 I see three existential crises that are facing us, and we are neither recognizing them, and even less are we reacting effectively. The most obvious one and the best recognized is the collapse of the ecological infrastructure that sustains life on Earth. I think this one is perhaps better recognized than the other two, but governments have been unable to do anything effective. What has been done doesn't even begin to address the problem with the urgency which it requires. It is a very huge concern. I think it is recognized by very many people, but we the people, so to speak, really feel rather powerless as to what can be done about it because this requires action at the level of states, and the democracies at least are more concerned whether there is some kind of loss of employment or some economic benefit that has to be sacrificed in order to make these changes. I think it's a big problem because in effect it has to do also whether our representative democracies are effective as means of governments. They seem to have failed us on the issue of environment, but that's one. The second one, which is really, I think, sensed by many people as an existential danger, but is hardly talked about at all, and that really are the atomic weapons that have been multiplying in this world and the international relations of not only the old powers, but a number of new powers that have come or that have risen to claim their place in the international scheme of things. At the time when the international institutions we have, that is the United Nations, are much weaker than they were many, many years ago, that we had for a long time a bipolar system, if you want to call it, of the two Cold War adversaries that has gone since the 1990s, and we really don't have any system much at the same time as the possibilities of accidentally involving the two countries, the United States and Russia that have the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons from the Cold War days, and what are now developing more, and developing also particularly in the United States, the idea that, well, nuclear weapons can be just kind of normal, they don't have to be big heavy bombs, we can also be used in more local warfare, very, very dangerous. The navigation by the US followed by the Russians of the agreement very recently, and I think that the danger of a nuclear destruction is very real, and I kind of feel we're sleepwalking into the problem at this point in time because nobody wants to talk about it. And the danger really is, except for the atomic scientists and their bulletin that has moved the clock closer to midnight than any time since the 1960s, and we hardly hear about that either. And then we have all of NATO having adopted nuclear weapons of various kinds. Well, that's the second one. The third one is the information technology revolution. It seems to me very clear that this technological revolution is different from the previous first industrial revolution that gave us. There was mechanical, it gave us steam engines and railways, and the second one that gave us scientific products and chemistry and photography and pharmaceuticals and all these things. Incidentally, much of these chemicals have caused the pollution that we are now facing, not to mention the energy, and then we had, of course, the forest era, and that in some ways was the happiest, the so-called Trontania glories, the 30 golden years, golden age, 45 to the mid-70s, or Indian consensus that it is also called. And the mass production for mass consumption. But what was being produced was, iconically, the motor car, along with whatever went with it. Motor cars go with highways, suburbs, housing, et cetera. With this information technology, I think we're in a very different scene, very different kinds of actors, because the principal actors are, as far as I'm concerned, the great tech companies, Google at the head of the list, Amazon and Facebook at all. Yes, Apple that led the way, but Google that has created new structures of power. Now we're talking about the known structures of power, which are the nations, and those are important, but we have new centers of power, like these tech companies whose principal asset is the information that we incidentally supply whenever and as we use the electronic data. Not only the Google, we ask Google information about all kinds of things, like how to find a way to go from here to there and so forth. But I think it is best described in this book that is very well-labeled surveillance capitalism, but it is not just the fact that they can have surveillance over us, they being the tech companies. And of course they can sell to advertisers, they can also share with governments that information. Privacy, but I'm not even thinking about that. I am thinking of the power which they have. And on the other side is the loss of power. The loss of power in the sense of what we use to think of as a strong labor movement have not disappeared, but they have been so reduced in power. And it is principally on account of the technological transformation. You talk about the outsourcing. The outsourcing would never have been possible without containerization, without the logistics of information technology that can reorganize industries to assemble things that are made in 17 different places. None of that would have been possible without information technology. So it's not only the direct replacement of labor by software or robots. So we're in a very different world and I think we have not contemplated the problem even properly. And I am addressing that particularly to social scientists of various kinds of economies, sociologists, psychologists and who. And incidentally it's not an accident that behavioral economics in economics have become so important because that is the area in which the Googles and the Silicon Valley are dominating and have the capacity to control. You know, in the old days we used to talk about a general strike in Vienna when I was there a long time ago. The electricity workers could shut down the place, shut down the electricity factory makers. Now who can shut down the whole place? Are the internet giants if they should so choose to do and incapacitate whole cities or selectively certain people or organizations within them? Goodness only knows why.