 So now I will give the floor to Genadiy, who is, by the way, Zoltan Genadiy, all these people playing roles in the great transhumanist game. Zoltan is the person who is generating the problems for the gamers who are solving these problems. Genadiy is the rational argumentator. He is setting everything on a very rational, very organized, very moderate form. Already, Genadiy? Yes, thank you. How long you are issuing rational argumentators? I have been issuing the rational argumentator for the past 16 years. Yes. So that's the reason I'm calling him his role rational argumentator. I will give him the floor. He will speak for himself. But he is already part of the game with a lot of videos and text and materials. Genadiy, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Professor Marchev. And thank you to all of the attendees at the VSIM 2018 conference. It's an honor to present to you today. And today my topic will be how transhumanism can transcend all conventional ideologies of our time, including socialism, but also libertarianism, as well as conventional conservatism and left liberalism. I will start with libertarianism and you will see on this slide I provided three key strengths and three key weaknesses. And I do this for all of the ideologies that I'm going to cover today, although I'm quite aware there are many more items that can be placed in either column. However, because of time limitations, I selected three key good aspects of each ideology and three key flaws that prevents it from achieving the most beneficial outcomes for humankind. So with libertarianism, I consider a key strength of it to be that it is a largely coherent academic philosophy and it has a long-standing respectable history of thought. The origins of libertarianism really can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome, but more strongly so to the classical liberal tradition that emerged in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment in the late 17th and 18th centuries. There are many erudite libertarian-oriented thinkers throughout the subsequent years. For instance, John Locke, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Bastia, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and even Ein Rand, though she wouldn't consider herself a libertarian, did influence libertarian thought. And a lot of these thinkers have interesting and thorough ideas to offer and many correct elements to those ideas. Libertarians tend to be strong in their understanding of spontaneous order and emergent properties and the fact that societies also evolve and that societal evolution is not centrally directed. Often the outcomes that we observe in societies are ones that nobody planned and in some ways offer benefits and intricacies that no single human mind could have arrived at without collaboration and cooperation with millions of others. Libertarians tend to have a strong grasp of incentives and how they work and also the fact that unintended consequences can arise from many policies and institutional structures. So libertarians tend to be skeptical toward simplistic centrally planned so-called solutions which often backfire and can achieve the opposite of their intended effects. Now on the other hand, there are some key weaknesses to libertarianism and I have observed those weaknesses through a decade and a half of interacting with the libertarian movement. Despite much effort put into the articulation of the libertarian ideal of a free society, almost no viable path has been formulated forgetting from the status quo to the ideal. And I have asked many libertarians about what a viable path might be. To date, I have not received a satisfactory answer and I would include my own many-fold attempts at formulating such an answer within that characterization because even my best efforts have involved some sort of policy shift that would be very difficult to achieve in the contemporary political climate or some sort of shift in the attitudes of the public which does not seem to be imminent. Indeed, as Zoltan pointed out in his video, a lot of young people today, for whatever reason, seem to be more inclined toward socialist ideas. Furthermore, it seems that the prevalent composition of the libertarian movement as it is today does not resemble the academic giants that gave rise to libertarian philosophy and so the attitudes and behaviors of a lot of rank-and-file libertarians make it rather difficult to portray the movement as principled anymore rather than focused on self-gratification. A lot of libertarians today, unfortunately, do not see the distinction between the abstract principle that some activity should be permitted because it is within an individual's right to do so and the desirability of engaging in that activity. So, for instance, in the United States right now, there's a widespread movement for the legalization of marijuana and I support the legalization of marijuana as a matter of principle but I have never smoked marijuana and I never want to smoke marijuana so a lot of libertarians with whom I've spoken were quite bewildered that I would support the legalization of marijuana as a principle without being willing to engage in that behavior myself and that's a very strange observation for the libertarian movement but nonetheless, unfortunately, it is true and another weakness of libertarianism today is that there is an excessive focus on generic anti-government rhetoric essentially boiling down to phrases like, I hate the state or taxation is theft but that rhetoric doesn't really offer a lot of constructive solutions to specific problems and many libertarians would be much more effective if they were to address and ameliorate specific policies and look at ways, again, to get from the status quo to a more preferable state of the world. Now, I will discuss socialism and socialism, for all of its flaws in my view, does have some key strengths. First of all, it is a universalist and internationalist world view, at least in theory. For a socialist, it shouldn't matter where you were born, it shouldn't matter what your skin color is, who your parents were, the ideas of socialism are supposed to apply in all times and places and the ultimate goal of socialism is also desirable although many socialists will say it's a remote goal but socialists, at least in theory, want to abolish material scarcity and want government to wither away and the ideal for a future where that goal has been achieved is also an appealing one of universal constructive leisure. Socialist thinkers like Leon Trotsky have articulated the ideal that in the future the new socialist man would be like an Aristotle or a Goethe, essentially a person who is very philosophical, who is engaged in a wide range of intellectual activities who is extremely intelligent and skilled and artistically talented, who wouldn't want to be that kind of individual. And socialists also I think are correct in focusing on the material means of production as the determinants of progress. One can articulate ideals and the desire to overcome scarcity, all that one wishes however without the technology to do that, without the machines to do that, the factories to do that it is not possible to reduce scarcity or to overcome it. With that being said, socialism has some glaring weaknesses that have been made manifest over the past century and a half of history. One key weakness is the economic calculation problem that the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained in great detail. Without a price system, without some sort of market mechanism, it is impossible for central planners to rationally allocate resources because the possible physical resources and the uses they could be put to are too heterogeneous and individual preferences are also very heterogeneous and even if you had the most powerful supercomputer in the universe you would not be able to calculate and prioritize among all of the possible combinations of individual preferences and resource allocations to suit those preferences. And as a result of that, socialism has tendencies toward totalitarianism, toward extreme enforced conformity and violent repression of dissent because the more heterogeneity there is in a society, the more difficult it is for the planners to rationally allocate the resources and so there is an incentive for the planners to crack down on variety, on nuances of individual preference and opinion, to try to make everybody the same, to try to make the resource allocation problem a bit easier. Of course, individuals have their own goals and their own opinions and they want to express those opinions and they want to protest against the regime and the regime under socialism has an incentive to crack down on that which is quite unfortunate. And another unfortunate tendency in socialism is the radical rejection of the past, the abandonment and destruction of the achievements that got humankind up to this point. In the early days of the socialist revolutions, there was a lot of destruction of monuments. There was a lot of destruction of cultural works of the past because socialists stated that, oh, these are corrupted by the fact that they were produced under an autocratic regime, under a tsar, or under a king, or under bourgeois capitalism. However, socialists fail to understand that no matter what the imperfections of prior systems had been, significant progress was made in preceding centuries and to throw that all away just because of the imperfections of the societies that gave rise to those achievements would be self undermining and would destroy a lot of the good along with the bad. Moving on, conservatism has certain strengths in areas where socialism has weaknesses. So one key strength of conservatism is that conservatives tend to recognize the value of the achievements of past eras and thinkers and tend to want to preserve those achievements rather than discard them. Furthermore, conservatives, unlike socialists, tend to generally tolerate fairly decent, evolved everyday solutions to societal problems with the caveat that conservatives will tolerate those solutions if they look traditional enough. So for instance, the family is a generally workable way of managing resources on a small scale of a few people. Free markets are generally workable for resource allocation in a broader society. Conservatives will generally accept technologies that are widespread during their era, which are different technologies in different eras. So for instance, conservatives today will accept open heart surgery or railroads or automobiles or anesthesia. However, conservatives in the mid 19th century would have been severely skeptical to say the least toward these technologies. And furthermore, conservatives tend to value social order and continuity. So they're skeptical of upheaval, particularly violent upheaval that could destroy the good along with the bad. So they would tend to be opposed to violent revolutions, but they're not altogether averse to incremental changes as long as those incremental changes still result in something that the conservative can recognize and associate with a favored tradition or way of living. However, conservatives do tend to have key weaknesses as well. One major weakness is a tendency to mistake idiosyncratic group traditions and specific cultural norms for universal truths. An example is the assertion I often hear from religious conservatives that without God or without Christianity or without Islam or without their particular brand of Christianity or Islam, there can be no morality and so atheists can't be moral or even people of other religions can't be moral according to conservatives who think along those lines. And what they don't realize is that the specific forms and routines and rituals of their cultural traditions are not what create morality. They're just an expression of more universal and rationally comprehensible moral principles that others who have different cultural norms could also espouse in a different format. And because conservatives can't look past their own particular forms and traditions and cultural norms, they tend to have a vulnerability to nationalism, militarism, religious intolerance, and in-group exclusivism. All of these are ways to essentially protect in the minds of the conservatives their particular cherished way of life against a perceived other. Some sort of new cultural influence or different group of people who would lead to societal evolution that would be too fast in the minds of the conservatives. And unfortunately the reaction from the conservatives can be very damaging to many human beings. And then unfortunately for transhumanists, many conservatives tend to have an affinity toward the so-called natural order of things which is accompanied by a deep visceral skepticism toward fundamental technological advancements. So just because a technology changes the natural, in quotes, lifespan of human beings or how human beings relate to one another, conservatives will tend to be severely skeptical of it unless it becomes very normalized within their culture and society. Now I move on to left liberalism or left progressivism. I use the adjective left in both of these descriptions because I want to distinguish left liberalism and left progressivism from, say, classical liberalism which is closer to libertarianism and techno-progressivism which is closer to transhumanism. So there are some key strengths to these so-called left-wing ideologies. One key strength is the appreciation that one does not have to be a member of a majority group to have rights or values. So this is a strength where conservatives have a weakness. And as a result a lot of left liberals will accept most diverse lifestyles. Unfortunately they will not accept all peaceful diverse lifestyles. However, they have done a lot of good work to attempt to protect vulnerable individuals against persecution and suffering. A lot of the civil rights movements from the 1960s onward were spearheaded by individuals who could be called left liberals or left progressives and generally have had favorable results. Also left liberals tend to be open towards science and they support generally secular reasoning and argumentation keeping religion out of politics for instance or supporting the teaching of valid scientific insights such as the theory of evolution within schools instead of requiring some sort of compensatory religious instruction. Also a strength of left liberals is a tendency to oppose reflexive physical force, for instance police violence. They tend to oppose war, they tend to oppose weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately that opposition too can be at least derailed by allegiance to the more cynical democratic party in the United States which often does engage in militaristic rhetoric especially if it's politically convenient and it is politically convenient today for the democratic party in the United States to call for escalation of tensions against Russia because they can use that rhetoric to undermine Donald Trump. And there are key weaknesses to the left liberal and left progressive mindsets. One of them is an excessive focus on narrowly defined group identity, so-called identity politics and looking at highly specific social issues facing certain subsets of the population which may be valid issues but they are not the most significant issues in the world. There are universal human concerns that we all share and for all of our diversity we are more alike than we are different in the sense that we have these physical organisms which are subject to deterioration over time. We do still live in a world of scarcity and we face certain problems both material and intellectual as well as emotional problems that should unite us more than divide us and should give us an imperative to solve those problems. Left liberalism tends to overlook and undervalue the role of technology in addressing these concerns. There is an excellent metaphor of the circular firing squad that describes a lot of left liberal types of behaviors today and that is a metaphor to explain the extreme intolerance in the name of tolerance that is often observed in left liberal circles because there is a tendency, especially in the United States and especially at university campuses, to issue extreme denunciations and ostracism of people with very similar views just because there are differences on certain particular issues or differences of emphasis. So a lot of the tendency in left liberal circles has been to alienate potential allies and despite the name progressive as thinkers like Steven Pinker have pointed out there is a pervasive refusal in left liberal circles to recognize and appreciate genuine progress when it is obvious and ubiquitous such as the emergence of much of the world out of poverty over the past 30 years and the major progress that has been made in fighting infectious diseases throughout the world and lengthening life expectancies especially in developing countries. So left liberals tend to be skeptical toward industrial and biomedical technology even though that technology is one of the primary drivers of true progress and improvement of living conditions for the people whom the left liberals ostensibly champion. So I described a lot of strengths and weaknesses of these ideologies that are specific to those ideologies but there are many common points of failure to all of the conventional ideologies that I mentioned. Conventional ideologies largely disregard the transformative potential of technology and they mostly view technology as part of the background for an imagined immutable status quo. So the content of a conventional ideology is actually not as relevant to the advocates of that ideology as one might think at first glance. It is often epiphenomenal and used to mask the more particular tribal or personal allegiances that the leaders of these ideological movements are actually looking to promote. So often the content will shift to reflect the momentary convenience of that ideological tribe or an influential ideologue. We have seen this happen in the United States with conservatives as a result of the rise to prominence of Donald Trump. We have seen this over a longer time frame with left liberals who used to be in the 1960s and 1970s strong advocates of freedom of speech and active debate of controversial ideas and now they seem to be the ones who are clamoring to suppress the active discussion of different points of view. So the conventional ideologue has the following tactic for achieving change. It's essentially telling everybody else why his or her tribe is better than their tribe. And this is evidence of a focus on scarcity and a zero sum mentality. The mindset that for the favored groups under the view of a conventional ideology to win others have to lose. And even those who espouse positive some outcomes in conventional frameworks can fall prey to this adversarial zero sum mentality in practice. I mentioned that the ideal of socialism is government withering away. But some socialists will advocate for a dictatorship of the proletariat to be established as a prelude to that ostensibly as a way of achieving it. Of course a dictatorship can never achieve the elimination of government altogether. That is contradictory. Some left progressives on university campuses will vociferously advocate diversity but will suppress diversity of thought. And that leads to enforced cultural homogeneity and fear of speaking out on the part of many people. So lack of genuine diversity. Some left liberals in the name of the goal of universal health care which is a worthwhile goal that the U.S. Transhumanist Party shares would wish to coerce everyone into a single payer system where there would be an assumption that there's a limited supply of health care that needs to be rationed. So some people in the name of universal health care would not be getting health care or as much health care as they would need. And there are some conservatives now especially after the rise of Donald Trump who still use the rhetoric of free markets but who will in practice support protectionist tariffs, subsidies, barriers against competition and other ways to protect favored businesses and industries. And some of them will say well this is just a tool to get a level playing field so that we can have a free market eventually. But to use means that contradict the goal ultimately means that the goal will never be reached. And then there are some libertarians and self-proclaimed civil rights activists who will claim that they support individual rights and the freedom to be left alone. But in practice they are often the most litigious individuals around especially in the United States which is a highly litigious society to begin with. So they are ready to sue people including individuals and small businesses with whom they disagree and using litigation and the threat of litigation they are essentially resorting to government force to interfere in their personal disputes which is again a contradiction. So transhumanism offers a superior alternative to all of these conventional ideologies and here I have laid out the three ideals of the U.S. transhumanist party. Certainly there are many different flavors of transhumanism, many different areas of emphasis the transhumanists have, but these ideals were broadly articulated to essentially be unifying principles to encompass as much of the variety that exists in transhumanism as possible. And these ideals are support for significant life extension achieved through the progress of science and technology, a cultural societal and political atmosphere informed and animated by reasoned science and secular values and efforts to use science, technology and rational discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the human species. So these are the core ideals that every person who applies for free membership to the U.S. transhumanist party has the option to express agreement with or disagreement with at the time of application and the overwhelming majority of our applicants do express agreement with these core ideals. So now I go to transhumanism and you can see on one side of the screen I have key strengths and then on the other side of the screen I have key strengths and I do this for a reason because I think transhumanism has far fewer weaknesses than all of these conventional ideologies that I previously described. It is a movement based on a principal philosophical dynamic understanding of human history and progress that remains valid across epochs and that's a strength to a certain extent of both libertarianism and socialism as well but I think transhumanism is more thoroughly integrated and considers the impact of technology to a far greater extent. Transhumanists recognize technological scientific and economic drivers of improvement in the quality of life and in addition to that recognition they are motivated by a quest to overcome scarcity in pursuit of universal abundance. Transhumanism is a universalist cosmopolitan inclusive international and transpartisan movement that supports the morphological freedom and intellectual freedom of all individuals not just today but new sentient life forms that could also emerge. So transhumanism is a movement that essentially supports maximum possible diversity which is achieved and preserved through technology. Transhumanism has a long-term focus on the future of humanity and the maximization of flourishing not just the benefit of some particular group, not just victory in some particular struggle or overcoming some particular problem but the benefit of all humans and all sapient life forms ultimately in the long run. Transhumanists focus on solving social problems through technology rather than using the problems to draw battle lines among tribes. It seems that with a lot of conventional ideologues even though they may vociferously denounce a particular problem it may not be in their interest to solve that problem because if that problem were actually solved then that particular ideology might become obsolete and those ideologues might have let's say less prominence in certain circles because they don't have as many problems that they could point to to justify their movements existence but transhumanists don't need specific problems to persist. Indeed we don't want the problems to persist we want to solve them for good. Transhumanism supports an open-ended evolution of ideas. It is not a static body of ideas. Transhumanists accept that philosophy and policy need to progress along with technology and society. However, transhumanists also value continuity and the preservation of the past because our ability to create a prosperous future requires reliance on the scientific and cultural achievements that are already here but most importantly transhumanists seek to preserve individual lives which are the most valuable aspects of the world and through the pursuit of life extension and medical improvements in the quality of life we can make sure that as many individuals as possible continue to exist and contribute value. Transhumanists accept justified change of course but we reject mere change for the sake of change we don't just want to throw out the old to make way for the new that is the opposite of the goal of indefinite life extension. So transhumanists tend to support revolutions in technology policy and understanding as long as they're constructive but we oppose revolutions of physical violence and transhumanism is the only movement that actually seeks to overcome the age-old constraints of the human condition rather than merely taking a position within those constraints. So to each of the ideological groups that I previously mentioned transhumanists have a powerful message that can work with the strengths and many of the goals of those ideological groups while motivating them to transcend their weaknesses. So to libertarians transhumanists can say emerging technologies and processes can empower and liberate individuals and dramatically change the incentives for institutions to move in the direction of more freedom but only if you transcend blanket anti-government rhetoric and focus on long-term futures over short-term gratification. Transhumanists can say to socialists technological progress can eliminate poverty, abolish poor working conditions and achieve the socialist ideal of abundance and leisure for all but only if private property the enabler of unconventional innovation and the means by which abundance can be enjoyed is preserved and governments do not try to achieve equality of misery. This is a point that Zoltan was making in his video earlier today. Transhumanists can say to conservatives we should not accept the destruction of past achievements and the individuals who brought them about and carry their memory. Through technologies particularly those of life extension there can be far more preservation and social continuity but only if you overcome the fear of new advances transcend the natural is good mentality and embrace the technological fight against death and decay. And then transhumanists can say to left liberals and progressives technology can empower the marginalized and the vulnerable by enabling new forms of being it can dramatically increase both the extent and acceptance of diversity enhancing the dignity and quality of life for all individuals but only if you step out of the trenches of identity politics accept the norms of civilized debate and sincerely engage with those of different views. And with that I would again encourage all of you to sign up if you have not done so already for our free membership of the United States transhumanist party we welcome individuals from throughout the world and if you become a member and express agreement with our core ideals you will be able to vote in our future electronic ballots both on platform issues as well as potential candidates whom we may be endorsing in the future. And with that thank you very much I will be happy to stay around to answer any questions that you may have. Okay so thank you to Yanadi. Thank you very much Yanadi from the name of the conference. I would like to add nevertheless some words from my side because that was in the shadow. It's already a practice a call superior to commerce a private business school in Liege who are running a number of joint student training program for American MBA students. I am taking carrying a block of lectures with a lady from European Commission and we are discussing with the student different issues. She is speaking from the point of view of from the West. I'm speaking from the point of view from the East. So I'm typical my role is speaking from the East about socialism. We from the East is Europe Central and East Europe. And I saw Union have the doubtful privilege to know exactly what socialism is. All my fellow transhumanists from the West discussing socialism have no even one day of their real life under socialism. We have 45 years and every day. I'm not going to criticize I could but I'm not going to do about history of socialism, about practices that is tons, literally tons of papers. I have six tons of Russian fact journals during the time of early years of perestroika. All Russian editors were printing secret up to the moment secret documents in fact journals of the journal. And there is plenty of analysis about socialism. I will compress all that in a selected 10 seconds history of socialism in Bulgaria which is summering up everything from a person who was professional socialist revolutionary who participated in building socialism in Bulgaria from the very beginning who was on power for longer than any other leader in the socialist country only Fidel Kastri is comparable to him and still on power summarized the story of socialism in nine seconds. I will give the floor to Amrit Podorzhivkov. At the moment he is still secretary general of the Communist Party of Bulgaria a powerful position much more powerful than the president nowadays president of prime minister. This is Amrit Podorzhivkov secretary general of the Communist Party his final public speech before the total fall of communism. His final judgment after all his life participated in building and failing the social aid I will have to translate. So what is his opinion about socialism? Socialism is one mischarge that born does the real truth and I will not have anything more than the case. But I don't want to be negative actually. Transhumanism is about being positive constructive. I am looking to transhumanism as an engineering problem. If you have a problem solve it, don't discuss it. That's the constructive way. And how to solve the mountain of different problems? East and West. The world is split by many criteria. One of it George was speaking yesterday about cultural splits. One of the most important splits in history is East and West. Constantine the Great split the Roman Empire into keeping for himself the richer part with the higher level of culture with higher level of technology the East part and left to the rest to the barbarians the poor undeveloped West part later on history will be changed. And the point of splitting is still very well known. It is Chuki or Triano of Rata 34 km from Sofia. So technically speaking I am born and I am living in the West but only 34 km from the border. Despite that I am speaking from the culture area of East. And the culture area of East is very well informed about such. Actually I said that on our Brussels meeting last week with my Western colleagues. We are going on one on the same path but in the opposite direction. And we are meeting in the point. We are going from socialism to our market economy, freedom and so on what Gennady was speaking. Some of them are going from patriotic march to socialism and don't believe actually they have to believe that this is very nasty place. What I would suggest again some mythology. King Amgi had a problem too much she in his yard and he charged hercules to clean the yard. And despite that hercules was very strong physically he didn't start to clean one sheet at a time but redirected a nearby river so mobilized power of the water to flow and to wash out all the rubbish. So what we need is equivalent of the river that is exponential process to clean all problems under the sun, whatever they are with the methods of science and technology and that's transhumanity. Do we have that experience of dramatic change of culture? George was speaking that culture is very difficult to change. It's necessary centuries. Is it possible to change it? Not in centuries but in years. I would say in some cases. All of us were born when there was no computer. Okay, no problem. I would go. And participated in development of computer technologies from the first generation to the last at the moment. Did the world change because of computerization? Did the culture of the world change because of computerization? We did it. Did the culture of humanity change because of guinification? Yesterday we reported that the gaming layer around the world is already installed. Project over. Change done. In several years we were forced 25 years ago to reconstruct all higher education in Bulgaria from the previous to the new. Training the trainers. What does it mean training the trainers? Exponential process. Actually we are doing training the trainers of the trainers. Now we have to train the humanity. We need not 30 millions of university professors but 100 millions of propagandators of transhumanity. Some of them you could see on the screen and I will give them the flow in a minute. All the rest of my talks, voluntary cooperation, freedom, precautionary versus pro-actionary principle and all that I will leave for in the afternoon. I would like to offer you some small short time for eventual discussion on politics if any comments or remarks? I'll be one very short remark. George, he's retired professor like me. We both with Angelo belong to the generation where we spent a lot of our life in society. There was a theory of convergence in the socialist world. So this was considered both sides from the sides of socialist or communist ideologies and from western ideologies to negatives. But we see now the development of humanity and the development of the most post-industrial society. And this is completely different from the ideologies you mentioned here. This is also very important whether you are a physical ideologist but maybe more to the previous. The future is indeed the 21st century ideology if I can call it like this. Even though I consider it to be the most framework for changing the way the system of society, would you know what this would be the ideology of post-industrial society? What do you think, how the transnationalism that we did or how the new development probably because of what we think in your presentation or I'm in some sense, this is the development of technologies I completely agree with you. But every technology has both the positive and the negative. And single technologies and even single technologies could be used and misused like knives. You could cut the bread you could cut with knives. Artificial intelligence is very, very powerful technology. It could be used and it could be undrafted. But it could be misused. What is your ideology in this sense? Then you have to answer this question. You can build a society that is able to get benefits of society without antecedents, without answering this question. What is your understanding? It's my question. Just to short answer, actually we will continue this discussion in connection with the professional interests for professional interests and very active problem for the European Union. The European Union is following the professional interests as a result of what Europe is working behind. The European Union is following the professional interests as a result of what the European Union is doing. But I would like to hear your point. I know. All right, thank you for your question. So in terms of the post-industrial society, I think that characterization arises from the fact that a lot of production processes have changed. So most people no longer work in factories. Most people no longer do heavy industrial labor that used to be predominant a century ago. Instead, a lot of heavy industrial production is done by machines through automated processes. And so most people now work in service-oriented occupations. At least they do in countries of Europe and North America. And now even a lot of Asia. So I think we still have a situation where having technologies of production and having the most advanced material means of production is key to continued progress. Now, in terms of technology being a double-edged sword based on how humans use it and how humans apply it, I would tend to agree with that characterization. But I think in many respects, the answer to some of the risks and problems that may arise from a given technology comes in the form of new technologies, subsequent generations of technologies that can mitigate those risks. So I would say the greatest existential risks to humankind today come not from artificial intelligence or nanotechnology, but they come from existing arrangements, particularly the immense nuclear weapons stockpiles that major world powers have that are capable of destroying humanity many times over. And perhaps with the deployment of artificially intelligent systems, there could be developed a way to rationally and multilaterally disarm and even repurpose a lot of these nuclear missiles toward productive civilian uses, for instance, in the generation of energy. But that's just an example. I agree that philosophical, ethical, rational considerations need to be deployed in how technologies are applied. But I think fortunately the people who tend to be the first innovators, the scientists and the technologists, tend to be among the more ethical individuals as well. And they tend to think about the implications of the technologies and the safeguards that they build into the technology. So I'm quite confident that the AI researchers who are predominant today are indeed thinking about these issues and they are going to preempt people who might have fewer ethical scruples because the researchers who are going to develop AI first I think are also going to be the ones who think about how it can be ethically deployed and what the ethical ramifications of it are. Okay, thank you. I would like to add only one sentence more. As a person coming from the area of artificial intelligence, I'm not afraid because of artificial intelligence, but I do afraid because of human stupidity.