It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. James Watson, educator, author, and editor. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Frank Carlson, United States Senator from Kansas. Senator Carlson, our viewers recall that you're one of the Americans who has been closest to General Eisenhower from the beginning of his political career. So you're the one man who can give us the best inside report on the new administration. Now, sir, first of all, do you believe that Americans can hope for a general settlement of the Korean War? Well, Mr. Huey, I assure you it's a pleasure to again be on your program and be with you this evening and Mr. Watson. I think the news that we have had this evening is one of the most hopeful and most encouraging pieces of news that's come to the every American home in many, many months. All of us, I think, are what we might say very tired and very discouraged with the Korean situation, and it's my opinion that this is the beginning of the end. I have great confidence in President Eisenhower and his ability to bring about, with the cooperation, of course, of the United Nations and the communist countries, a peace that will bring peace to this nation that we've been longing and praying for for a long time. How do you feel, sir? Do you think that some credit or considerable credit for the Korean development should go to the administration and to General Eisenhower? Well, I know very positively that the President has been working hard in his administration leadership to bring about an early and a very satisfactory and honorable solution to this war. Well, sir, there's been, speaking of the administration, there has been a great deal of criticism of the administration. Statements that you're having a hard time getting started, getting control of the government, farm policies, foreign policy. What do you feel yourself, sir? Do you think that the administration is making progress? Very definitely so. I want to remember, we've only been in power, I think, 75 days, and we did take over what even the Democratic leadership called a mess in Washington, and we are beginning to try to bring some order out of this chaos, and I know we're making progress. We're making progress in every phase of the picture internationally and domestically, and the President is doing a noble job with the aid of folks that he has selected to help him. Do you feel that the Korean situation or that the first place that you've made progress is in foreign policy? I think we've made great progress in foreign policy, and the results of it are beginning to be felt now. And we're making progress in the domestic field. We want to remember that we reorganized the Federal Security Agency this year, our first great reorganization measure. We've made some changes in the personnel policies. We're really on the way. That brings us, of course, to what you are most directly concerned with, sir, and that is the organization of the civil service system and the federal patronage system. Now, how many jobs in the federal government are covered by civil service? Well, I would say there are two million that might be classed as covered civil service jobs. We have probably two to a million, 300,000, two and a half million federal employees, and a large percentage of them are covered. Well, Senator, in this matter of getting a hold of the administration, as you've said a minute ago, we recently had an announcement that President Eisenhower had issued an order taking away civil service from many top policy jobs. Do you think that there's any fear from that that we're returning to some phase of the spoil system? Well, now, Mr. Watson, I don't think we need to have any fears that we're returning to what we would call the spoil system. That is really, truly patronage appointments, but I will say very honestly, very frankly, that we must make some changes in the civil service positions or policymaking positions. I don't believe anyone can expect this administration to operate with individuals whose thinking is not in accord with the administration that was selected by the people last fall. And it's our intention. I know it's the President's intention to change those positions, and I think the people expect us to. Well, can you illustrate for our viewers just what you mean by policy position, something like the Federal Security Administration, how many people are policy makers and how many people are not? Well, I regret that I can't give you the exact number in the Federal Security Administration, but any individual in a top flight position that makes policy, in other words, determines policy and social security, and many other phases ought to be a policy whose thinking is in keeping with the President's administration. Well, that's a relatively few people, I assume. I would assume that the top flight numbers would be very few. Get into the Department of Agriculture, you want to remember, we've had an administration in power 20 years. And I think it's very essential that we have people in those positions, and that's true in the State Department. I think it's very noticeable. You feel that in this 20 year period possibly that the previous administration has tried to push the civil service coverage too far up? Well, I think that their large numbers of people were covered in who were placed in those positions purely for patronage reasons. I am not critical of it, but I don't think they ought to expect to continue in these positions, especially when they're trying to work on policy matters with a new administration selected by the people this last election. Does this mean, sir, that the new administration is actually having great difficulty getting physical control of the government? They are having some difficulty of getting physical control of these departments, and it's very important that we do get control because we have the responsibility and the obligation to carry out the policies of this President administration. Any administration, unless you can change a certain number of jobs, then your free government loses, doesn't it? I would say, Mr. Huey, that that would be true of any administration. After we've been in power for many years, as I hope we will be, the next administration comes in, I would want to court them the same privilege as the same rights. I firmly believe that. Well, now, are you abolishing jobs? One of the things you promised your American people to do is to cut out on the cost of government and the number of people in government. We are making very definite progress. We have reduced the employment of federal employment, 7,800 from January 20th to March 1st. We are going to close up some agencies and we are not going to fill a large number of places that become vacant. Is that process going on without having a public repercussion about services being cut? Generally speaking, yes. I think everyone must agree that we've had a very heavy government personnel and I think most people are hopeful that we can reduce it. I think we can reduce it with efficiency even in the administration and the agency itself through civil service. Well, one of the things about that, of course, is that some people feel that the present laws and rules tend to drive the best people out, particularly when you're going through this layoff period. What about that, Senator? I think that's one of the very definite problems and I'm hoping that we can secure legislation in this session of Congress that will improve the civil service system and I think you're absolutely right. There are good people there you want to keep. Absolutely. I think it's essential that we have a strong civil service merit system in operation to carry on the functions of the government. But at the same time, we must not have a civil service system that freezes in people who are not qualified for these positions and for other reasons. What is the administration attitude or the Republican attitude toward the federal pay scale? Do you think that federal employees are being paid enough? No, I wouldn't say that. That's one of the regrettable situations you're confronted with in the federal service. The federal employee's pay has not kept pace with civilian employment. We're a continuous competition with industry generally and business generally. But of course right now is a poor time to talk about great increase in pay. I feel there are top-flight positions in engineering and many other phases, operational positions that should have certainly an increase in pay. Well now as chairman of the Senate Committee on Civil Service, after you have affected the reforms that you're trying to affect, do you think it might be possible that the Republican administration would favor increased pay scales? We are going to have a study of the entire pay schedule and the entire civil service program as a whole and I sincerely hope that if the study warrants an increase and I think it will, that it will be granted. While you're trying to get rid of unnecessary civil servants, what about the turnover figure? I've understood it to be as high as 30%. Isn't that a terrible expense to government? It is. That's one of the very expensive features of the civil service. I don't know the exact figure, but I think last year we had a turnover of probably a half million employees in the federal government. In other words, we spend our federal taxpayers' money to train people. Was the new civil service commission going to be able to take steps to help improve that situation and bring real economies there? Well I'm proud of the new civil service commission that we have in Philly Young and George Moore and Mr. Lawton whose name has just come up and I know that if there's any civil service commission that could ever come forward with recommendations that will be accepted by Congress, this will be it. Coming back to the administration's record, sir, you come from one of the great farm states. Has the farm policy of the administration come under criticism from people in your state? Well of course we're faced with this situation in the agricultural areas. We inherited a farm price decline. Farm prices have been declining since 1951. We suffered a very serious problem in livestock. We had an inventory loss of $4,700 million in livestock alone last year. Now you just can't wipe out that much inventory without having its effect in the agricultural areas and I think in the national economy. I'll say this for the farmers of this nation that they did not become panicky when these prices were falling so rapidly in December and on January. They are concerned about it but they have faith in the president. They have faith in this administration. Well as a final question sir, do you feel that the administration still has the overwhelming support of the electorate in the country? I certainly do. Our tests show it. The letters we receive, the polls indicate it and when it comes to agriculture the president said he would not pull the rug out from under the farmers and he's going to keep that word. Well sir, I'm sure that our viewers have appreciated these statements from you sir and thank you for being with us. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. James Watson. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Frank Carlson, United States Senator from Kansas. A priceless attribute of every Laun Jean watch is pride of possession. It brings the satisfaction of knowing that one owns the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches in all the world. Yes, the Laun Jean watch brings its owner more than the delight of a beautiful possession, more than the unsurpassed timekeeping of a remarkable watch. For that Laun Jean watch of yours is the one and only world's most honored watch. Only Laun Jean among the world's finest watches has won so many honors for excellence, elegance and accuracy, including 10 world's fair grand prizes, 28 gold medals and innumerable bulletins and prizes for accuracy from the great government observatories. For mother on Mother's Day, for an anniversary, a birthday or as an important gift to a graduate, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean and yet unbelievably you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as 7150. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner watch company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invited to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the art, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem, agency for Laun Jean Wittner watches. History repeated and you are there, Sundays on the CBS television network.


Human host defense antimicrobial peptides and proteins, amps, play a critical role in warding off invading microbial pathogens. Additionally, amps can possess other biological functions such as apoptosis, wound healing, and immune modulation. This article provides an overview on the identification, activity, 3D structure, and mechanism of action of human amps selected from the antimicrobial peptide database. Over 100 such peptides have been identified from a variety of tissues and epithelial surfaces, including skin, eyes, ears, mouths, gut, immune, nervous, and urinary systems. These peptides vary from 10 to 150 amino acids with a net charge between minus 3 and plus 20 and a hydrophobic content below 60%. The sequence diversity enables human amps to adopt various 3D structures and to attack pathogens by different mechanisms. While alpha defense in HD6 can self-assemble on the bacterial surface into nanonets to entangle bacteria, both HNP1 and beta def. This article was authored by Guangxuan Wang. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


You talked about the importance of defining racism, but I but I unless I missed it, which is possible I don't I didn't hear your personal definition. Is there is there one that you would offer us? Like how do you define racism?  He can't define it as we all know it because doing so would be admitting that he himself is a deranged racist Why is this obvious fraud still being paraded around our media and in our schools? In case you haven't noticed they are desperate to indoctrinate our kids from grown adult men dressed as fetishized women Stripping and dancing for kids to far left race marxists who were indoctrinating the next generation of blm foot soldiers Is that how you prepare children for racism without having a sense of fear and anxiety because like gill mentioned There are parents out there that want to remove themselves from this conversation completely And then there's parents out there that just don't know how to do it how to teach their child to be anti-racist It is and you know by the time our kids become teenagers you have Unfortunately white supremacists are recruiting white particularly male teens online. That's that produces a light of anxiety Especially if those white supremacists are telling those kids the problem or those other people You are literally on a national news outlet right now making the claim that white people are the problem Urge to explode rising first off. This isn't a conversation Conversations have multiple sides. This well-documented hack is framing this as anti-racist and those who are against it as racist Oh, yeah, great conversation. We're having here. I'm getting right back to shredding this segment But first check out this free coin offer from noble gold over the years You've probably tried different investments in stocks and mutual funds So you know they can be up and down all over the place But with inflation running at 8.5 percent It's highest rate for 40 years Do you really need uncertainty being able to sleep at night knowing your investments aren't going to crash Is worth its weight in gold and speaking of gold if you've been jumping from one investment idea to the next A gold IRA with noble gold is perfect with gold.  You own a global asset something tangible and you protect your wealth against an economic crash What's not to like and this month for every cash deal above 20k You'll get an incredible three ounce silver american virtue coin completely free as a thank you So call<PHONE_NUMBER> now to find out more or visit noblegoldinvestments.com That's noblegoldinvestments.com. You can find that link in the description and make sure to tell them drone tech sent you It is and you know by the time our kids become teenagers you have Unfortunately white supremacists are recruiting white particularly male teens online. That's that produces a light of anxiety Especially if those white supremacists are telling those kids the problem are those other people The problem here is that so-called anti racism Is just one of many trojan horse words the left uses to disguise that it's actually the thing it claims to be against Just imagine a group of nazis gets together and they hatch this plan to fool people By simply calling themselves the good guys and they start throwing around terms like anti evil black lives matter for instance Who could possibly be against a group called black lives matter? So-called anti racism is just a crt derived ideology that literally uses what we would typically consider to be Racist generalizations to separate people into oppressors and victims It's a very transparent attempt to point the finger at one group white people and normalize racism against that group in order to fix racism Again, kendi himself has admitted this saying the only way to fix past discrimination is current and future discrimination Any moron should be able to see the obvious flaws in this stupid ideology Didn't this guy ever learn that two wrongs don't make a right and that in doing so you'll just endlessly Continuous cycle as oppressors and victims switch sides Unless of course your entire purpose is to destroy the country from within in which case good plan And you're sharing with their kid. No the reason for inequities are bad policies. That's what needs to change. That's what's dangerous That's protective.  We don't know because it's yet another one of their purposely vague words that they can throw around like word grenades Is he talking about these kind of guys the stereotypical skinhead thug? Or is he just talking about white people existing and who don't agree with him? Answer is all of the above because the agenda here is to coerce white people into signing on with this ideology Basically volunteering for third class status and casting white people who stand against it as the bad group Hmm the bad group that group of people over there. Who are the problem white people? What was it that kendy just said white particularly male teens online? That's that produces a light of anxiety Especially if those white supremacists are telling those kids the problem are those other people So according to ebrahimex kendy and cbs news the issue here is white people teaching their kids That black people and non-white people in general are the problem and the solution to this is to teach kids in school That the actual problem is white people So you're going to use anti-racist policies that will use current and future discrimination to fix past discrimination Which will no doubt lead to government discrimination against white people in the name of equity And this is supposed to stop white people from joining white supremacists So not only are these people crazed ideologues.  I was watching some on tv You're the one that's a racist who's who's promoting these ideas teaching everyone to see race. Yes, most of the opposite exactly Well, actually Teaching people to see racism. There's a difference like the racism mirage But racism is real and it's you know, who's the most likely to be harmed by racism Our children, you know, who would at least likely to engage about it Our children, you know, that's what's really telling me to do this work.   What if you're a black kid who's been told by your parents your school the media That white people are oppressive monsters who are always out to get you What if you're on a national news program and you're making the claim that white people are all indoctrinated into white supremacist teenagers There's a difference like no, no, no, no, you don't even have to tell me I know is it important for parents to realize that We are fighting for our kids minds And their spirits because if we don't teach them certain things like you said They will hear and feel and watch and see things even in the home But especially when they're outside in school or even walk around every day That that is exactly the the point Right and you people are doing every one of those things right this minute They're talking vaguely about people, but it's obvious.  There's no conversation here There's what they want and if you oppose it then you're a bad person Even though the very ideas that they're advancing here aren't exactly like the ones they claim to be against All right I had another clip from msmbc that I was going to share with you all but I can't take any more of this guy I do want to invite you all to check out my channel over on rumble I'm going to be uploading stuff there that I wouldn't be able to put on youtube You can find the link for that in the description or pin comment If you want to support this channel one of the best ways would be to just hit that like button Make a comment share the video and then subscribe as always. I really appreciate it. See you next video


How much can I earn teaching English in France? France receives more visitors per year than any other country, so it is no surprise that it is a popular destination for teaching English abroad. Depending on the location and the employer, the average salary for ESL teachers ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 euros per month. Every year, over 80 million people visit France, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world. ESL teachers also flock here in large numbers due to the country's wide array of attractions, from culture, history, and art to fine cuisine and beautiful scenery. The demand for teachers is high in many parts of the country, although competition for the best positions is particularly strong in the most popular destinations such as Paris and the French Riviera. Teachers with plenty of experience will certainly have an advantage in these areas, while first-time teachers may need to be more flexible when it comes to location. Salary The figure you can expect to earn as an ESL teacher in France will vary considerably depending on your qualifications and experience, the location, and the type of employer. For most teachers, a figure between 1,000 and 2,000 euros per month would be typical. Many teachers, especially those at the lower end of the pay scale, supplement their income by taking on private students in their spare time. Rates for private tutoring range from 15 to 25 euros per hour. Teaching contracts in France rarely include any additional benefits, such as airfares and accommodation, but you should receive health insurance and some paid holiday. Employers The best salaries are often found in public schools and universities. However, these positions usually require high levels of qualifications and experience, as well as fluency in French. The most popular option for teachers who don't meet these criteria is to apply to private language schools that can be found in large numbers right across the country. Paris alone has over 500 language schools catering to a wide range of students of all ages. The average salary may be less than other employers, but private language schools offer a good opportunity for new teachers to gain experience in the classroom. Private tutoring is also a very popular option for foreign teachers and friends. Many teachers use it as a means to supplement their income, while others build it into a full-time occupation. Finding enough clients can take time, but the flexible working hours that this option provides is ideal for some teachers. Clients can be found via advertising in local newspapers and magazines, by posting on bulletin boards in schools and universities, or by simple word-of-mouth. Other options that are worth considering include summer English camps, which often pay well and offer short-term contracts, and teaching business English to employees of private companies. American passport holders can also apply for a placement on the government run teaching assistant program in France, TAPIF. As long-term visas are often difficult to secure for non-EU citizens, this program offers a great way for recent college graduates to live and work in France. If accepted on the program, you will receive a stipend of 790 euros per month. Cost of living Your monthly expenses in France will vary greatly depending on your lifestyle and your chosen location, although for most teachers a figure between 600 and 1000 euros would be typical. The cost of living in Paris is considerably higher than most other areas, so you will need to seriously consider your budget if you have your heart set on living in the capital. Housing costs are the single biggest expense for most teachers, with rents and utilities averaging around 600 to 800 euros per month for a one-bedroom apartment away from the most popular areas. To help reduce these costs, many teachers choose to rent a room from a local family or share an apartment with fellow teachers. TAPIF.


Okay, I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Boon Rung and Wurundjeri Wurund people of the Kulin nation. We pay our respects to elders past and present and know that sovereignty has never been ceded. I am grateful that Naam has been a place for us to gather from all over the world and a place that I will hold in my heart as one of inspiration. I would like to welcome to the closing ceremony His Excellency, former President of South Africa, Keglema Modlanti and her Excellency, Mrs. Goo Goo Modlanti. Honourable Gabrielle Williams, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, and Minister for Treaty and First Peoples, Paul Hunt, Chief Human Rights Commissioner of Aeteroa, New Zealand, Judy Chang, the Executive Director of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs and all of our delegates. So it feels quite incredible to have shared this time together over the past few days. At HRI, we are truly honoured that so many people have taken up our offer of a space to gather. It is a very, very special thing to see so many old friends in this unique space, which can only be created when this many people come together with intent. It feels a little bit like I'm stating the obvious, but it has been truly extraordinary. I don't like to state the obvious, I find it a little bit awkward. I think it's best to assume that people you are talking to are a few steps ahead of you. When as a teenager, my mother sat me down and she said, Naomi, you are such a bright child, top of your class in third grade, but it's best to assume those days are behind us. So I try not to state the obvious. This week I haven't felt so awkward. The conference directors gave me a few jobs to do, so that was useful. But I think it's more about the fact we are in a space where I hope it is clear that everybody can bring their full self. Young, old, straight, queer, trans. Yes, we have created a space that is not ableist, that is not misogynist, and that is actively anti-racist. Strength and solidarity only works if it's solidarity that's truly inclusive. For me, one of the most special aspects of the conference is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Maori people and Indigenous people from all over the world accepted the offer that we extended to gather here, to speak and to generously share their expertise. I feel like their voices have shaped this conference into something way more than we could possibly have imagined, so please join me in thanking the Indigenous people of this conference. I also just want to briefly mention that by virtue of our incredible awards ceremony and how much we're all moved on Sunday, we spoke of the crisis in Ukraine, but obviously there's not just one part of the world that's in crisis at any given point in time. We are privileged to have a number of delegates from Myanmar here this week who have been under persecution with a military coup. The human rights defenders from the Philippines have had a fight on their hand for the past decade. Lists are exclusive, but the LGBT population of Uganda that's under threat, the fact that Sudan has been under Khatum in cities all over the country and Sudan have been bombed all week, the fact that Lebanon is in this ongoing crisis where they just can't get out, so please, all of our delegates, we see you and we stand with you.


Please welcome Gerd Leonhardt. All right, so great to be here. Great pleasure. Your technology is not good or bad, it just is. I hear this a lot when I talk to people, you know, technology is not something where we can say it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's something that we actually do. Fill it up with the meaning of good and bad. These are very important things I want to share with you today on the future of technology and where it's going. Let's start with this. You know, our world is, in a nutshell, two things. One is technology and the other one is humanity. In fact, you could say that many of us, in humanity, we don't really know what we're talking about, like ethics, beliefs. How do we think?  Technology is now the ruling fact of the world. Technology companies are the richest companies, the most powerful companies, and technology rules everything. You could say to a very large degree, we're being increasingly impacted by technology. And so, in my book, I think most of you already have a copy of technology versus humanity. I think we still have a few out there, so if you want to pick one up, I think there's still a few available out there. I use the word algorithms versus andro- rhythms. Andro- rhythms being the human rhythms. You know, and if you look at what is human, there's thousands of things. Compassion, empathy, design, intuition, imagination, mystery, lies, mistakes, deception, good and bad things. We kill millions of people per year because we're human. Should we have the algorithm do things that the andro- rhythm does wrong? Would that make sense? Maybe Donald Trump is already an AI, we just haven't noticed. So, in this future, we can safely say we're going on this evolutionary path. And as many of my California colleagues, I live in Zurich, but Colin colleagues anyway, like to say we're moving on to actually merge with technology. I find this a very strange thought. And that is primarily because I live in Europe, I suppose, but I lived in California for 17 years, so I was a little bit polluted by this. The concept of us becoming technology is an interesting version.  We're no longer at one or two, we're at four, and very quickly, 30 steps, it's a billion. 30 steps.  I mean, good and bad things, yes, but clearly, I'd like to say the world is going to change more in the next 20 years than the previous 300 years. And I think that's a lot of people saying, oh, that's completely overdone industrial revolution and all these things. Yes, but now we're changing who we are. That's quite a different thing than to invent a book printing press. We're changing what we can be, connecting our brain, the neocortex to the Internet, as Ray Kurzweil is suggesting, messing with our genes. That's quite a different cup of tea than having a mobile phone. It's inside of us. There's table stakes now. It's a question about who we are and what we want to be. That is the key question. And I think what's happening now is that we can safely say, you know, if you're my age, you're not going to sit there and see what should happen eventually. This is about years, not decades.  It's going to be a long time before they think like us.  And that's imminent. As Ray Kurzweil likes to say, the singularity, roughly 10 years until the computer has the same capacity than the human brain. In 2050, the computer will have capacity of all human brains, exponential curve. But capacity is one thing. The other thing is, you know, what happens with us? As Mark Andreessen said, 2011 is so true, software is eating the world. And software has been eating the world everywhere. And now it's time for the banks to be eaten, the insurance companies, media companies have already been eaten. It's basically a phenomenon that we see everywhere. Now I'd like to say, jokingly, maybe software is also cheating the world. And let's entertain this for a second. A lot of stuff that software does is not actually real in preventives, as we would call real. It's a simulation of things like this, living in the filter bubble of social media. That's nice, but is it like media? Can we hope the platform is responsible for what they make? You know, Facebook's favorite response is to say, well, you know, we make the tool and people do whatever they're going to do with the tool.  It's like the oil company saying, well, you know, we just make sure the cars can drive. That's pretty cheap. I mean, think about that for a second. If we go down this road, then we live in a world where technology is telling us what to think. Technology has nothing to do with looms or any of these things that we just heard about. This is talking about our, the change of who we are, not what is going on around us. This is a whole different order of magnitude here. I mean, we can laugh about the guys that attack the electric looms, or, you know, okay, that's a different level of magnitude, but cheating the world could also be, you know, Facebook has over 400 people that are working on addiction. It's like the cigarette companies that put stuff in the cigarettes to keep us on the juice longer, until it was illegal. And the same for Burger King and McDonald's. I mean, Silicon Valley has spent 15 years building stuff that's utterly addictive, and I use it. I'm a great user of technology. I'm addicted. Many of us are addicted to that, and it's only the beginning, because the funny part is we can laugh about this and saying, oh, when I wake up, I do a Facebook update. It's about an exponential scale here. Augmented reality, Facebook, right? Virtual reality, holographs, voice control, brain computer, neocortex interface. Basically, we become technology. That is the program. I'm not sure that's a good design. That's why I wonder about Amazon Echo and Google Home and Apple, you know, never mind the security issues. These things will be so good that I will think of them as people. Right? You remember the movie Her? Make a Love to a Robot? It didn't work because you didn't have a body. It wasn't real. It was nice, but not real. So let's think about this for a second. Technology is increasingly crossing the lines towards dehumanization. Whether by design or by accident, I'll leave that up to be discussed, and many of these people are my clients, so it's kind of an interesting scenario when I talk about the future. Google wants to link your offline credit card use to your mobile phone. Facebook has a pattern on facial expression to pitch you better ads. And Elon wants to beef up our brain so we can compete with the robots. That's interesting because he's actually kind of concerned about it. I mean, where does that take us? Maybe it's just tempting us to value convenience over consciousness. It's an interesting equation. It's funny, when people are over-connected or was online, they wish nothing more than to go offline. I mean, he's so many people saying, offline is the new luxury. I'm happy the internet isn't working. And then you go to Africa, people saying, I wish nothing more than to go online. It's a paradox. Facebook now launching AR experiences where you can scan stuff.  In fact, you should watch Black Mirror. That's the only science fiction where I'm saying it's actually not science fiction. It's just tomorrow. But I agree in general on science fiction is not a very good guide for our future. But clearly, we have to ask this question. Is this Silicon Valley's recipe for the future? An app for happiness? If you don't feel good, you just change your neocortex interface. You know, you have a political problem, you figure it out in social media or maybe Zuckerberg will do it for us. You've seen the movie Wall-E maybe? Gives a kind of interesting angle of the future. Is that the singularity, transcending humanity? Why in the world would we want to transcend humanity? What are we going to gain? We're going to transcend humanity and become a machine. We're going to impose all that in parenthesis. The only thing tempting about this is that it makes a lot of money. Peter Diamandis who started a company called Human Longevity Inc in California. This sounds like science fiction. That's very real. He says that the market of people not dying or getting very old, longevity is a $6 trillion market to make people live 100, 100, okay, this is the good old American paradigm, makes money, so we're fine. And I believe in that paradigm to some degree. I lived there for a long time. But you do have to wonder about where we are going with this. Because technology has this potential. It can do both. It can do fantastic things. And that started with electricity and the nuclear bomb and nuclear energy. We have to find a way to I wouldn't say regulate, that's a really bad word, to agree on what is good or bad. William Gibson said technology is more than neutral until we apply it. And here's the thing, of course, this is the paradigm, we apply it every single day increasingly. Ten years ago, we could say our technology doesn't apply it because the cloud isn't working in Bavaria or wherever. But in the future, it will do anything. Literally anything. The sky is the limit. Going to Mars, no problem. We can eventually do that. So we're merging with a sort of God-like statue. Becoming extremely powerful. And so the question is no longer if technology can do something or how much it costs. But why? If you've missed that point, it's no longer about feasibility. I mean, quantum computing is around the corner. Solar energy will be plenty. Desalination of water. All that stuff is imminent. 20 years. So the question of why we're doing something is the key question, not how or if. Why, and of course who. Because we already live in this world where we are praying at the altar of technology and again, I'm doing this. I have firsthand experience. But ethics is really the difference between what you have a right to do or the power and what is the right thing to do. There's a huge difference. And that is something that's popping up every day left and right. This whole concept like Google, $2.4 billion fine. The first of many, many, many, many to come. In this case, it's seven years old, right? It's actually about an old topic that nobody cares about anymore. That's the paradox, right? But ethics and humanity aren't optional. It's not like we're going to greenwash something and say, oh, we put 10% into renewable energy fund or that sort of stuff, right? I mean, not a single person does not want to be human, except for maybe Ray Kurzweil. I mean, we all are human. We want to be human. How do we remain human? We can't think of that as some sort of externality. Like if we have time, then we can remain human. After we make all the money, then we go back to humanity. That's an interesting thought. Some CEOs still think that they can actually transcend ethics, right? Like Uber's CEO. They're above ethics, leading me to uninstall. I'm struggling with this because I'm thinking, oh, it's kind of strange that we used to Uber 300 times, but he's above the law and he's above ethics and everything else is also above humanity. Because this is the truth. Data is the new oil. And we've said this for 15 years as an old saying, right? But it's so true. Data, the data economy drives everything and now the new component is this. Artificial intelligence is the new electricity. Anthony G said this from Baidu. I believe him in that. I mean, that is the driver of our society. McKinsey says $35 trillion economy. There isn't a single person in the world that's not saying, oh, that's fantastic. I can figure something out like some sort of startup that monetizes this. Technology has more power than oil, banking or the military, which is funny because technology is the military. Most of that stuff comes from the military. So there's lots of overlap. Look at this chart. You've seen this before, I'm sure. The age of tech. Who has the power is those companies. And that is why we have to think about what we're going to do with these guys. I mean, the list goes on forever. The very long list. The Internet of Things. $14.4 trillion benefit. I believe that's true. 90% positive. But there are a few issues. Having to do with security, ethics. I mean, if we connect everything, we're creating a new meta intelligence. A meta intelligence. That means everything connected to everything at all times doing different things. This is a magnitude beyond what we're doing today that we can't even imagine. It's a magnitude with like 50 zeros. So, lots of positive things there but we do have to ask the question. If this is our future and all you have to do is to see who invests where. AI, everything, everywhere, everyone. And I maintain this 90% hopeful that we can do lots of really great things there. But you have to ask the question. This market will not self-regulate.  Not until we give some very substantial incentives. Or you believe that humanity is a minor concern that we can deal with later. Then we don't deal with that. And we will not fix inequality either. I mean, technology is going to fix. Technology is creating more inequality and it's going to help us, at least in the US it is. If the Internet of Things comes around and every major city in Europe is connected to the Internet of Things, you know, smart cities, smart ports, what about Africa? They can't afford it. We're going to give it to them for free. Or they're going to fall further behind in inequality and create more terrorism. So this chart from the Boko Noma Forum shows that when ubiquitous sensor the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence and robotics, they're both in the upper right which means the most benefits and the most dangers at the same time. We can't just stand here and say, well, this is going to be, we'll make lots of money, solve global problems, but the dangers let somebody else do that. Maybe the United Nations can, you know, figure this out. So wouldn't you agree that we have an ethical imperative to harness power for the collective good? Of course, only a European would say that, I suppose. The collective good, that sounds like socialism. But the collective good sounds like mankind, right? Like good for people. I'm not talking about Silicon Valley version which is, you know, we want to change the world and be very rich. I'm talking about a whole different angle. Do we need this to happen first? When our medical records move to the cloud, our DNA move to the cloud in five years when I have a hundred million DNA stolen could easily happen. Anybody could clone you. That's already happening digitally. That's already a clone. So this is what's happening. The currents of technology are stacking up every single day. It's interesting to observe this. You know, all the stuff that we used to look at was just basically, you know, science fiction. But now it's science fact. Now we're getting to the point where that's really happening. We still have the same cards. We have the same cards that the old Greek had. The ancient Greek. So here's our challenge. We're going to stay linear. At least I would propose that we do. Technology is going to explode to a billion in 30 steps in the next 40 years. Beyond comprehension. Beyond really sort of control also. While controlling the sense of that we can probably control it, but we cannot understand it. I mean, if a computer reads one trillion health records and looks at all the MRIs and CAT scans, is a doctor going to say, well, you know that, that's not very credible, your diagnosis. Cards down, right? That's basically, believe it or not. So I think we need an EPA for humanity and environmental protection agency for humanity. We need a place where we can say we're not doing this because it's dehumanizing. It's not what we actually want even though it seems convenient. For example, there's people working in California where else on an artificial womb. So-called exogenesis.  The idea of giving birth outside of your body using an artificial womb. This is not a joke. Because, you know, it's convenient, obviously, I suppose. Is that unethical? I would say, definitely. Some people would say, well, that's great convenience and so why should you not allow it? Isn't that a natural transition that we can, you know, procreate without all the trouble? Maybe we can be born with 30 years old. How do we set up such a global ethics council and who would decide? I mean, bottom line decisions will not be so easy. And then there's a question in the end. Will all this happen? Who is mission control for humanity? Well, you know who's mission control now. It's not us. Unless you're from California. Silicon Valley and China is mission control. And that is not to say that it's a bad thing. This is just because they have built all the cool stuff. They have invested all the money. They've busted their butts to make this happen. It's not a bad thing. But will that be our future? To have an external mission control and decided in, you know, the future of the world decided somewhere like this? I think it's time for Europe to be admitted to mission control. So we can decide what we want. I think it's a very important decision. We see that everywhere emerging as a political act. You know, we saw it yesterday with the commission. Because when you look at this list, you notice something on this list of the biggest digital companies in the world. They're American and Chinese. I'm not going to surmise on the reasons here. This is just the way it is. And you could argue it was our old damn luck. We were just too lazy. This is why we need this, right? This is why we need the United States of Europe. That's the only way for us to be on parity eventually. And that is really a crazy statement considering the current state of affairs. We're going to see that. This is really what we're looking at. We're looking at this new power scenario of intelligent machines versus us. And finding the right balance will determine success or failure. In fact, it will determine if we're going to cease to exist as a species or not. Then you can argue, of course, that our species will become machines. In that case, it wouldn't matter. In fact, I have many people arguing to me that we are already a machine. We're just fancy data. If you believe that, then don't worry. You're going to be a machine before too long with a happy machine using all kinds of apps. Just like in the case of Amazon Echo and Google Home and all the other stuff. Let's not proceed blindly without agreeing on who is responsible. Did you know that one sentence that you speak on Google Home or any such digital assistant, one sentence has as much information as a million words? What could be done with that information? Who's in charge? Well, you can argue, of course, it's not listening and so on. Yes, you know, that's the theory of it. So, I'll give you some principles and then we'll have a discussion. The Assyllabar AI conference this year, I wasn't there, but it was a great summary from the Future of Life Institute, came up with a few rules. First one, we have to make sure that everything we build has human values. All should be designed to be compatible with ideas of human rights. Everything should have shared benefit, which clearly in the past it has not, even though the design was intended, but it didn't work out. We have to think about ecosystems, creating something that's good for society. We have to have responsibility. That's a terrible word. Nobody really wants to be responsible for complex things. But, you know, it's getting really powerful now, so who is responsible? And, of course, who is going to help us to avoid the arms race? I mean, this is absolutely inevitable. On three sectors, AI, geoengineering and human genome editing. If we have an arms race on those three things, we are toast in 50 years. Before that. Because this is a whole different class of, you know, this is beyond clear. We talked about this earlier. I think the biggest danger is actually not the machines will kill us. Machines are far from being as intelligent as we are, and they're far from general intelligence and from super intelligence and from being ex-machine and what have you. They're far away from that. Far. The biggest problem is that we become like them.  We can't be bothered to learn an instrument because we're going to play music on the iPad. There's nothing wrong with playing music on the iPad, but there is a different thing than to actually use an instrument. And that may be very old fashioned, yeah. Okay. If it's old fashioned to be human then call me old fashioned. Is this my future? I'd rather be more human than be more smart. I think that is the future for our work and that is how we're not going to be made superfluous by machines. We're not going to beat the machines on smarts. You can forget about that. We're going to beat the machines on just being human, having human qualities. That is the future of human work. Great philosopher once said technology is not, this was actually a hundred years ago, technology is not what we seek, but how we seek. If we take technology as the purpose of our lives we'll come out as technology. We'll be substituted. Here's a key question for all of your innovators, entrepreneurs and startups and whatever you are. This is a question you have to ask, are you on team human? What I call team human, putting human first. Even if you make robots even if you're in the cloud even if you make AI you can be on team human. There's no discrepancy here. This is a question of goal. What are we trying to achieve? Finally a line from my book. We must embrace technology. There's no way around that. We are not going back. We're not going to keep it from growing. But we should refuse to become technology. Because with that we become a commodity. Which I don't think is a good proposal. Thanks for your time and attention. Let's sit down and have a quick chat about that before we wrap up. Well, coming to a lot of ground there and a bit gloomier than I am about the future shall we say. In practical terms, embrace technology I'm up for that but do not become technology. What is that actually in your day to day life? What does that mean you're doing? You're like, I don't know, having days off when you're not using your phone. In practical terms what does this mean? Well it starts with very simple things like the decision making that I do that I try to do I don't want to use my phone. So you don't use Google Maps? There's a gradual difference there. For example, if I use a prediction algorithm or say human research analytics, I can decide I'm going to use that information to fire somebody or to hire somebody or I can decide to take information and then have a conversation. So this is intelligence augmentation, IA instead of AI. The example you talked about machines that can look at an X-ray and tell you if it's cancer or not, for example. Do we hand that decision to the machine or do we just give that machine to every radiologist so they can all be the best radiologist they possibly can but ultimately they're making the decision. That's the sort of thing you're talking about. This is not a black or white scenario. The ultimate decision really is about when I say when it does good for humans in general, then I think it's a good thing. If it does bad in general, it's a bad thing. The idea of having drones that can automatically kill people because they use AI is a very bad idea. So in that case, that's a quite straightforward red line because people are saying we shouldn't have they already exist these weapons things like brimstone which is a fire and forget weapon.  It goes into a theater, battle theater and it looks for something that looks like a tank and if it finds one then it destroys it. The Israeli version of this is really smart but it doesn't find anything. It comes back and lands.  I think when we hand off the authority and the thinking about those crucial decisions like we scan our body and then if my wife is pregnant for one week then the AI says it's quite likely your child will not be tall enough or whatever and then basically says okay now you take this pill and it's done with. Those kind of things are questionable in my view even though I would grant people the right to do so. Are they questionable because they might be wrong or are they questionable because you just don't think that we should be listening to the machine should be factoring into that decision at all? Both actually. I mean if you take other cases for example a judge that's a software essentially deciding if somebody should go out on probation or not. I would much rather have a human judge that's subject to corruption and mistakes than to have a machine decide on the fate of a human person. This is a principle question. Or is that because on what basis would you rather have the machine we already know machines are better at diagnosing lots of diseases than humans. They're better at reading radiograms. But that's different because these are hard facts diseases. To monitor somebody in his cell to take the video material to record his phone calls and then to say to the software decide if this person is going to do it again or not that is a whole different class of surveillance. So to me that's that's a moral dilemma. But I would say that of course if the judge was smart he would use all the analytics as a factor but I wouldn't let the machine decide. Is that because the judge is human or is it because you can ask the human why he or she made that decision? The problem is if we go down this road we're going to eventually end up with doing absolutely nothing because we are inefficient we make mistakes we don't know everything so we're going to end up at the point where we have AI as politicians there are lots of sci-fi worlds where so the whole of Star Trek certainly in banks in banks is sci-fi I think is probably the most influential in the tech world now it's what Elon Musk reads the neural lace is from in banks the drone ships that the SpaceX rockets land on are named after spacecraft I actually asked Elon about this and he said yes he's a massive in banks fan I also asked Demis Hasabis which sci-fi he thought was most influential and I said you're like really it's the robot stories by Asimov right canonical AI stuff and he said no they're for children he likes the foundation series by Asimov instead which is this it's a different thing but anyway going back to this whole question I suspect I want to see to what extent are you really worried about the lack of explainability of these systems because I know that they look like black boxes now but as you will be aware there are lots of people trying to make them able to explain why they and if you did that would you have fewer objections to these machines particularly in things like driving cars and so on if they could say why they did what they did does that take away some of your concern it could possibly but you know the bottom line is what is called the Polania paradox and this is a Hungarian researcher who said that basically we cannot automate what we don't know right and in human existence there are so many things that we don't know that we just do if we were to apply them to automation or to robotics we would still not get anywhere because we don't actually know how we are doing this right for example if we meet in the hallway it takes 0.4 seconds to estimate the other person we don't know how we do that how would we teach a computer to do that so there's a universe of things that we do this is the moral of edge paradox that the computer can do the things that are very hard for us things that are very hard for computers and that is kind of where we're going let the machines do the easy things for them but let's not have them do the easy things for us that we can do it doesn't this another argument that's made by people in favor of automation is that we hold machines to an impossible standard we say that a self-driving car has to be perfectly safe and yet for some reason we tolerate you know humans making irrational decisions crashing cars driving badly, running people over and so on and we kind of go well that's fine they're humans so we don't expect to be able to explain that but computers have to be perfect isn't that a double standard you don't seriously suggest that the computer should have the same standard than the human well I think it'll be better I think they already are better drivers no no I mean in terms of the judgment the nice thing is at least you could ask the computer why it did what it did which you can't actually now with a human the argument that we make mistakes to then argue that we should substitute all of that mistakes with machines that would be a deadly argument because we would cease to exist because that is basically what we do humans are masters of inefficiency if you take all that out then we don't exist we're basically useless as Noah Haravi says and that is the end so my argument is exactly this let the machines do the driving because driving isn't a civil right or human right but let's not have the machines decide on political issues or social benefits or politics or ethics or you know they will never really understand values they can only copy our values and then play it back to us in a simulation to end because we've got about a minute to go where do you hope to see imagine yourself 20 years from now what does the world look like and how would you like things to play out you've given us the kind of a nightmare scenario what's the kind of what's the good scenario 20 years from now okay actually you know a lot of people say when they hear me speak to say that I'm too positive on the future rather than with the nightmare so my ideal future is I think at 20 years we could be at the place to where we have solved most of the big problems energy, water, food disease using technology and that may result in the fact that we don't have to work anymore or much much less we are able to distribute the benefits of technology so then we may end up in the Star Trek society to where everything is taken care of you know problems have been largely fixed and we do what we want to do because technology makes it possible we're going to need a lot of wisdom for this right now and this will be the end of capitalism of course because there's no such thing there's no money in Star Trek it's really simple to sell software it's very hard to sell humanity so it's like basically the market is driving us towards this idea of profit and growth at pretty much any cost anywhere and technology says that anything is possible which is the consequence of we do everything and that will not work here so I think that if we are wise then we can use technology for the positive and contain the worries of other things and come to a future where we can all benefit from that as being sort of a global standard what you're saying implies there will be sort of rupture both in politics and in economics that we need completely new political systems completely new economic systems we haven't been able to switch to new economic systems in the past without a great deal of upheaval so it's a pretty scary prognosis well this goes with the concept and this may be a little gloomy there but the reality is for example climate change in 20 years we're probably going to be able to reduce the carbon output finally then we're going to finally figure it out but we will have to live with what we've already done and that is going to be 20 years of a lot of stuff that we don't really want to talk about here so and that is kind of like the next 20 years we'll have all these problems and then we can go back and maybe fix it because then we're in the technical position to do so and the same goes for the economy so the current economic model is under fire and we'll take us 20 years to deal with that and then maybe a new model can emerge that is this kind of what Piketty calls sustainable capitalism or whatever you want to call it lots of the tech industry very keen on universal basic income we had a vote on this in Switzerland and everyone said no to it when they saw how much their taxes were going to rise 26% accepted in Zurich where I live the rich people live, not me but the others 54% this is the funniest thing actually so that discussion is not tabled exactly it's absolutely they've got this new experiment going on in Finland and so on anyway we could go down a large number of rabbit holes from here but it's been a fascinating excursion around these possible futures so thank you very much