 Welcome to this final session of the 8th Summit on the Global Agenda. What our task now in the last hour here is really to, nothing less, but bringing it all together. And what we really want to bring together are these two pillars of the Summit. The global challenges that we have made, a central point of the cross-council interactions that we had. And on the other hand, the fourth industrial revolution that we explored in particular in this fascinating plenary last night in this room. And reflecting on how this changing context of the fourth industrial revolution is really creating a new context for addressing these global challenges. The panel last night elaborated on how the confluence of these different technological changes is really creating a fundamental change in the systems, in the technological business systems that we are embedded in. But what's the corresponding systems change in the way we address these global challenges? That's really what we want to explore here with this panel. And we have a distinguished panel. Let me briefly introduce Diana Farrell, CEO of the J.P. Morgan Chase Institute. Sarah Manker, founder and CEO of Grow Intelligence from Kenya. And Elda Safir, professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University. And last but not least, Nairi Woods, dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University. But before I turn to you, I'd like to turn to the audience and hear from some of the discussions you will have had in the discussions on global challenges. And particularly what I'd like to hear is what's the one thing that challenged your thinking on these issues, on these known issues? Maybe if I may turn to you first, you have been part of some of these discussions particularly on the refugee crisis. What really challenged your thinking on these issues? The colleagues will bring your mic any second. An innovation which is throwing mics. The one thing I would like to pick you up with the two challenges. What evolved my thinking here is actually a triangular thinking because there is this huge opportunity and Klaus has mentioned in the survey yesterday in the room here that there is a huge opportunity and expectations on the fourth industrial revolution. We have those wonderful challenges and all the work which has been done, but there is sort of the dark side of it. And this is the fragility, violent and conflict which becomes the new normal. And refugee crises and population movements and violence destroying some of the advancements in development and the millennium development goals that we have seen in the past. So I think we have to be careful to look not only at the challenges and the potential of the fourth industrial revolution, but also look at the fragility as the new normal in many countries at injustice basically undercutting the justice system, corruption undercutting the justice system, population movement, undercutting development gains and looking at those triangle dynamics and to look for opportunities that the three parts of the equation would give has probably advanced most during the time here. Thank you. So putting those opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution in context. Rosemary Finan, your focus on cities, what stood out to you as sort of the main takeaway that challenged your thinking on these issues and what role do cities play in that? Thank you. Here's an interesting statistic from my colleague Nick Brooke. Did you know that in Hong Kong 50% of people live above the 16th floor? That's three and a half million people living up there in the air. It made us think that one of the challenges of densification, which is what we think is absolutely necessary in our cities if we are to fit 70% almost of 9.6 billion people in cities by 2050. The big issue is how to densify well. Then you turn to somewhere like Kensington and Chelsea in London for those of you that know it. One of the densest parts believe it or not of London proves that densification doesn't have to be high rise and densification can be pretty nice. But I think our challenge to ourselves was how do we create guidelines that give good density for cities that are a different part of their evolution in different cultures with different expectations. And that's a big challenge. It's one that we all feel is an absolute essential if we're to get away from the fact that forecasts suggest that the 3% of the Earth's surface that's currently covered by cities may well double or even treble if we don't do something about containing good growth in good cities that serve citizens well. Thank you. So cities as an agent for change. When you had discussions on climate and the global challenge on environment and resource security, what stood out to you as the main challenge to your thinking about those issues? System change becomes probably the weakest link to address global challenges, challenges around environment and natural resources security, particularly working on the climate change issues there. A few five words or phrases actually of my observation coming out of the discussion in the last couple of days. One is the inspiration. I feel very, very inspired by the emerging consensus from this community actually in the last few days that recognize the importance of system change. And yes, we are innovating technologies. We're doing a lot of things, but we still cannot address the challenge, which is just overly overwhelmingly daunting to us. So system change becomes fundamentally the way to go forward. Second word is really the failure, the system failure. Why we wouldn't be able to meet the challenges is because the systems we have today have pretty much filled us actually on the environment and natural resources and climate change issues there. That's why the leading up to the third word is redesign of the system. So we need to reform, transform the systems we're operating today. If we do not have the determination and commitment to do that, we would not be able to succeed actually in tackling climate change issues. The fourth phrase is actually really the empathy or empathic civilization, because whatever system we're going to redesign is done by people, done by people of this generation but also future generations there. So it's going to be very important actually we develop the common actually empathy from this generation but also among people but also to nature. I think that's going to be really, really fundamentally important. The last point is the word is really together. And so whatever we're going to do, we need to come together, really address that. It's not like your business or government or business, whatever, it's us all together. So fundamentally we have to come together on this journey to really start the system, transform or reform so that we'll be able to address the situation in a successful manner. Thank you. Empathy is at the heart of that system, strange if I understood you rightly. Gerard Fairbuck, you made the point yesterday at the plenary on the fourth industrial revolution that we really need to think about whether or not that fourth industrial revolution helps us advance the sustainable development goals. Do you subscribe to that point that Chang-Hau Wu mentioned about empathy at the heart of the systems change that we need? As I would answer, it is also the need for cross-sectoral thinking and I would say no improvement for instance on climate change if you don't incorporate agriculture and food production being part of the problem of climate change into part of the solution of climate change. That's one thing. Another thing is I think that it's the recognition that we will not be able to implement the agenda 2030 and zero hunger and we will not address other topics if we don't allow the multi-stakeholders bottom up come to the table, defend their interest or bring their interest to the table and create win-win partnerships. I think without multi-stakeholder approach we will not succeed as well. And finally, I think I will commend you with your panel today because I'm struck by the suggestion that we should really make work of equal opportunities and equal positioning of women and I would recommend to follow up on the no manual movement. And aside from the fact that we have a very gender diverse panel, what was the one thing that really challenged your thinking here in these conversations? Well I think it's bringing women to equal opportunity, equal access to financing, to land in our case asset services etc. and also allow women better in decision making. I think it's time to real move this. Excellent. Mitchell Baker, if I may turn to you. As part of the discussion on the future of the internet, what stood out to you as sort of the main challenge to your thinking about those questions? Our discussion of the internet was surprising in the degree to which the human element came up and in particular the question of trust. Starting with the internet and building out from that, how do we build trustworthy institutions and systems going forward? I think the internet itself is not the source of the question but the information flow reveals things that weren't broadcast as clearly before and so we find ourselves living in a crisis of confidence and trust in institutions. And so we talked about how might one make an institution trustworthy, not the human emotional response, which is often wrong, about whether I trust something, you know, doesn't make it trustworthy. So what are the traits and conditions starting from openness or transparency into understanding into the groundswell, bottom up engagement into having enough confidence in the systems to allow systems change and how do we actually do that when the systems we need for the future are so different from those of the past? So the question of how do we make the kind of systemic and structural and systematic changes that we need across the global institutions we found over and over again has the critical element of human trust at the center of it? So trust and systems change, really, that seems to have resonated across those issues. Maybe if I turn to the panel now, Diana, you're part of the GSE on the future of government. If you're thinking about those questions that we posed to the panel, what is the systems change? Help us understand this point that seems to be so prominent in those discussions. What does that systems change consist of? And what does it mean for our established organizational structures through which we're looking at these problems? The future of government GAC spent a lot of time on this question of what is the idealized future, which would be a dramatic system change, and what is the idealized sort of elements of what a truly functioning future of government would be? And most of the discussion was on do we see even glimmers or seeds of that in certain actions that governments have taken and what would be the path forward for that? Certainly trust would be an important element to it. But I think as I reflect on many of our discussions within the future of government and other conversations I've had with folks here, I'm sort of struck by the fact that what people get most excited about, and I would say many in very different fields, is the power that the data, technology, et cetera, allows us in its granularity, in the ability to understand ourselves ever better by processing more and more finite and more and more specialized views of the world. And that's wonderful, and I would say this group is an example of it, but at the same time how the tension with the need for integration across this, and in government it's particularly acute because when you think of all the functions of government, there are so many that are so varied and rely on very different kinds of expertise and very different kinds of data, and the mechanisms to tie them together are almost nonexistent. I would say when you go beyond government and to include business, the problem just mushrooms in effect. And so this question of are we investing enough in the institutions that will enable the platforms that bring the depth and verticality to the need for integration? And I would say I don't think we are, and I'll give one example that is very near and dear to my heart because it's sort of what I'm working on now at the institute, which is if we are going to understand ourselves through big data, behavioral science and huge data sets, which I think is essential for all the problems we're trying to solve with the global challenges, we're going to have to be able to get different perspectives, i.e. the J.B. Morgan Chase perspective and the World Bank perspective and the IMF perspective and the BIS perspective to have a common platform to connect dots. And we are so far away from that. I would say even individual organizations, many of you who run organizations, know you don't even know what you know within your organization. And so that tension of granularity and the power that comes from detail, but the lack of thought and infrastructure around connecting these, either technology infrastructures or governance structures are I think the big takeaway for me. Right. And Sarah, you have actually created a company that is tying together this data in a particular field in food and agriculture. Is technology allowing us these days to step out of these dilemmas? And what is the right place to drive those innovations? I think it is. Hopefully I'm right. But I think it touches on Diana's point, which is I think the need for depth in a particular subject matter means that now you have to think about, as you're, I guess, building technologies that go, vertically deep, you have to think about the whole ecosystem. And so it's, it's, you ultimately, I think our starting point for the creation of technologies has to be, what is the world we want to see, right? And then if you know what the world you want to see is, then you actively design for the world. And I think for us to do that, I think, A, there is a lot of knowledge and a lot of, beyond data, I think there's a lot of just pure scientific research sitting out there today that's waiting to be applied to something. And so I think for a successful, harmonious integration between breadth and depth, you need a lot of work done in kind of bringing to light what is being done in the research community and applying it to real world problems, right? So I think in some ways the way I think about it is if you had to relive the Industrial Revolution of the U.S., right? So we're talking about the fourth Industrial Revolution, right? So there's Vanderbilt with rail, Rockefeller with oil, Carnegie with steel, JPMorgan with power, and then Ford with cars. If you had to reconstruct that world that actually enabled this infrastructure to be built, I think it's effectively a world of bridges built by nanorobots using graphene where driverless cars are being driven off of it and we're eating synthetic meat. All of these components are actually sitting within deep science communities, and I think they're waiting to be discovered and applied. But I think the starting point is ultimately actually what is the world we want to see? And then from there, we have to actually actively go out and seek and almost redesign the world we want. And so I guess, yes, you know, technology has a big role to play, but I think it has to be done simultaneously with thinking systems. And systems is ultimately I think what Gerda was referring to, which is kind of the full stakeholder. Right, right. And when we're referring to some of these principles, do we have a representative from the Council on Software and Society in the room? Anyone in the back? Tell us about the work that you've been proposing to do in applying some of the principles from software to the world of government. Great. Thank you very much. My name is Victoria Espinale. I have the great pleasure of chairing the Agenda Council on the Future of Software and Society. So I think we are very concerned about the fact that things are changing very quickly. Software innovation is dramatically redesigning and disrupting the world. We're in this period of rapid and exponential change as we've all been talking about. And what we've been looking at is to see whether or not there are principles that can be drawn from software development to make governments more agile in how they govern and how they make policy decisions. So we've been immersed in a very intense and really interesting discussion to see what we can do to try to take some of those principles from technology development and software development and offer them to governments as a new paradigm, as a new set of norms for how to make policy and how to govern. Thank you. Diana, in your experience, having worked with governments and in government, to what extent do you need these principles from the software industry and software thinking in government and what difference can that make? Oh, I think it would be profoundly different and better. And so you realize that in government and policymaking and the execution of policy, it takes so long to actually pass legislation or execute large programs that by the time they're actually in place, they've almost become obsolete. And there are very few mechanisms for the feedback loops that are classic in the software industry that say these three aspects of something worked. Let's double down on those. These two did not. Let's change them. I mean, if you think of even very large pieces of legislation in the U.S., we had the healthcare reform bill. We had Dodd-Frank. Everybody loves to hate both of these BMUs, but the better attitude toward it would be to say, okay, these things have passed through a first process and we're constantly thinking about improving on the margin. Everything that we know works. We double down on anything we know doesn't work. We change. That's not how we're either the legislative process or I would say even the government process, because budgets and administrations don't enable that kind of flexibility and change. So I think if we're thinking about the future and ideal, we've talked about this in our future government, it would have that element of experimentation and quick change and fast turnaround. I'm not so optimistic that that can be done real easily, but if we could edge the world in that direction and governments in that direction, very powerful. So what would make you more optimistic that that could be implemented faster? Sure. I think everyone has said this too many times, but we have a sort of disconnect between people who are really trying to do things and address problems and kind of the political show that has become people taking positions and playing a very different game of two and four on that dimension and I think connecting those and actually having closer accountability on those issues and really judging politicians and secretaries and others on their jobs and not on sort of random political narratives would actually help a lot. Let me turn to you and the people dimension of that. Diana mentioned the point about trial and error in government. That's something that resonates with you, I guess, in terms of applying principles of behavior science to public policy. In your view, what's holding us back from applying these principles more widely at the international level in terms of solving global problems? Well, I think the number one insight that comes from behavioral research and I want to make sure it doesn't sound sophisticated. I don't mean to sound postmodern, it's actually very trivial. It's the fact that when you present people say with two options to choose from, they don't choose between those two options, they choose between those two options as they are represented in a three pound machine that we have behind the eyes in between the ears. And that's not trivial fact because the same two outcomes in the world can be seen many different ways. Very small nuances in how you describe the option, what the option is, how it's situated, what's next to it will alter how people think and how they represent it. And that is an enormous impact. It changes everything. You know, how do people feel about an electric car? Well, how are they thinking about it? Here is a simple question. Do people feel better commuting to work in a BMW or a Ford Escort? You call people asking what car are you driving and how do you feel commuting today? And you get a very clear effect. BMWs are more fun than Ford Escorts. You do a second condition, you call them again, ask them how is the drive today and what car are you driving? If you fail to mention the car when you ask me how I drive, there is no difference in BMWs and Ford Escorts. So now, is it worth buying a BMW? If I think about it while I drive, it turns out it's worth it. If I don't think about it, I have the same exact experience. When we think about many issues, trust, empathy, design of government, the same outcome can be seen in very different ways depending on nuances of how it's presented, what people think about what they bring to mind. And that's a very critical element because if you describe it in one way as opposed to another, everything changes in ways that have an enormous impact. And that's a lot of the behavioral research really looks at those nuances and how to describe them to people, what comes to mind, what kind of behaviors you get as a result. Even something as profound as a social norm, which is kind of a really collective outcome, is intention with people's attitudes. So we know, for example, very nice research that people's attitudes move faster than social norms. And what that means is most likely most people in this room today feel more ready for gender equity than they perceive the norm to be. This is beautiful research and segregation in the U.S. in the 50s. Most Americans were ready to get rid of it but thought that the country was not. And so these are very interesting nuances where human attitude and perception, our intention or at least are not always aligned with collective phenomena, collective perceptions in ways that can have a very profound effect. People mentioned empathy, I'll give one last example. Empathy is a profound issue and the psychology of empathy about which we know just a little does not follow standard normative rules. The impulse we have is to tell you how terrible things are and give you statistics. As many of you suspect, if you gauge people's attitude toward giving for philanthropic causes, seeing a picture of a single child generates many more contributions, many higher contributions than seeing a statistic. In fact, seeing the picture of the child with the statistics gets you to give less than the picture alone. It's basically distracting you from having a full relationship with this child. There is beautiful literature that asks, you know, where is the collapse of empathy? What numbers do we stop being, stop caring? And those beautiful authors who have written about this, how many millions do you need before you stop caring? The answer, the behavioral and empirical answer is roughly two. If I give you a picture of one child, you give X. If I give you a picture of more than one child, you give less than X. Now you can see the tension here. I mean, are we going to be paternalistic and treat people like children and give them one picture the way we do to our second grader? Or are we going to respect them and give them statistics and get less out of them? And this is a profound tension where how you design things and the collective outcomes you get depend on sort of understanding the nuances of individual perception and behavior and working with them. And you say attitudes change faster than social norms. Institutions in a way change relatively slow in that regard. Now, to what extent do you see behavioral units, nudge units in these large international organizations that are tasked with carrying out some of the progress on these global issues? Well, you know, so far these behavioral limits have been wise in looking for low-hanging fruit, some things you can do very easily. There is data on changing the defaults, for example, on options. It could be savings for retirement and it could be organ donations among drivers. There is fantastic data. If you look at the rates of organ donors among drivers in different European countries, six countries average 94% of drivers are willing organ donors. Another five countries average 14% and 94 to 14%. If you look at the countries, it's Germany on one side, Austria on the other, and Netherlands on one side, Belgium on the other. What's doing? What's doing is the 94% are opt out unless you opt out you're an organ donor and the 14% are opt in unless you opt in you're not a donor. The transaction cost is signing the back of your license. It's trivial. And think about it. We're not talking about selling orange juice. It's your body, your family, your religious beliefs. Just changing the default on a form changes completely the country in which you drive. So that's low-hanging fruit. We can do a lot with it quickly. People have been saving a lot more for retirement by changing the default. Other things, of course, you know, I'm from Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian problem doesn't seem to be lending itself to that so easily. So there's a lot more to do. So tying together the different data sets in government using technology, understanding the behavior of people. Is that enough in a way to redesign institutions to enact that systems change that people have called for? How do you look at that intersection of the fourth industrial revolution and the global challenges we're trying to address? Yeah. This has been a great summit. I mean, I think we all got here and on day one got into first gear, which felt challenging but comfortable. We were addressing the world's big problems and working out how to do that. And then Professor Schwab gets up and challenges us to move into fourth gear with the fourth industrial revolution. And suddenly we've all got to up the tempo of our conversation and think of fresh. And I think it's made this summit really a great summit. And I guess I would share three reflections. They're not my own. They've gleaned from conversations with the brilliant people in this room about what the fourth industrial revolution might mean for global cooperation and for the collaboration of the kind that the WEF is trying to facilitate. The first observation or the reflection, which came when a young Emirati official came to our Global Agenda Council on Global Governance and very quickly made us realize that we were all the pre-millennials. And, you know, no offense but most of us in this room are what I would call the pre-millennials. So how do we see institutions? We see hierarchy. We like that. It's comfortable. We see reputation and brand as important. We look at careers within institutions and we accept a certain slowness as a result. And yet we're designing institutions and collaboration platforms for the new millennials who have a very different view of those four things. They don't go for hierarchy. They go for flat organizations. They don't go for reputation and brand. They go for projects and delivery. They're not going for careers. They're looking at collaborative models which are constantly shifting and they certainly aren't tolerating slowness. They're going for speed. So for me a first reflection brought by somebody from our host country here in Abu Dhabi was very much that we've actually got to think in a more millennial way about the institutions that we're designing. I guess a second thought was about reflecting on what Professor Schwab laid out for us yesterday on the industrial revolution and the extent to which the new technology embeds norms. Now it might be the self-driving car that Elder referred to and whether it runs over a dog or a child or it might be an automating drone or robotic warfare. But if the new technologies are going to embed norms then we need really fantastic global processes for generating those norms. And I think that's a new, it really ups the challenge on what kind of collaboration we have to develop deep norms which are going to be embedded in these new technologies. And I guess my third reflection and I rather liked a quote that I heard earlier today which is that architecture, now what was it? Architecture gives us the illusion of stillness when the world around us is moving very fast and I think it's a reminder of why we have institutions. That we can all talk about nimble, rapid change but we have institutions to give us that moment of stillness in which we can build trust with one another, get to know one another. One of the reasons why I think this summit has worked even better than others is because a lot of people here know each other. This is an institution and there's a lot of trust that's been built and so that moment of stillness makes me pause and say let's not throw away all the institutions we've got but let's remember that we actually do need that stillness to build trust which makes collaboration possible which will make the kind of speed and agility that we need possible. Those were my reflections. So in a way you're saying we need the stillness of the institutions to develop this process of norm setting. Is that the way we can establish these norms at the global level? Well I think we've got to be careful. So stillness does not mean paralysis and a lot of international organisations one could describe as paralysed and that's not what stillness means. I think the moment of stillness in a busy world is more telling us that we need the reassurance that our best efforts are not just evanescent. The reassurance that if we engage with one another on a collective solution it's not all for nothing and that's what an institution can do. It can give you a platform that you can keep coming back to that makes it worth you putting your energy and efforts into because there's a sustained process which will actually impact something. Were there other thoughts in other councils that resonated with that argument that Nairia has just laid out about that in a way the dilemma between stillness and the speed that we need in these new institutions? Were there any other thoughts from councils that relate to this point? Michelle? Thank you. So I'm in the Justice Council and we were grappling with this issue a lot, not just in our own council but also in our cross-counsel sessions the question of justice and how justice institutions have been probably among the slowest to adapt to the amount of speed that the new generations are asking. So if I go to a court and it takes too long, well I just will sort things out myself, right? One of the ideas that we've been implementing on has been issuing innovating justice challenges at the regional level. So if we're not really finding the solutions within the institutions, we're trying to find it among the kids with blue hair doing hacking stuff in their backyards. But we've actually found some really amazing innovations there. I would comment to your question if I may. So I was reflecting on what you said, Nari, about in this last point. And I think that really is the same lens on this question of are we investing enough in the infrastructure by which we tend to think in bridges or buildings or these days, telecommunications or others. But it is in some ways the institutions you're talking about that require a common ground for all the different things that have to be integrated to come together. And I hadn't thought of it quite in that way but it strikes me that the flip sides of the same issue because without that stillness we're not going to get these different perspectives to come together in any meaningful way. Sarah. I guess, so I said on the Africa GAC and I think this is something that came up thematically for us in terms of, you know, as a group what we really think about are what are the most pressing challenges for the continent and then where do we want to be policy advocates? Where do we want to push things forward? And this struggle between the immediate need taking away from the focus of the long-term 25-year policy advocacy that we also need to be doing. And so sometimes there is this tension of the short-term immediacy of certain things, right? So you feel like you're driven off just emotion, pure emotion and drive to fix something today. I think makes us forget about how we also push for what the world is going to look like in the future. And I do think it is, you know, it is ultimately this stability that allows us to have to toggle between the two. But my fear is actually that the focus on process can somehow stifle innovation and change that we need because if we're constantly trying to get ready for what's coming, we're never going to be ready for anything. And so sometimes it's okay if, you know, mistakes, just like mistakes were made and we're allowed to make mistakes in the private industry or in business, and government should be allowed to make business but learn how to iterate fast enough to kind of, you know, pull backwards if necessary, etc. So it's really this balance of addressing immediate needs but really thinking for the future because if we don't think 25 years at a time, I think we will struggle with really, you know, solving any world problem. Right. So thinking about the long-term, Professor Schwab, did you want to come in? Do we have a microphone? After having complicated maybe our discussions yesterday by bringing in the dimension of the force industrial revolution, I was just thinking during our session, what slogan would I create for everybody of us leaving the room? And it has to be very short, incorporating the different contributions which were made. For me, the slogan will be smart with heart. Okay, Elder, you had another point. Yeah, I was going to come in on Nairi's point about the fact that we need institutions and stillness. I want to second, I think we literally need it. I think we have very limited bandwidth which we fail to appreciate. You know, the millennials do multitasking but really what they're doing is being distracted. And it's something that we fail to appreciate fully. If you put people in a simulator speaking on a phone, no hands held, just cell phone in the car, their reaction time and their ability to detect the periphery equal what in the U.S. would be legally drunk. Very quickly, we lose it. Our limited bandwidth we have, all of us, is that what we need to do to be intelligent in a conversation at the WEF and make sure we eat healthy and help our children with our homework, it's a lot to do. And so in some profound way, I think the stillness that comes with institutions that function reasonably well is needed for us to be able to have a moment to think intelligently and originally. So I think this is an interesting point. To what extent, because Nairu, you focused a lot of your point on this generational shift, right? And the changes that this brings about. But to what extent is that not also a more fundamental change in the way systems operate, right? In the way technology operates in fundamentally different way. In some ways, the emergence of the institutions that we know are inherently linked to the previous rounds of industrialization in some ways. So to what extent is it more than a generational thing and the behaviors of the millennials that Elder was? Well, I think some things stay constant. It's really interesting that the head of the GAC on the Internet said that they actually spent quite a lot of their time talking about trust building. And that remains a constant. So human being, yes, the millennials have new ways of communicating, collaborating and delivering, but they're in search of ways to find trusted partners. Collaborative work, if you're not individually seeking your career up through the hierarchy, if you are undertaking this collaborative project delivery option, you need really trusted collaborators. So it doesn't create a world of individual attivists. It creates a world, I think, where you need even better collaboration. So you need more trust. And some of the old elements give you that. So, you know, it is a mixture. Is there anyone from the Values Council? Because it would be interesting to look at that point from the perspective of the discussions that you had there. Anyone from Values still in the room? Hi. I'm actually not from the Values Council. I've been talking great to the Values Council. We're from the Nanotechnology Council and you would think that perhaps wouldn't really fit so well, wouldn't you? We've been talking, and we have a very boring word for it. Unfortunately, SMART with heart is much better, which is responsible innovation. So how do we achieve the benefits that these technologies promise while it's not causing more problems than we solve? But also, how do we involve society in that? And I worry your point about these institutions needing to design processes to engage society. I think society is going to get on with it without you. And therefore, how do we actually think of more bottom-up engaging processes in innovation rather than this sort of top-down aspect of it? Now, I know that's very much what you're saying, but it's sort of a whole new paradigm of collaboration. And in terms of some of these new technologies, there is some quite innovative thinking going on in that area that I think bringing together governance, innovation and civil society will have some interesting lessons for the future. And I'm slightly more hopeful being on that nanotechnology council than perhaps you would have thought I might be, given the Fourth Industrial Revolution's concerns that we had brought up earlier. Thank you. Stuart, over there. Yes, I'm Stuart Wallace from the Vice-Chair of the Values Council. And I think we see values, and it fits a bit with Nari's point about norms earlier, and obviously Klaus is with heart bit, because we see values of helping us get both the direction we want, to where we're trying to get to, and we also see it as crucial in this much more atomized world we're moving into as providing the motivator and the means to get there. So having that values discussion is going to be important at all levels. It will be bottom-up and top-down, but we need both. And we absolutely need values for both goals and help us get there. Otherwise, we won't make it. Sir, in the front. Thank you. I'm Jeff Whitman. I'm from the New Models of Tourism Council. And we had a slightly different issue when looking at all of these things. We couldn't quite grasp how to even explain to ourselves where we fitted into this change. On the one hand, for 20 years, we've been explaining to people that travel and tourism, I mean, not just tourism, but infrastructure and all of this soft and hard infrastructure, does really good things, jobs, trade, development. And on the other hand, we suddenly find ourselves, we're in the middle of migration and refugee, and our strategies of trying to get across borders are suddenly turned upside down. And we couldn't even explain to ourselves what it is that we are now in this fourth revolution. And then I'm telling this story because at some stage, Klaus came into the room and we presented him with this problem. And he stopped for a moment and he said, impact tourism. That's what you are. You're good impact and you're questionable impact at the same time. And you have to see how the new challenges and the new technologies can be fitted into that kind of framework. So you're not only the creator of the forum, you're also a brilliant admin. Thank you. I think that's a really interesting point you're making here about reframing. And I think that's interesting in this context of the World Economic Forum in the context of these council discussions that we're having. And I think, Diana, you mentioned that we also need to reframe how we look at the problems, not only the institutions and the approaches, but reframe how we look at the problems. What would you say are some of the ingredients of reframing the way we look at these problems, the way we look at the world? It builds on the previous point, which is that one of the powers of a good discipline is that it has a systematic approach to viewing a problem. And so if you're an engineer, there's a certain worldview to that. If you're a lawyer, there's a certain worldview to that. If you're an economist, there's a certain worldview to that. But as with the data within organizations or anything else, those are limited in their own way. And we talk a lot about multidisciplinary approaches, but that would sort of take the view that, oh, all you need to do is get an engineer and an economist in the room, and they'll have a conversation. I'll fix that. That's part of it. But I do think it's about forcing both to see the problem differently. And so this question of the framing, and you, Eldar, have talked a lot about this. I mean, it really matters how you ask an individual question. It really matters how you frame a problem. You know, is it climate change or is it global warming? I mean, those things have made a huge difference in how people think about what problem we're trying to tackle there. Is it, you know, so on? And again, my plea would be for all of us who are part of these institutions and others that we don't spend enough on that aspect of it. And what are the mechanisms that, or the institutions or the processes that are going to enable that kind of interaction? Eldar, from a behavior science perspective, what would be your one piece of advice and how should we frame global challenges to make it more likely that we come to positive collective outcomes? I was thinking that what I would, so we talk a lot about institutions as a place to gain efficiency. I think it's an issue of responsibility. And I think the comment on values blur up to me. Social sciences are filled with examples of people with wonderful values doing terrible things. And it's really about the design of how, you know, the institutions and the societies with design. There's a real breakdown between intention and action. Now, sometimes it's obvious. So if you teach the poor about eating healthy and send them home to a food desert where they cannot find a fresh piece of vegetable within three kilometers, obviously it's not going to help them. The U.S. spends an enormous amount of money teaching the poor about financial literacy and then lets them enter the unregulated financial disaster of the American banking system where they fail. Now that's a clear case. Other cases are more complicated, but basically what institutions do is allow people with good values to function well to basically deliver on those values as opposed to not. And I think that's the place where, how you think about institutions, that's your point, is a very different story. It's really about, again, it's a nuance that lets you to act well in a classroom, in a business, in the street as opposed to not. I was just going to pick up the lady at the back who said, you know, all this talk about processes and mechanisms and institutions. Because it does sound a bit like a sort of déformation professionnelle of people working on global governance. But it's really just to recall that human beings do wonderful things collectively. You know, they can create life-saving drugs and they can create factories to produce those and those factories can pollute the river which becomes toxic to another village living down the stream. And for that reason, because in any society in the world, let alone in the world itself, human beings will always be acting collectively in ways which adversely affect others, whether it's intentional or not. So whether you like it or not, you actually have to design processes which make those human beings realize that it's worth investing in that process to come to an agreement without killing one another, without further endangering one another's lives. So not optimal, but with enough buy-in because all parties agree that the process is fair. So although it sometimes seems tedious, it's less exciting than thinking about the individual and the bottoms-up project, this attention that the WEF is playing to how we can design processes of collaboration is really important because there's not a society in the world that doesn't need to use those processes to make it possible for individuals and communities to flourish. Thank you, Naik. Final point from... Just a very quick point that was raised by several points here which is so often when we think about global challenges and we think about the world we're trying to create improving the state of the world as the WEF has always aimed to do, we conceptualize it as achieving an ideal. We're moving toward an ideal in the future of government. We're moving toward an ideal. And I would just say that if I took one other thing away other than the point I made before, it's that that is a flawed way of thinking about it. That at the end of the day, the solution to one problem will create a different problem and that solution to another problem. And so the need for the process and the continuous evolution of answers to things, whether it's software development or policy or anything else, that we've gone through a cycle of thinking about challenges as the challenges we're solving today as we perhaps create other challenges and that we embrace that and make that part of the processes themselves. Thank you. This is a fascinating discussion that is hard to cut off but we're running against the end of the time here. But it's really not to say that we should end this conversation here but actually start that conversation. And if I learned one thing here, it's about attitudes can change faster than social norms. Well, I felt that the attitudes at display at this summit, if there are any indication of the progress that we can make on those issues, then I'm personally relatively optimistic. So let me thank the panel for this fascinating final discussion here today. And as we're bringing this summit to a close, we'll just do a quick preparation here on stage to invite the co-chairs of the meeting. Thank you.