 Randy in the George Orwell's Classic Moral 1984, the supreme dictator that over caused a big brother, he systematically reduces the number of words that the citizen slaves could use, the fewer the words, the fewer the ideas, and the narrower the thinking, and the less power, of course, in the people's minds and for the people. And the language of this totalitarian world was called Newspeak. And sometimes when I listen to the concepts and the discussions here, it kind of sounds to me like Newspeak, meaning that we are repeating the same words, same concepts all over again. How do you see it? How do you see the concepts and the discussions? Yeah, I think it's an excellent point, Esko, and it's interesting. If you attend conferences and have conversations like this, you find that there's a continuous struggle around language. What do we call this that we're trying to do? You know, so we're combining profit and purpose and or mission-related organization or impact-related organizations. And so we're struggling with how to define the totality of the work that happens. And there's so much good that's represented here at Slush. And you see these, you see people just struggling with language. What do we call this? It's one part profit, it's one part purpose. We're focused on mission. But how can we define and begin to understand what a new language is? And I think that's a struggle right now. We need folks that will help us translate into that new language for the future. How do you see the future, what comes to the demands, for example, that Al Gore was mentioning? Should we kind of revisit our ideas about what business is? If we go back to Adam Smith, so before he wrote The Wealth of Nations and he came up with the idea of the invisible hand, he actually already wrote something that perhaps is even more relevant for us in our time. In the theory of moral sentiments, he argued that the stable society was based on empathy. And he underlined the importance of a moral duty to have regard for your fellow beings. So should we recreate this or visit our ideas that come from our past, which we perhaps have forgotten? I think we need to revisit those ideas. I think one of the interesting things is that TS Eliot has this great poem that I like called The Dry Salvages. And it's really a collection of four different poems. But there's one line from The Dry Salvages that has always stood out to me. And TS Eliot says it this way. He said they had the experience, but they missed the meaning. And so often, particularly in a consumer society, we have the, in a way, we have the experience of products and services, but we miss the meaning. What does that mean in our lives? And we've heard over and over again, I think, from various speakers, who are talking about how I think this next generation is changing and they understand what's the meaning. They want to, you know, where do these products come from? How are these products advancing us? How are they speaking to ethics and morality in ways in which perhaps in the past we didn't talk about that within that kind of context? And so I think one of the great challenges and great opportunity for us in the early years of the 21st century is to begin to recapture that empathy and that sense of morality, meaning, as maybe TS Eliot would define it. So those might be the universal values that should be present also today. Now I have this crazy idea that work itself is not changing. It's always been the same thing and it's always going to be the same thing. Work is solving other people's problems. The way we define those problems and the way we solve them is changing. And of course today we can define problems in a variety of new ways compared to the old industrial logic. So how should we think about this? How should we solve the problems? How should we define them? What's your advice for us? You've seen the word from many angles. Yes, yes, well, I mean over something like approaching 20 years in philanthropy, you know, we've seen, I've seen and I've probably read thousands and thousands of proposals coming from people around the world. The ones that stand out to me the most are those proposals that take a more holistic, systemic view of the problems. Too often we take kind of these silo sort of narrow view of what our problem is and think that that very narrow problem set can be solved by a very narrow solution set. And the reality is that's not the case. We live in a world where we're all connected and we're probably in this group where at most maybe three degrees of separation from one another at most, maybe four. And so I think we need to translate that into how we think about solutions as well. I work in philanthropy as you know and even within this group we tend to view philanthropy perhaps sometimes as something on the side and we call it charity. But it doesn't, it isn't understood in the definitions for entrepreneurship and sometimes broader commercial activity that's taking place. So in a way what you're saying is that it's not enough to make good products with least possible harm but you have to understand the bigger picture around it. Perhaps even that it's not the customer per se but it's the society and the future of the globe. That's absolutely right. Yeah, yeah. We've kind of hived off, you hear it in the language, purpose and profit. And that sort of defines how organizations and even how we distribute financial capital to organizations. Of course many are trying to put that together but they're still separated and don't kind of get to the level of scale that we need to be able to have a more holistic view of the solutions that are required in the 21st century. Something that Finns are very good at and that is very interesting for us Finns is to go home idea of games. And I'm a believer that the future of business is going to be closer to the games that we play. And now this also brings us to a problem on what comes to the whole picture that you showed us. Because the games we play have been played under the assumption that the unit of survival is the player, meaning the individual or company. And now we know that actually the reality is that the unit of survival is the player in the game being played. And the way we play those games today are kind of destroying the game and making it impossible for the game to continue. So do you think that that might be an approach to understand what's going on? Is the same take this kind of a game theoretical logic to business? I think it is, you know. I think there is, I think you're speaking to imagination. You're speaking to the ability to experiment that takes place within that theoretical orientation around games. In many of the massive games that take place now around the world, and as you said, Finland leads in this area, there is wide participation among people from around the world in many of these games. And so it does provide, I think, that theoretical framework and construct for us to think about it in the daily lives that we live. One of the interesting things in games is that games allow people to take responsibility. So they can kind of allow people to assume leadership as and when is needed. And that's very different than the kind of the structures that we are normally relate to as we talk about work. So being responsible, being able to make a response, being able to choose might be one of the key issues in the future. But how would you kind of, again, how would you help us to create more opportunities for choosing things, more things that are available, more opportunity spaces? Yeah. Well, I think the, you know, obviously a game takes place on a platform, right? And there's certain enabling conditions that exist within that platform environment for people to participate in the game. And to me, there's an analog to that in the daily lives that many people live, is they don't have the benefit of the platform or the enabling conditions to be able to participate in an economy with opportunity. And so in many ways, Humanity United, you know, it seems like an odd name for a private foundation, right? But we came to the realization that the big problems and the big intractable challenges that we face in the 21st century can't be done in isolation. They can't be done alone. You know, we didn't name ourselves, you know, Democrats United or Americans United or something crazy like that or Republicans United for heaven's sakes. You know, we named ourselves Humanity United because we believe it speaks to the essence of solving the big problems that we face in this 21st century. And so it requires that people who don't have opportunities, that we aim to create the kind of enabling conditions where people can participate and can make choices that, you know, billions of people around the world today don't have the kind of choices that we benefit from and many of the people here at Slush benefit from today. I think the first industrial revolution really revolutionized the world in the sense of creating opportunities for consumers. But can it be that because of the price of our tools is going down so dramatically, actually what's happening today is we are democratizing opportunities what comes to production. So the tools we have should be understood as cognitive tools that help us to make, in a way, wiser decisions, how do you see the role of this kind of cognitive tools in the future? Yeah, I think that's one of the areas where technology, and there's so many here at this event, they're creating ways in which the technical expansion of these tools is leapfrogging what the developed economies had to build in the 20th century. And one of the benefits is we're beginning to leapfrog that. So the landlines, of course, you know, is the kind of classic story about how many undeveloped economies don't require landlines because they leapfrog right into the mobile environments. And I think that is a tremendous asset for emerging markets, emerging economies developing countries to be able to catch up, if you will, to the opportunities that are afforded us. So you mean that actually countries that are developing with the help of modern technologies can leapfrog to be making much, much wiser decisions that we are making here today? I think so. And frankly, I think there's a marketplace there for the ambitious entrepreneur to be able to capture a market that is going to explode, you know, in the latter years of the year, or in the mid to latter years of the 21st century, because that leapfrog will take place. Absolutely. And there's just, there's an argument for getting early competitive advantage. You know, as a result of that, which will have the effect then of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, right? And so it's a huge market opportunity, I think, for entrepreneurs, as they think about the expansion of technology into the mid 21st century and the opportunities that are presented there. So if in a way you could say that work is solving problems, then you could say that learning is really asking questions. And then the basic thing is that what kind of problems we solve and what kind of questions we ask. And could we spread then a larger, in a way, more moral base for asking questions? Because I think this is one of the basic things that we have to understand today that business is a moral system and all business decisions are moral decisions. Is that the only way to go or can we still wait a couple of years? I don't think we can wait, Esko. I really do believe in this idea that we're coming to this convergence around where business and the role of business as a moral agent, there's getting more and more understanding about what that confluence is in the future. And that sounds theoretical, it sounds almost philosophical, but I still believe that those who understand that early are provided a competitive advantage in the future around business opportunities. And that this particular talk we talked about, most people ask what's the next big thing, but we want to ask what's the next good thing. And I would say the combination of that is what's the next big good thing. That we can do, which begins to separate that idea that if you want to do something big at scale, then probably won't have much purpose related to it. Or if you want to do something purposeful, then it won't have scale. But I think the future opportunities out there actually combine those two. And that's where this language question trips us up. Because we're still trying to figure out, okay, impact investing, purpose, profit, mission-based, what is it? But soon it'll come together and we'll... Somehow, maybe slash 2018, they'll define new language, but somehow we'll develop a language where we can speak about more. Would it mean in practice that if we talk about customers, we should also talk about the ecosystem at large? And if we talk about short-term results, we should always talk about long-term. And have a kind of a more varied view to whatever we do. And perhaps that leads us potentially to solving more valuable problems and asking more important questions. I think that's right. The temptation right is to pick the low-hanging fruit. And I think pretty soon a lot of that fruit will be picked. And we're going to have to start reaching a little bit higher. And I think that's a good thing. And I think it will require us to do that. Can it be that we could actually say that philanthropy is one part of the venture capital scene, and philanthropy is actually making the biggest bets and taking the biggest risks also? I think so. So a lot of philanthropies, certainly in the U.S. and perhaps around the world, there's a lot of risk aversion in philanthropic practices. And I've just never understood that. I think most philanthropic dollars should be used in the most riskiest settings. And we should view philanthropy as not something that's off to the side or, quote, charity or something like that, but it's one tool among many within the continuum of financial assets that we draw from. So you have grant-making and program-related investments and debt and equity and all kinds of sort of tricked-out financial capital tools, but they're all part of one continuum that's deployed to drive, you know, a positive social life. So this is a message to all the startups here. So if you don't get venture capital money, you know where to go to. Thank you so much for joining us. Yeah, thank you so much, Tesco. Thank you.