 Of the World Economic Forum, we have a tremendous conversation to have this morning with a tremendous group of people to talk about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is, of course, the very theme of the entire next several days that we're all going to be talking about what the Fourth Industrial Revolution means, what the opportunities are, and, of course, what the risks are as well. Let me introduce this panel and try to get to a conversation as quickly as we can. To my left, to your right, President Kagame, he's the president of Rwanda. We're thrilled to have you here to talk about what this all means and to what it means to your country. Satya is here as well. Satya Nadell, of course, the CEO of Microsoft, just made a big announcement, which we're also going to talk about as well this morning. Cheryl Sandberg is here. She is the COO of Facebook, and she made her own announcement in the past two days that I want to get to as well. We also have Ananda Mohandra here. He's the chairman and managing director of Mohandra and Mohandra of India, and they are doing some very interesting things there when it comes to what this Fourth Industrial Revolution really means. And then Zach Bookman is here. He's the CEO of OpenGov, rather, and he is really changing the dynamics in terms of the political landscape and transparency in the United States, and I want to talk to him about what all of this means to democracy, not just in the US, but writ large. Here's where I want to start the conversation. This is Klaus Schwab on this very theme that we are going to be talking about. He says that, today, I believe we are on the cusp of the Fourth Industrial Revolution powered by billions of connected devices, 3D printers and super smart robots to name just a few. This revolution will not only change entire societies and economies. It stands to transform the very essence of human nature. So are we ready for it? I want to go to Cheryl. You're in the middle. You're our only woman here today, by the way. And we're going to talk about that as well. Tell us two things. What do you see as the opportunity in all of this and what that connectivity brings, and you guys are involved in AI and all sorts of other new technologies, but also should we fear all of this to some degree? I'm going to start and answer that question with three stories. Woman named Riza in the Philippines. She lived on an island. She was commuting to school by boat. A typhoon hit her island. School was over for her. Because of FreeBasics, the program to provide free data to Facebook and other services we provide, she connected to the internet, finished her courses online and now is gainfully employed. A woman named Pearl in India started a service called My Rights to explain to women like her what their rights were and whether or not they were victims of domestic violence and what were the things they could do to stop it in their own homes. Women who couldn't leave their homes because they were victims of domestic violence were able to get that information in the safety of our own home. A woman named Nima in the DRC realized that women are 25% less likely across the developing world to have access to data on the internet. Started cyber cafes for women only. A group of local women started coming a couple of years later. A couple of them had been not just connected to data on the internet but elected to local government. Connectivity data access is too important to keep it only to the world's rich. There are 4 billion people in the world who don't have access. And when they get access, they are more highly educated. They have job opportunities. They have longer, healthier, more productive lives. And importantly, it's not just what they get from us because they can be connected to data. It's what we get from them because we get the benefit of their ideas. I think we're at a really important moment right now which is the question of whether or not we are going to think about the changes the world is happening in terms of hope or in terms of fear. There's definitely rapid change going on, right? Innovation is always disruptive and every technology that's ever been invented has caused great fears. And I think the questions that Davos is trying to answer this year are how scared should we be or how hopeful should we be? Will AI take over for all human intelligence? Will virtual reality mean that Sacha and I never have another in-person conversation? Will what people are calling the fourth industrial revolution mean that all the jobs are destroyed? My answer to that is no. AI is being used by Facebook to help blind people understand the pictures on Facebook and therefore be able to connect. Virtual reality is being used at this conference to show a film called Clouds Over Sidra. It tells the story of a 12-year-old refugee girl and what her life is like. And because it's virtual reality, it's really much easier to feel connected to her and have an immersive experience. And while we certainly have major issues that we need to address in terms of jobs that are being destroyed, we also have the possibility of job creation at a scale that's even larger. So I think the answer needs to be the triumph of hope over fear. OK, so that's the good news. Sacha, let me ask you this. You had an op-ed in the Financial Times, and you made an announcement which I want to get to in a second. But in that op-ed, you talked about the potential for this creation of the haves and the have-nots when it comes to all of this connectivity and what that ultimately means. I assume you're optimistic. Oh, absolutely. But to some degree, are we creating an even greater schism in the world of inequality, if you will? Especially, by the way, not just in developing countries, which are actually the beneficiaries of this, to some degree, but in developed countries. Yeah, I mean, I start where Cheryl ended, which is with optimism and hope to what I think the Fourth Industrial Revolution could mean for all of us. The real question, I think, that we will debate a lot at this forum is going to be, is there a digital dividend or a digital divide? And it's the right debate to have. The thing that I would like to sort of propose is that we all need to strive to create the digital dividend. There is going to be economic surplus that's going to be created because of this Fourth Industrial Revolution. The question is how evenly will it be spread between countries, between people in different economic strata, and also different parts of the economy? And when you ask that question, I see hope. For example, there's a Kenyan entrepreneur who has figured out how to create using data, which is the new currency in this Fourth Industrial Revolution, to create a credit rating for people under $2 a day. So that's something that's going to give them more credit, which is not possible in the past. There are researchers in Sweden who are using AI, basically data again, to figure out kids with dyslexia and then figuring out how to intervene in their lives. There are public governments in Andhra Pradesh and India or in Kentucky in the United States using data again to figure out which students are going to drop out and how to take the scarce state resources and channel it so that those students stay back in school. So I see all of that as essentially using, for example, data or public cloud technology to create public good. That's the theme that led us to make the announcement where we want to make sure that there's cloud technology that's available all over. So we're going to make it possible for them to get a billion dollars. This is NGOs, civic organizations and researchers so that they can access the world-class technology, not just to consume it, but to create their own world-class solutions like the ones I referenced. That's the hope. That's what we want to make sure happens. And I think it'll take all of us and the debate. I want to go to the president here because you are in a developing country that has developed faster than many people expected. You've done remarkable things and technology has played a huge part in it. Just tell us a decade out what it looks like. Now, given where we have started from ourselves in Rwanda or when you see many cases in Africa that I'm embracing technology, mainly consuming it, not yet producing sufficient technology and we have to make these two transitions really one to make use of technologies that exist, but also to be part of that production of technology rather than just continuing to consume. So this is the transition we are in in Africa or in Rwanda. And looking at where we started from in Rwanda without technology at a very low base and over time embracing technology as part of solution to many problems we had. We have seen that absolutely technology has become a huge multiplier effect in advancing the growth, the development we have seen and connecting people and connecting people with the solutions to the many problems. Even the poorest people having access to these, some of them simple technologies that have improved their lives. In fact, first starting from the very ordinary people themselves, understanding the importance of that technology is a big step. Later on using it, we have seen that for example in the last 10 years or 10 years ahead, it's just a continued progress and most of it contributed to by use of technology. Let me ask you this though. One of the critiques especially in emerging markets is that startups who actually rely on this technology that 90% of the startups that are actually growing out of this fail, that the huge failure rate especially in the emerging markets is very, very difficult. And three out of four of these companies don't make it or otherwise unsustainable without effectively the subsidy from outside. What do you think of that? It depends on the management of it and the government structure, the government structures that are there. If, and failing people will fail for sure. They are failing given in other things later on. They're failing in Silicon Valley in certain instances. Absolutely. So therefore if we are able to bring together these startups or the existing companies that you may even be struggling but others making good progress. And we link that with government policy that is focused on trying to make sure that the environment actually is that that supports them rather than constrains them. For example, government doesn't have to get involved. You just don't regulate as a stating point. You first create what you think you need to regulate so that you are actually helping something to grow but grow in the right direction. So struggling is going to be there. Support is going to be there. The framework in which the whole, all these processes are happening have to be those that the framework has to be clear and the governance has to be that of providing support to. And then the partnerships that can be forged between the existing startups say in Rwanda and in fact the connection they have with the people who are better endowed from outside. I think on the private sector chipping in and being their partners we have seen. I think we stand a much better chance of making progress than failing. I want to turn the conversation a little philosophical for a second and I want to talk to you about this because we talked about this in the green room just before. Really about humankind and human nature. One of the things that Klaus talked about is how this revolutionizes humankind. How we actually communicate and relate to each other. In this, I think I told you, Klaus Schwab said the revolution will not only change entire societies and economies, it stands to transform the essence of human nature and our connections because of 3D printing and super smart robots and that becomes the relationship. What do you make of that? You know, Andrew, I used to always be puzzled when people would talk about fear of technology and change because the evidence is quite to the contrary. Technology has only helped humanity in the quality of life. But a couple of images come to my mind which truly do scare me and you use the word fear and scare me for a humankind if you will. One was very recent, I was in New York and I was at dinner with my family and next to us there were four young girls having some kind of teen get together and the moment they sat down, they pulled out their iPhones and we timed them for 15 minutes. They didn't say a word to each other. They were just looking at it and my daughter said, you know what they're doing dad? They're Instagramming their friends saying, girls night out, having a great time. And I thought about that and I said, you know, this will be recorded. So it will go out to multiple phones and everywhere around the world, maybe somebody will pick it up in India, there were people who had a girls night out and I know there never was a girls night out. It eluded them, the essence of that human interaction is being recorded but it never existed. It's some kind of ghost world people are talking about. So I was scared. The other thing that happened was, I don't know, many of you must have seen six months in the past six months, there was a video clip that went viral that purported to be about the US Air Force conducting a raid in the Middle East where they were sort of killing their prey and it was a radar screen and the prey were in infrared. I don't, somebody's nodding so you've seen it. And you heard these pilots exulting when they shot someone. And I thought about that and just a little blip of light on that radar screen was a life being extinguished but it was like a basketball game that was going on. And it scared the hell out of me. So that to me is what I think Klaus is talking about is the loss of humankind. What is missing or what is this problem that we are addressing? It's about the word remote. If you look at the fourth industrial revolution, we sort of idolize the word remote, remote sensing, remote management, remote calibration. I can shut off my car, any car engine that somebody buys, I can shut it off by remote. This word remote is what we've got to get away from. And recently Tina Brown had a women in the world conference in Delhi where she put a Palestinian mother and an Israeli mother together and described how just the act of meeting each other brought them together. So there has to be empathy. So my point is what we need is, how do we program not artificial intelligence but artificial empathy? I know that sounds sort of crazy, oxymoronic artificial empathy, but I don't think it's anything more oxymoronic or illogical than artificial intelligence. So I look at Satya and I say, will you create artificial empathy for us? Can you wire that in through the brain? And it's ironic. I am optimistic by the way, Shail. I'm not pessimist here because there's Facebook that the fourth industrial revolution brought. What are they doing? They're bringing people together. They put the images of that Syrian refugee baby that washed ashore and made people empathize. So I think it can happen, but I think Schwab has done well to set this up as a choice. My point is not that optimism is guaranteed. I'm sorry, I can't resist the temptation of a Star Wars analogy, but you know the force is a force that can be misused or used. If it's used for the good, you're a Jedi. If it's used for the bad, you're a Sith member of the Empire. I think the choice we have to make is do we want to be Jedi's or do we want to be Sith's? Okay, I want to get to Zach, but I got to ask Cheryl because you're probably responsible to some degree for interrupting that dinner among those girls who were staring at their screens. No, no, but what do you make of that? The idea that we're all living and I'm guilty of it as anybody living on our screen as opposed to in real life. I think for the most part it's really important to live on both. And obviously girls sitting around not talking to each other is not anything we all want. And you have to teach your children how to use technology. I have conversations with mine and mine are only eight and 10 all the time. But Facebook connects 1.55 billion people in the world. It connects most of them on a daily basis and it does exactly what he said, which is it I think helps spread empathy because we can see who people are. We have a bunch of data on different regions of the world where people have historically been at war or there is conflict. And what we know is that it's easy to hate what you do not know. But when you see a mother with child, when you see a kid with a birthday party, they look like you in so many ways or their lives are like you in so many ways. And that's what creates empathy. We saw what happened with the toddler of the Syrian refugee. This crisis has been going on for years. Nothing changed. Unfortunately many young children have drowned and died. But that picture, that picture communicated to people in the world. And there was a study done in Britain that if you had seen that picture, you were almost twice as likely to think you should welcome immigrants into your country. And so it is that human connection and it would be nice if we could all have all those human connections in person. But most people will not be able to connect with a Syrian refugee in person. Most people will not be able to connect with a displaced person in person. And so the ability to do that with video, with pictures, with images, is what is going to create that empathy. Okay, but let me ask you about the flip side of that connectivity. And you guys just made an announcement about this in the past 48 hours, which is hate speech online. The ability for people to connect who we wish did not connect. The ability for ISIS and others to find new recruits through this great new technology. What do you do about that? Well, I know what Facebook does, which is there's no place for hate and intolerance or calls for violence on our platform. And we do everything we can to take all of it down. Not just the posts and the calls for violence, but the people who are perpetrators of it. They're off Facebook. That said, there continues to be a lot of hate. And we all know as soon as you take something down, another one pops up. I was just in Berlin, we announced the online civil courage initiative. It's a partnership between Facebook, the German government and academic researchers and NGOs. And the idea is, what can we do? Well, the best antidote to bad speech is good speech. The best antidote to hate is tolerance. Great story coming out of Germany. An NGO called Lautgegen Nazis. They speak against the Nazis. They launched what they called a like attack on the Facebook page of the NPD. So the NPD is the neo-Nazi party. That page is filled with intolerance. And rather than scream and protest, they got 100,000 people who liked the page, who did not like the page, and then put messages of tolerance on the page. So when you got to the page, they completely changed the content. And what was a page filled with hatred and intolerance was then tolerance and messages of hope. And what this initiative is trying to do is study what works, help get the right voices out. The best thing to speak against recruitment by ISIS are the voices of people who were recruited by ISIS, understand what the true experience is, have escaped and come back to tell the truth. Amplifying those voices, counter speech to the speech that's perpetrating hate is we think by far the best answer. Zach, speak to this because you deal with politics and you deal with democracy and trying to make it more transparent. There are benefits to this, but it also cuts both ways. Well, first of all, thanks a lot for this panel and thanks to the WEF for this panel. These are really important questions. So many of them center on governance. And one of the things that strikes me about the state of governance in our world is how many broken governments there are. And one of the key facets of that is technology. So many of our governments are not just slightly behind, but a generation behind. They've essentially been skipped over in the third industrial revolution. And we're here to talk about the fourth industrial revolution. And Dr. Schwab talks about it in his book. It says, you know, the adoption curve to take the Jeff Moore curve. You've got the middle and late adopters. What about those? So it's not just income inequality that's here. It's almost like a technological inequality. And what do you do, not just with people, but with enterprises that are late on the curve. They missed the third revolution. We're deep into the fourth revolution in a few years. What do you do about that? And there's businesses at this conference on this stage they're seeking to address. That ours at Opengov is one of those. A great public sector chief executive that I know likes to say, we get the governments we deserve. And I think there's something really important to that as citizens, as business leaders, academics, journalists here. What are we doing to bring our governments not just through the third revolution, but way into the fourth? President Kagame, and maybe there's a conversation that Cheryl should have with you. We were talking in the green room before you got there about actually how many women are in your cabinet and how many women are in the parliament in Rwanda. I'm curious whether you think that that's a function of technology and transparency that sort of has opened up the country in a way that perhaps hasn't in developed countries. Well, I think it's a question of choices. Different societies or governments that people are going to make, how technology supports them, but the technology will support policies that do not necessarily have to depend on technology. So if the country like ours has, for example, when we have been talking about the digital divide, we are talking about digital divide in a sense of those who have access to it generally and those who don't and so on and so forth. But another layer is that say among the people if say in Rwanda, or you would say in any other country, within the country there is another divide. In a case in a sense that you have women left behind in many cases, whether it is education or their health and so on and so forth. So if they are left behind in other instances, for example, education and so on, then they are left behind and these ones who are deprived as far as digital divide is concerned. So we have to address these two issues, the policy side and then how do we use technology to make sure that it supports the policies that we have put in places that actually reduce other divides that existed even before we talk about technology. So having women in Rwanda involved in decision making in the parliament, in the government, in the business and so on and so forth has been a political decision. It's a policy decision. And then technology making sure that technology serves the country, serves the people, serves society for their development is another policy decision. So we just bring them together and we find we are served well based on policies we make. Cheryl, you've made the argument repeatedly that women are underrepresented in government but also that connectivity and technology is what may change all of this to some degree. Well, at the risk of shocking everyone so early in the morning, men still run the world. I'm not sure it's going that well. Look, there are 17 countries in this world run by women, 17 out of hundreds of countries. Almost every country in the world has less than 5% of its top companies run by women, including the United States and every country in Europe. That means we're not using the full talents of the population. That means when it comes to making the decisions that impact our world, women are not at those tables where decisions are made. We know from studies of peace treaties to performance of teams that when women are at those tables, performance is better. And yet you look at most of those tables and women aren't there or they're massively underrepresented. And so we need to change that. And we need to change that by really believing in and supporting leadership in females, which is something we still don't culturally accept. Ready, we can do it in this room. Men only, men only. Please raise your hand if you've been told you are too aggressive at work. It's always a few. Women. What about at home? Home is a whole nother issue. But we're fair enough. But when we're trying to get to the president's seats and the boardroom's work is more relevant. Ready? Women, raise your hand if you were told you're too aggressive at work. OK, one more. Men, raise your hand if anyone's ever said to you, should you be working? Sasha, should you be working? Anyone ever asked you why you work? Women, raise your hand if anyone's ever said, should you be working? That's the difference. In men, leadership, working is encouraged. In women, it's not. And the great majority of the mothers in the world have to work. So telling women they can't do both is ridiculous because they have to. Now let's think about the developing world. Women are 25% less likely over the entire developing world to be educated, 25% less likely to be literate, 25% less likely to have access to data. Those numbers are far higher in certain countries. And that means, again, when you give access to education, to health care, to net connectivity, we're giving it overwhelmingly to men, which explains the pattern we're on and needs to change. Sasha, let me ask you a different question that relates to employment. You guys made an investment recently in Uber. And Travis Kalanick, who's the CEO of Uber, is going to be here at the forum. And to me, Uber represents this very interesting symbol, which is to say that right now Uber is going around the world saying that they're effectively creating employment. One of the things they're doing is creating or they will say they are creating jobs. At the same time, they are investing through some of the money probably that you may have been giving them to invest in AI and self-driving cars over Carnegie Mellon and other things like that. And so a decade from now, that whole story may have to flip. It may have to be not about creating jobs, but about perhaps even creating safety. I don't know how it will be described. But how do you think about that issue? And I know so far we've argued here that technology is going to help. But I do want to get to this employment issue, because when you look out 10, 20 years from now, there have to be so many jobs. I imagine that technologies that are being created at Microsoft and elsewhere, whether it's Uber, are going to take them. Yeah, I mean, this challenge of displacement because of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a real one. Jobs are going to change. The nature of work is going to fundamentally change. It happened, by the way, in the Second and the Third Industrial Revolution, too. And I think for those who are historians or economic historians, I'm sure the same debate was had as to what's going to happen when people move from the agrarian society to the industrial society, whether they will all be employed or not. So we somehow figured it out. So now the question is, will we figure it out? Will people who get displaced in one skill or one job find another job? So I feel the right emphasis should be skills, as opposed to worrying too much about the job that is getting lost because of the secular forces of technology. We will have to, as a society, spend the money to educate our people, not just the children, but also people getting displaced mid-carrier so that they can find new jobs. That's got to be the first thing. What do I say? Isn't technology and the advance of technology always about creating productivity? You talk about Microsoft trying to create productivity. Productivity ultimately means making people individually scalable and creating that scale and creating that efficiency. That's what this is ultimately about, which, to me, means less people. Or more surplus. So just because, I mean, look, without productivity, there's no growth. Without growth, there is no surplus. So in some sense, let's take the other side of the argument and say we have the big boon of data and this next fourth industrial revolution and a lot of economic surplus gets created. The question is, can we then go tackle some of the disparities that we just talked about? Why are women not getting as much connectivity or as much education or as much health care? What can governments, NGOs, and the private sector do to go tackle that? What about people with disabilities who don't participate? Can we have a more inclusive culture in the fourth industrial revolution, which we couldn't because we didn't have the economic surplus that could really reach them? So I would say that's the way to reframe it. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be challenges. Absolutely there are challenges, but we've got to tackle the challenges head on. Doesn't that mean more opportunity for entrepreneurship as well, which is really the core of any of these industrial revolutions, people taking risks, people having the time and capital to try things that are new. When we talk about not just the digitization of business and life, but all of the elements of the fourth industrial revolution, I don't think we have the next great companies that are gonna be on this stage in a decade or two. Who's gonna start them? What companies will they be? The one thing I would just wanna bring up on that, just to your point about entrepreneurs, I ran into this entrepreneur in Kenya. It's an amazing story. I referenced them as people who created that credit score, but the story is much more elaborate than that. So they figured out how to take solar panels and give it to people who actually the third industrial revolution never reached. So in some sense, they now have solar panels through which they're getting electricity. The grid itself is managed in the cloud. And because of that, they actually have a credit rating. But the other thing is, because of the credit rating, they can buy an electric stove, which is powered by solar panel, replacing the kerosene stove. So think about all the surplus that was created to tackle all the challenges from climate change to, wow, this is a community or a family that completely the third industrial revolution bypassed. That is what I think entrepreneurial energy can actually solve using some of these technologies. Okay, I hate to be the wet blanket. Now let me just ask you, because you run an industrial company that's now using the internet of things, if you will, big data to help. But I think it ultimately means less employment at your company. Is that wrong? No, the question's very valid because frankly, people in India should be the most worried about this. Theoretically, we are on a springboard ready to take over from China and suddenly provide the world with goods. But with this fourth industrial revolution, 3D printers and so on, will there be demand for stuff from India? And I think what we have to do here is recognize that we are falling into a trap of linear thinking when we try to figure out what's gonna happen in India because we say, okay, China's gonna get too affluent. India will now have cheap labor. Cheap labor will migrate to cities. Cities then will have to scale up with technology. We'll have to have export markets and so on and so forth. What I'd like to do at the risk of boring Satya because he asked me to speak in Bombay at a conference of his and I expounded on this theory, you have to think differently about what this does for India where 65% of the population are still in villages. What you really need is to stop migration and think about how the fourth industrial revolution allows you to do that because suddenly, you can put 3D printers out in the villages. You can enable all of them to become independent garage mechanics. The old forge shop that used to be in every backyard of a village, that's the 3D printing forge shop. You can link them up to customers. You can cut out intermediaries that they needed to get to the village market, to the city markets. So what I propounded was in this talk that I gave was that Gandhi and Schumacher talked about small is beautiful and they talked about making villages that were self-sufficient. And everybody thought they were wacko, thought they were way too retrogressive that they were denying technology. My point is that the fourth industrial revolution was the missing link to Schumacher and Gandhi. If they had that technology, they could have made that vision come alive. And so if you imagine that you stem that migration, you make a village because of all this technology, solar panels, you make remote sensing which gives them better crops. You cut out intermediaries. You create surplus right there, Satya. Not surplus in the old ways where we thought you have to migrate and get labor population. To my mind, India's gonna do just fine because we live in the villages and if we make our villages smart, then frankly there's going to be huge productivity gains, in fact an explosion of productivity. I think one thing that's often overlooked is that technology doesn't just create technology jobs, it powers jobs in the non-tech sector. And that explains some of the promise of what you're talking about. We did a study with Deloitte a year ago. Facebook has 12,000 employees and the finding was Facebook in 2014 had powered millions of jobs. So who are those jobs? I was in Berlin two days ago. I went to a clothing store. It was started by a woman and her husband. They started a small shop, they marketed online. She now has four stores and employs people. And so when you think about, there was other people from the Mittelstand, what we would call SMBs in the United States or SMBs in Europe. There was someone who was a vegan chef who was running a business out of his home and selling his cookbook and doing online cooking classes he charged from. There was a woman who was baking and shipping those goods elsewhere. These are non-tech jobs, but they're actually powered by technology because it's Facebook and other technology platforms that enable them to reach people. On Facebook, there are 50 million small business pages that are active on a monthly basis. 30% of those pages have reached customers outside their local geographic area. And so yes, technology creates huge disruption and we have a lot to do in terms of government and companies and the non-profit sector to make the investments in education and infrastructure so that everyone can participate. But it's also the case that technology powers things in the non-tech center and very much powering entrepreneurship. The one thing I'll just add is I think Sheryl and Anand and even President Kagame said this earlier, which is we've got to get to a phase of this fourth industrial revolution which goes from just pure consumption of tech to producing tech. So in other words, you've got to use world-class technology to produce more world-class technology. And if that spreads to Indian villages to all parts of the economics sector, then I think we will tackle some of these harder challenges. I don't want to get too theoretical, but there are those critics who will say the revolution has been an information technology thus far. It has not actually occurred in our daily, in terms of the stuff. I know we have the internet of things and everyone says that's coming, but how far are we off from that? I mean, I think when I see what's happening with the digital revolution, it's gone from simply white-collar productivity and information revolution to a true digital revolution that's changing things like agriculture. If you talk about Internet of Things, the place where Internet of Things is having perhaps one of the most profound impacts is in the oldest of all industries or the oldest of all skills, which is agriculture itself, where there's not a crop that is not being sensed so that you can make sure the resources that really allow you to get the most productivity are increasing. The gross margin that is there in anything from a car to an elevator is going from just the thing to the service that attaches to it. That's the profound change that's happening in the industrial revolution. So I think that it's very much that face and so that comes with that challenge you talked about when you do more automation, when you're using data to create intelligence, what happens to some of the jobs, but are there new jobs that are getting created? Let me ask the industry people on the stage. What is the role of business in working with countries and NGOs and let me ask it to you in this way because a critic or a cynic would say, so you've just invested or announced that you will invest a billion dollars in working with NGOs. Facebook has done all sorts of things in India and elsewhere, but the criticism is that these are marketing techniques for your company or they are marketing in India for example, for what I understand this free basics program has come under a lot of criticism because people don't believe it's really about helping people, people believe or there's some view that it's about Facebook controlling their version of the internet. What do you do about that? So I'll explain free basics a little bit. So free basics is our program to bring connectivity to the people who don't have it. Four billion people in the world don't have the ability to access data and I think people think it's a technical challenge and it's not, it's a financial challenge. 95% of the world's population lives in areas which at least have a 2G connection or more. The problem is money. The implicit cost of Facebook data if you're an average user in the United States is a dollar a day. World Bank puts the poverty line at $1.90 a day and almost 10% of the world lives under it. That means that the developed world spends in data usage on Facebook alone what a good portion of what the developing world lives on. So it's clearly a financial challenge so our answer to that was free basics. It is a program whereby we provide Facebook and a host of other services. It's a platform so we don't control it. Anyone who meets the technical requirements is in. We work with operators to provide those for free and through that and our other connectivity programs we've already connected 15 million people around the world. We believe in this, it's our mission. We believe that the people who get access to data will benefit in terms of the things I spoke about before. We believe we'll benefit from learning for them. There are always skeptics. You know our answer to that is boy if we were trying to invest money to make money you really wouldn't start here. We have a lot of ad products we could build with the resources we're putting in. So we're doing this for the right reasons. And I think no matter how skeptical people can be you have to believe that what you're doing is right and do it for the right reasons. And 15 million people is not a lot in the course of four billion. So we have a lot more to go and I think everyone here has to join into those efforts. President. In fact maybe you should have put that question to some of us who are not in the industry but who are the beneficiaries of the industry. Because when you ask Sherry as if she's being told to defend herself and what she's doing. But I can say for example anyone who has seen the benefits of the services provided by Facebook or Microsoft and others in education, in health, in schools you find, you know, libraries digitized, you find people have access to materials they didn't have before because of the basics that were lacking that the industry has provided. So I don't mind if they are doing this good thing and they are marketing as well. That's okay. As far as the schools are gaining, the health centers are gaining, people are going to culture benefiting and so on and so forth. I think it's a good thing. Okay. I want to go to Anand but I just want to tell everybody we are going to open it up for questions in just a minute because I want to make this as interactive a conversation as possible. So if you have questions or you're thinking about asking a question we're going to get to that in just one moment. Go ahead. And we want to go back to your question about industry's responsibility towards NGOs. I think that frankly is the kind of thinking that's going to be passed from now on. What we do in our companies, we've adopted a logo called Rise which is just an encapsulate in one word but what it really means is that we want to drive positive change in whatever we do. Essentially we're doing shared value businesses which means that the old days are saying here's my profit and then I'm going to take a box and give it over to an NGO. Those are gone. The real opportunities to make change are when you try to do well and do good at the same time. The late CK Prelat used to talk about it as the bottom of the pyramid opportunities. I think Michael Porter has taken his work and taken it further. But what you have to do is think of it this way that in order to raise the quality of life is the biggest business opportunity going. And when you create sustainable businesses where we're clearly saying we're going to make profit but we recognize the biggest opportunities here. For example, and to give you an example of that we've got affordable housing we've converted our real estate business into affordable housing where we are targeting a 30% ROE. We've got housing, rural housing finance, solar power they're all rise. And in personal philanthropy I run a foundation in India where we do drinking water. Now I've spun that off into a joint venture with Danone of France. So it's a for-profit social enterprise where we are creating a template to provide drinking water. And for education, the same foundation I've spun it off and it's a joint venture with the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation to provide for-profit education, remedial education and they're doing fine. And we will sustain them because they're for-profit. I think that's the future of philanthropy. Final question for me and then we will open it up. If you were to look at what jobs are going to be like in 10 or 20 years from now just the mix of jobs and the type of jobs that people are going to have as a function of all of this and anybody here can take it what does that look like? And how is that piece of it transformed? If I had to speculate I would say there isn't going to be a sector of the economy that is somehow not racing with digitization helping it drive productivity. So there is not going to be a job that somehow you're dealing with the core aspects of digital technology as a farmer or as someone who is a foreman in an industrial company any kind of job is going to have digital technology component that's going to be an increasingly significant part of it. But it doesn't mean that it all means everyone's got to be a computer scientist because this is another place where we go to the extreme of saying everyone's got to be a quarter. Digital technology can in fact perhaps bring skills to a much more underskilled population because of the ease of use, ease of access to technology. That's how I think the jobs will change. Is anybody here a believer by the way that technology is ultimately going to make everything cost so little that even if we don't have jobs I've heard this from Larry Page and others that the cost of things are going to come down that this leisure class ultimately gets created and because the price comes down actually we shouldn't worry about this as much. I want to sign up for that. No, no. Why don't we open it up for questions right now? I know we have just about 15 minutes and I know there's a lot of people who want a shot on goal. You're in the front seat, you've got a good seat so why don't you ask your first question. And the only thing I would beg everybody is whatever your question is, it really should end with a question mark, so. Hello, my name is Federico Rivas and I'm a global shaper from the San Salvador Hub. My question's for Cheryl. Facebook impressed us this past April when you activated safety check so that victims of the Nepal earthquake would check in as safe and a lot of people were able to know if their families and loved ones were safe first through Facebook then through any other way. Now I come from the most violent nation in the world, El Salvador. How do you envision Facebook evolving in these safety applications not only for catastrophe relief but also in terms of violence prevention? It's a good question. The origins of safety check came in Japan after the tsunami. We had some engineers on the ground there who wanted to notify people that they were safe and they built what was a very rudimentary beta of what became safety check. We then built the product, launched it in Nepal where millions of people checked in and let over 100 million people know they were safe. We then activated it for the Paris attacks as well and that was the first time we had activated it for what was not a natural disaster, a man-made disaster. And now we're thinking about using it more broadly for disasters which are both man-made and natural, all of which we'd want. We want fewer of. I think it speaks to the power of the platform because whether or not you're using safety check or whether or not you just post on your page and people do it all over the world, being able to notify your community that you're safe is a really important part of what's going on. Facebook's also the largest community of donors and volunteers anywhere in the world. And not only did we see people use it in Nepal for notifications that they were safe but we saw a lot of donation activity. We're seeing incredible things with the refugee crisis. There's a group on Facebook called My Syrian Home and it's an NGO in Germany which has set up a page for Syrian refugees to learn about local laws, learn about local customs and they've received a lot of volunteers including medical volunteers for those refugees through that page. And so when disaster strikes, whether it's natural or human-caused, all of which is so unfortunate, the ability for us to come together, let each other know we're safe but also provide help is so important and something we're really proud of that happens on our platform. Yes, sir, good question right there. Thank you. My name is Dominic Mordem from the Netherlands journalist. My question is to Mr. Nadella. My main question is do you think this time is different? You already mentioned that we had previous periods of rapid technological change and humans tend to think that this time is different. But the theme of this conference seems to suggest that it is right now. Is it really more profound and deep than previous technological advances, you think? I mean, I think, Klaus in his book sort of talks about how even the third industrial revolution, quite frankly, has not reached all the people of the world yet. But the rate at which the fourth industrial revolution is getting diffused is much higher than the third. So I think it is different just in terms of just the rate and the speed with which it's changing and it's also getting to people. But the real question I think you asked, which I think is what the debate at this conference and elsewhere will have to be for years to come, is the dividend from this, how is it going to get spread? How are we, you know, it's going to mean which country, is it going to spread out geographically equally? Is it going to spread to all sectors of the economy? Is it going to help people with different economic strata? That I think is the question. And I do believe that the fourth industrial revolution does have the attributes that make it more possible than even the second and the third industrial revolution, just because the nature of production of the goods and surplus, that it can in fact help more people more broadly. That's at least what my optimism and hope is and that's essentially how I at least want to approach our work, but that's definitely the debate. That's definitely what I think also is the responsibility of governments, NGOs, as well as the people in the private sector. We have a question right here. Tina Kaiser from the Welt, a German newspaper. I have a question for Cheryl Sandberg. You just asked us to raise the hand for women and men if we were told we were aggressive. And I wanted to know from you if you think that women nevertheless have to behave like this, although they are not liked when they are aggressive to get to the top or if there's another way of not behaving like a man, but still be part of the man's world. I think what we need to do is stop identifying the same behaviors in men and women differently. That certainly if you want to lead, you have to be results focused. You have to be able to support change. The problem is that a man and a woman can do the exact same thing and the man will be applauded for being results focused in his business and the woman will be told she's being too hard on everyone. And so culturally we need to change that. We need to expect leadership in women. We need to not tell little girls they're bossy. We don't call little boys bossy. It's expected that they lead. We call little girls. Similarly, I think we need to nurture nurturing in our boys. Just like we tell little girls they're bossy, we tell little boys not to cry. We tell little boys not to show emotion. We tell grown men not to show emotion. And we know from children that we are born with the full range of emotion. Anyone who's ever had a son and a daughter, I have both realizes how similar their emotional ability to reflect is and to emote. We change that as they grow and we don't have to. We can expect and nurture the full range of emotions and behaviors in women as in men. And then we can get the very best from our whole population. Let's go to the question all the way. You got one of the cheap seats in the back, so. Thanks for serving the needs of the back row people. So I'm Dave Hanley, now with Deloitte. But I have a question, Cheryl. Your words about using positive message to overcome negativity I think are really powerful. And I believe we live in a world now where the negativity around refugees and migration is making it impossible for governments to pass common sense and desirable laws that are even good for their nations and good for the world. And so my question is in a world of, and I see obvious ways where traditional media can tell the personal story of the immigrant who has risen above and it has embraced the nation. But how can social media do this where we're all contributing stories to actually build a positive conversation to give the air cover for our leaders to be able to do what they need to do. It's such an important question. And again, you can be afraid of the change that comes with immigration. You can be afraid of the change that comes with mass movements of people. Yesterday in Berlin, I went to visit a small shop that is an NGO, started by these two amazing women. And they are employing Syrian refugees, Syrian immigrants to Germany to make furniture. They contacted a very famous designer. They got the rights to use this design, which I think he gave them on very good terms. And I got a chance to sit there with people and help put together chairs. And so you have these people who migrated to the country who had great skills, who would not otherwise have jobs, making and selling furniture, getting design skills while they're doing it. And these amazing women are taking all the profits that they're doing, they're getting from this shop and putting them into helping other immigrants. I was also struck by how many of the senior leaders I met with in Berlin had immigrant families living in their home. And they won't talk about it, but they are doing it and they are doing it quietly. And what it shows again is I think the power of individual connection. There's 60 million displaced people in the world right now, highest number since World War II. This is a massive challenge and that can be a very scary thing. But one family, one of the young men I met who's working on that furniture store, these are individuals with hopes and dreams and the right to have a great future as all of us do. And I think it's in that individual connection and seeing those individual stories that our goodness triumphs over our fear. Okay, we only have about five minutes and we have a lot of questions. So let's sort of rapid fire, but you've got about a million questions here in the front row. So let's just sort of go down the row if we can real quick, if you could with the microphone. Maybe we'll do, actually does everybody have a, you got a quick one? Yeah. Go for it. I have a quick question mentally from China. Since now government function and power are more transferred to big organization that can help people to connect themselves and get information. So Mr. Bookman, do you think in the future that a lot of government function and power will be transferred to people like Mr. Mahindra and Ms. Sandberg that can connect people instead of living to the government itself? I think governments will connect much more closely with their citizens. Governments reflect the citizenry. They should reflect the citizenry. People should know where the revenues, the tax revenues go. People should know what they're getting for their tax dollars. And this is in progress as the digitization of government takes place. And then as new tools and technologies from the fourth industrial revolution reach government, it's going to be a new governing landscape, much more public, much more collaborative, much more integrated, and much more productive. And thank you for suggesting the government transfer power to me. I second that. Go ahead. My name's Hannah Hai. I'm the Goodwill Ambassador for UNEDO. My question is for President Kigami. China is moving from a labor-intensive economy to a more capital incentive economy. 85 million labor-intensive jobs is going to move out of China. So I'm wondering for Africa, what's your view? Is Africa more ready for the third industrialization revolution to capture all those jobs from China? Or Africa should be more ready for the fourth round of industrialization? Thank you. Good question. Well, for me, of course, this is again an issue of being realistic. We can pay attention to both at the same time. So we are still, in a way, Africa stuck in the third industrial revolution. That's the reality. So we can still make a good job of that, making sure that we make improvements and to create the best within the time we exist for the third industrial revolution, as well as, at the same time, have another foot ahead in the fourth industrial revolution. And here, we are talking about transformation. I think that's the discussion. How do these revolutions transform societies? People improve their lives. So we find that's why in this discussion, the continent I come from, Africa, I'm sure you can find traces of that in other continents. We are still having a lot to do within the understanding of the previous revolutions. So it's a continuation. It's a journey, and we have one foot back in the previous revolution in the third, and then you have another foot in the fourth. And I think this is how we should be going. So we are prepared. We should be prepared. And that's why revolutions, in any case, and our job is to make sure we narrow the gap so that there are fewer losers and more winners. So otherwise, these revolutions produce winners and losers. But our job is to make sure that we reduce the number of losers and create what is necessary for everybody to win. And that is the challenge you have to face. This is why, in fact, if I may quickly talk about people getting worried about the advancements in technologies, the artificial intelligence, and other advanced technologies, I think maybe they even get more worried if they think about rushing into that without thinking and without taking control of our lives and steps in the process. Otherwise, we should be moving on with what we want and can move on with. And take care of that we are worried about that may come with these advancements. OK. Final question. You have the microphone in the front. Thank you. My question is for Mrs. Sheryl Sandberg. My name is Jim Nenoffel. I'm a journalist representing the Global Shapers Hub in Beirut. So hello. My question is, I know you were talking about the triumph of hope over fear when it comes to the fourth industrial revolution. And I wanted to ask, when social media is leading the way in terms of that, do you have an opinion on what role traditional media will play in the future as we see its role decreasing when it comes to social media? I think the role traditional media plays is ever more important because with so much information out there, high quality journalism, journalism that gets to the truth, journalism that holds governments and companies and individuals accountable is really important. And it may be that the distribution changes. It may be that the business models continue to evolve. But the role of journalism in protecting us as individuals and society has never been more important. I know we're really happy with how much people are consuming news on the Facebook platform. How much of that news is from traditional media outlets and the quality of much of that reporting. I love that answer, even what I do. And it's a great place to end this conversation. I want to thank everybody on this panel for a tremendous conversation and you for all your great questions. Thank you, everybody.