I just want to comment on the issue of national sovereignty and developing a more connected and peaceful world. The problem with that is people who experience the downsides of that will always attempted, destroy that, and then you get nationalistic governments that have been on the rise recently. And that always threatens the whole idea of a global society. >> So, any suggestions on how >> Yeah unfortunately, a lot of these problems there hard to think of solutions for. >> This is a really key issue that we need to be bringing into all of our discussions and especially when we're talking about milestones and building a world map is You gotta put in safeguards to keep things from being under, and a lot of this is going to come down to national sovereignty issues and how we mitigate the potential conflict between individual. >> Goes in objectives that benefit an individual nation at the expense of the rest of the world. So I think that's probably a topic for future discussions, because we've got minutes left, and I don't think we'll solve that one. [LAUGH] All right. Moving onto the last a topic, which is actually a big one. It's on global collaboration, so basically if we can't learn how to work together, we're not going to be able to solve any of this. There was a lot of student comments on global collaboration, I'll just We treated this. So, to enable global collaboration, we need to unite around the common goal of survival. To achieve this, fear must be dismantled. The step to do this is to go after one of the biggest creators of fear, terrorists. Terrorism has plagued mankind for generations, and if we are to come together for the betterment of humanity, we've got to work to eliminate terrorism. I believe one of the biggest reasons that terrorism happens is access to weapons and violence and technology. People are much more likely to undertake action if they have the tools necessary to accomplish this. At least in America, we need to work much harder to eliminate access to these weapons that instigate terrorism and fear. So, I think that that's a good point, but I think a bigger reason for terrorism is poverty, and hunger, and lack of access to education, and many of the other basic needs. I think those are some of the things that fuel terrorism and certainly fuel crime and violence across the world. And I do take issue with, well, I don't take issue, it is true that you have more access to weapons, then there may be an increase in violence. But I don't think that's a requirement for an increase in violence. And generally, Rwanda genocide, almost a million people were killed in a very, very short amount of time with no technology. So the tools of this destruction were machetes and other primitive weapons. So there was virtually no advanced technology or modern weapons used in this really horrible situation. So I don't think it's a necessary requirement for violence and terrorism to have access to weapons technology. By 2017, to achieve the goals laid out in the manifesto for 2068, the world needs to start concerning itself with resource regulations. First to complete the necessary steps to reach a self sustaining and clean Earth, the cooperation between large energy cooperations, environmental programs, and government officials is required to make sure that everything is on board in fulfilling this goal together. This cooperation can be achieved within the next five to ten years through multi-annual global summits that are similar to the climate conferences held every year. With this more constant and constructive communication between not only members of the country's legislature, but also including heads of the environmental programs, the CEOs of large energy corporations, it is more likely to have a clearer and concise solution. So my question to you is, how can we make attractive for CEOs and other leaders to not only attend these conferences, but to commit to positive action? Or alternatively, how can we make it unattractive not to attend? I think that's something to think about, and I think, actually, we're going to run out of time, which we just did. So I think the rest of all the conversations were on ways to work together, and I will try and cover some of these that we didn't get to on our next live session. But I will, just in the last, if we go over just for a couple minutes, I think that's probably okay. There were a lot of overall comments that I thought were really good, and one of the really great overall comments. So in addition to the manifesto, it might be helpful to outline directly the hurdles that we might face on the path forward to meet the goals of Manifesto 2068 to better understand what we are facing, so we can provide solutions. I think that's a great suggestion, and if you guys in base strategy can help identify some of the pitfalls and perils, that would be great. So next week, so from now until we meet again, our discussion is going to be to examine ways to better align and combine discrete [INAUDIBLE] creativity and innovation to unify coordinated action. And so we're going to use the case studies of reCAPTCHA and Duolingo. And for their feasibility, I'd just like that to be able to reach hundreds of millions of people through this type of technology. So with that, I'm going to end this session. Does anybody have any last questions or comments before we call it a night? All right, super, thanks for your participation tonight. I think it was really crucial, and I'm looking forward to continuing the conversation in the next session. Thanks, guys. >> Thank you, Ron. >> Cheers.