 Christina, the editor-in-chief of Scientific American. You're here for the 7 Billion Challenge Panel. This is part of our theme on smart growth and development. With me here, I'm just going to introduce the panelists and then we're going to have a discussion. To my immediate left is Wang Bowman, editor-in-chief of Kaijin Magazine. Next to him is Seth Berkley, Chief Executive Officer, Gaby Alliance, Switzerland. Ben J. Breweyen, Chief Executive Officer, Alcatel Lucente France. Luis Moreno, President Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C. And Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, President Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Welcome, panelists. We're going to begin with a few questions from me to each of the panelists, and then we'll begin a discussion. So Dr. Jackson, I'd like to start with you. I'd like to ask you, since we were looking at the evocative slides when we were walking in, what new approaches might we take to addressing the challenges of water or energy and food at Nexus? Thank you. Well, I think we can begin by framing the discussion a little bit. Today, there are 7 Billion people in the world and about half of them, as many have pointed out, live in urban environments in cities. By 2050, we expect 9 Billion and probably upwards of three-quarters of them will live in cities. So that means we're adding per week cities of about 1 to 1.3 Billion people. And if that's the case, then it immediately raises the question of how do we feed people? Fresh water is important and energy. It takes energy to produce fresh water supplies. It tends to take a lot of water too much to produce energy in various forms and it obviously takes energy and water to feed people. But we have an opportunity and that opportunity rests in that densification but it also raises risks. The opportunity is to use urban environments as test beds for new approaches to how we organize new approaches to infrastructure, architecture and what that really means is learning new ways to be parsimonious about energy use including in the design of buildings where a lot of energy is used. Thinking about waste management in a different way and capturing more out of that. And then as one thinks about how we make things, thinking about sustainable and advanced manufacturing. And so I would like if we could to think more broadly about intersecting vulnerabilities and how one blends science and technology with policy and economic development planning to address these issues. Thank you. Speaking about blending with economic development, this is a good segue for Mr. Renault to address the lessons from Latin America in developing especially with rapid urbanization. But I think that Shirley put a very good frame into this whole discussion because we live in an immense paradox. I think some of the slides that we were just seeing are testament to the fact that technology has allowed the world to advance in many ways. But at the same time it posed in front of us huge sets of challenges that are new and that we need to begin to learn how to deal with them. You mentioned urbanization. The most urbanized area of the developing world is Latin America. Anywhere from depending what statistic you use anywhere from 75 to 80% of people live in cities. Now, the fascinating paradox is that the mega cities, which Latin America has four of them and I'm talking here cities in excess of 12 million inhabitants, have huge productivity issues. And more importantly, if you observe carefully, these kinds of cities are not growing at the rate of mid-sized cities. And that's really where I think there's a tremendously important local dimension to the paradox of these questions that Shirley was mentioning. Why? Because if you then concentrate on the smaller cities, this is where you at least have a chance to introduce sustainability in many dimensions. Sustainability from the perspective of transportation. You know, a city of less than a million in the north part of Peru is taking in 22,000 new cars a year because of wealth effect. But they cannot build enough roads at that speed. So it is the time to think of a mass transit system in whatever form it is. At the same time, the way you think of planning or urban planning becomes extremely important. And you know, this is something China is doing. China we know is about 50% of the population living in cities. You have the case of India that is 70%. The history of how this happened in Latin America is not good. Why? Because people went to cities on the idea they would find better employment, they did not. And so you had huge pockets of poverty that it's taken many years to begin to resolve by creating all kinds of micro entrepreneurs and all sorts of things. Then the big questions of how do we deploy more energy and sustainable energy? And here, for instance, the problems of water and availability of water began with huge uses of energy in how we distribute water. Poor water pipes that have to be renewed. The way we pay for these services, it's extremely important. So these are some of the challenges that I think we have in front of us. But certainly, it will be very disruptive in the years ahead. And I think this is part of the big challenge we have in front of us. I think technology can be part of the solution and education will be at the core for whatever we do. Thank you. Mr. Wang, we were talking about the experience of China and energy in particular. I think you had some remarks about that. Thank you. Yes, I mean, 7 billion challenge. China is 1.3. I don't know. I mean, probably in the few years ahead, we have to deal with 8 billion, 10 billion challenge. But the problem with this growing population is that it puts tremendous pressure on the energy. So I will just talk about energy. I mean, currently, a particular issue critical to China is that our consumption per unit per capita is as compared with Japan, Germany, United States, extremely high. So per unit energy consumption in China, even one unit, it's six times of Japan, three times of Germany, and twice of the United States. So if somehow we are currently only half of the size of the GDP of the United States, and also we are at the very early stage of industrialization, our per capita income is roughly 5,000. Imagine this 1.3 billion population if their per capita income goes up to, let's say, 30,000 US. That would put quite a bit of pressure on the energy side. So the urgent tax for China is really to improve its efficiency. I mean, that involves the transformation of the mode of economic growth. I think part of the problem is too much, you know, China is too much of a world factory. Everybody is producing products in China. So we have to move up. I mean, we have to increase the sector of service. I think currently it's like 60%, 70% heavy industry. That has a lot to do with consumption per capita, so high, I mean, as compared with other countries. So we need to increase the size of the service industry, I mean, to decrease, I mean, you know, just the industrial, heavy industrial part. So if China improves its efficiency, if it gets up to, let's say, 30,000 US dollars, probably less than 10 or 20 years later, then we can still consume the same level of energy as it is now if we reach the sort of level as Japan. So now the world is 10 billion people, 1 billion in the developed world. We're talking about the majority, probably 5 or 6 in the developing world. If they are modernizing themselves, get up to 30,000, imagine, I mean, I just cannot think of a way to deal with the energy issue. Thank you. Thank you. So Dr. Berkeley, part of managing all of the people is looking to the factors that adjust how population is ramping up or down. How can we reduce child mortality? And why is that critical to slowing population growth? So before we talk about the 7 billion question, let's talk about how we got to where we are. 1960, the average person in the developing world was having six child, the average woman. By 2000, it was down to three. Now what changed during that period was the fact that they knew their children would survive. And in places before there was good child survival, children dying all the time, you wanted large families. It was your social network. So that was very important in making this demographic transition. And you heard Shirley say before that we're going to get to 9 billion, she said, by 2050. The actual estimate is 9.3 billion. But the interesting question is they've also increased the estimate and said that's not going to be the peak. It's going to go up to 10.1 billion by 2100. And the difference between those two is actually the fact that that contraception, modern contraception, is not being made available to everybody who wants it. This is not about forcing it. This is the unmet need for contraception. And if one was able to fill that, actually population would peak around 2050, around the 9 billion. And so that's one less billion people to think about all the issues we're talking about. But to get into the question on health, it's interesting because as we move to this larger number of population, we have to think about prevention more than ever. That's what the game is. And it's chronic disease prevention now. And China here, 80% of the disease burden is now in chronic disease. Of course, we still have unfinished child survival work. And that's important for the reason we talked about. But how do we deal with smoking? How do we deal with obesity and exercise diabetes? And let me just give you one example of how the world is changing with science and technology. So we think of vaccines, which is my field about being infectious disease and about kids. Well, it turns out that there are now vaccines against cancer. So here in China, 10% to 15% of the population 20 years ago was infected with hepatitis B. And what that meant, it was transmitted from mother to child. And then the children would go on and later on in life develop liver cancer, 350,000 cases a year. We began an effort to try to get vaccines out to the population working with the Chinese government. And today, less than 1% of the population is carrying hepatitis B of the children. What that means is that epidemic of liver cancer is going to disappear. And there's now vaccines against cervical cancer, and there soon will be for others as well. So this is an example of using science and technology for prevention, which is critical in dealing with the health challenges for the future. Thank you. So Mr. Verwein, one of the factors that's going to be important for all of us is finding gainful opportunities for all those 7 billion people. Do you speak to that a bit? So we talk about 7 billion people, but actually there are no 7 billion. There are 7 billion times 1. 7 billion times we have to deal with aspiration, development, personalities. And we have maybe an idea and a concept on an aggregated level, but we certainly don't have an idea today what it means on an individual level. Because the aspirations in the past where for many people aspirations was out any way to express themselves, nor to be heard. There was no voice. Today we live in a connected world. That means that aspirations, capabilities are known. You can express and you can connect. That puts a whole different context to the 7 billion because we had billions that we simply could forget. They were just a number. Now each and every one of them, whether you are in developed area or a so-called underdeveloped area, you have a voice and you can connect it. The most revealing story is this. In Darfur, at the time of the worst situation in Darfur, the distribution of aid went through mobile phones. You may ask yourself how in that corner of the world a mobile phone could operate. Well, a mobile phone was more important for the females in order to get contact with their families than that extra meal per week. So rather than having the most basic points, the choice they made was communications. And with that, the distribution of aid got organized and the people got a voice. I think our challenge is to deal with 7 billion aspirations around jobs and capabilities, about inclusion. Thank you. So in the first round we've gotten a nice frame from Dr. Jackson about how urban environments can be test beds. And I'd really like to explore that in just a minute and new ways to organize and be sustainable. We've heard about the rapid urbanization of Latin America and the growth of megacities and what we can learn from them. And again, this theme of growth in urban areas through Mr. Wang's comments about energy and grappling with the factory basis, the engine of production that is China these days. And then how you, through cooperative ventures, efficiently distribute medicines such as vaccines to people and then connect them all together through what Mr. Vruane has talked to us about. I'd like to first explore a little bit more of this flip side, especially since we recently made the demographic transition with the majority of us around the world living in cities generally about the opportunities there. And how do we harness the best from cities and try to avoid those negatives in the areas that you're talking about? Would you like to hit that first, please? I'd just like to make a comment, because I think one of the interesting things of all these comments is about the necessity for synergy across them. So one of the interesting things that happened in people who have been not from China, because you're living it every day, people who come to China over a long period of time noticed initially no bicycles, then lots and lots and lots of bicycles, and then almost a disappearance of bicycles. Now what's happened is with the disappearance of bicycles has disappeared that exercise and of course pollution and traffic and all the other problems in that urban environment. And I've seen some interesting policies that are being discussed of whether one should return to bicycles and kind of force people for short distances to use bicycles. And many cities now are struggling with this as a way to take those three things, the environment, health, and exercise, and then transport and put them together in a much more healthy way. I think those are the types of synergistic solutions that are gonna need to happen. If I may, let me talk through the lens of two types of technologies, but also talk about policy and link it to the urban test bed. You know, the greatest energy unit produced is the energy unit not used. So people actually are looking at new ways to design buildings, structures. And that goes from actually radical architectural design that rather than thinking is this building going to withstand the wind to think about how the building can actually capture the wind. And if it can do that, then to think about pathways through the buildings, even using micro turbines to actually direct that and use that to help power systems in the building. People are using new materials that can act as desiccants in environments that are very humid to take water, you know, humidity out of the air. And one of the greatest uses of air conditioning, which is very energy intensive, is in fact to dehumidify air. And so it really takes a new kind of urban planning that really is integrated and folds into it, appropriate incentives on the one hand, financing schemes on another hand, and then there's a third hand, which sometimes has to play in, and that has to do with actual policies, be they regulatory or otherwise, that actually helps to push things along in a given way. Now, there's one kind of linkage that ran through every remark that you might not have realized, and that has to do with information and communications technologies. Why? Because if one wants to have urban transportation systems, irrespective of the mode that makes sense, then the ability to track and move people in the right way, including traffic movement, requires information and communications technologies. If one wants to go into a very large urban environment and think about distribution of whatever it is, it could be medicines, it could be other things. And even to monitor where there may be evolving infectious activities, again, one needs to use information and communications technologies. The connectivity that allows people to talk more, communicate more, provides collaborative opportunity, but it also provides a data-rich environment to look at whether there may be emergent themes having to do with people's aspirations or cultural nuance in social networks. And then when you look at cities, such as in South America, where you do have cities that are large, but not quite reaching the megastage, there is the opportunity to introduce these things. But it really requires new thinking, forward-looking thinking, and everybody getting out of the modes they've been in. And not think, here's science and technology over here, and here's our kind of social, political, regulatory piece over here. And I haven't even gotten into new breakthroughs in areas like biotechnology that can have great impact where Mr. Berkeley works. Thanks. Circle back that, go ahead. So before we get now a very rosy picture of a wonderful world, there are science and technology. No, we're trying to get there. It's going to help us to do everything. Let's take this connectivity issue. What is done is great for some people and not so great for other people because if you are living in a developed world, all of a sudden you got competition from great brains, 5,000 miles, 15,000 miles away, and by the things that we built as a company, you could actually compete for the same job. So, it's not a distribution issue. It's a creation issue. We should create, in order to ensure that this is going to be this wonderful, warm, fuzzy story, we need to create opportunities. It's not enough to say, I have a better distribution. It's fairer for those who were out of the game and too bad for the guys who were into the game. That is not going to be a real good idea because I think with the use and employment that we have in the West, you'll find people on the street pretty soon. Does it help Latin America to develop that we have that problem? No, so what we need to do, or China, we need to do, we need to have a collaborative environment in which we create. We haven't thought about creation. Well, I think about creation all the time since I educate engineers and scientists. Okay, let me be clearer. We haven't thought enough about creation that results in jobs, meaningful jobs that adds to the creation of well-being that we need to create. Well, I think embedded in all of the things that we each have said need to happen is in fact that kind of creation and creativity because it's going to take new kinds of planning. It's going to take new kinds of infrastructure. It's going to take new ways to make things. It's going to take new ways to do agriculture. It's going to take new ways to build diagnostic, medical diagnostics. It's going to take new kinds of healthcare systems. All of those things require investment anyway. If we're going to make progress and create the opportunities, if we're going to make things. And so if we're going to do that, then let's not just have a randomized stimulus kind of thing. Let's make the stimulus an investment program that leads to the greater productivity and therefore greater opportunity for people. That's what I'm talking about. Let me just jump in on something that you mentioned, Marietta, which is the importance of cities because I think across this conversation, there is something extremely important. There is, as much as you have a complexity at the level of national governments, at the level of local governments and that local dimension of local governments, you have a lot of solutions. And I think that ought to help us begin to think of the collaboration that Ben was thinking about because I think anywhere the big revolution is happening at the local level. And the more countries get urbanized, the more solutions you get through cities. And of course, I remember President Kagame, who's a very enlightened leader saying, what were the two most important things or the most important things he saw that happened to his country? He said two, cellular telephones and China. So, but that in essence meant a huge spur of growth. What we need now is to begin to deal with all these problems that are not only growth, but chronic disease, as Seth was saying, and how to solve that. And that begins with a question of planning that requires more than just urban planning. It's gotta be paid for, and therefore the fiscal component of this is extremely important. And then how do you around that get the sustainability issues in place? And this is where all the connectivity and everything happens. But I think we're moving into an area where you're gonna see more solutions at the local level than at the, be it at the national level or the federal level. And I think this is a hugely important piece that we sometimes miss in understanding. If I can build on that, because I was gonna jump in when Shirley was talking about the new things we need, and what we also need are new partnerships when we're thinking about science and technology because for a long time, a lot of the investment in science and technology was focused on the problems of the North. So if you're thinking about agriculture, for example, how many people are thinking about the genes in sorghum or in other foods that are used in poor areas? And the challenge then is to get the great scientists that have those technologies, and this is gonna occur by working locally, forming partnerships such that we can focus those problems. And I think we're seeing now massive investments in China pay off with a change in beginning to use local solutions to local problems. And in the food area, the attention to rice and now thinking about how we can work on rice nutrition and better growth than others might not have been the first crop that Western countries would have invested in. So I think this is the new partnerships that are gonna occur. Okay, one more comment here. I mean, for China, probably you talk about the central government planning, but China now is lacking of a private initiative. I think Mr. Berkeley, I mean, Gary is a typical example of a public-private partnership. But in China, you don't see that quite bad. I mean, it's all government. I mean, you don't see private initiative. So I think China now needs to build on that. I mean, to really mobilize or sort of, you know, this private initiative is a tremendous private capital in the market that's not immobilized. I mean, so I think that has quite a bit of potential. I mean, if this government and the private sector collaboration, they can solve a lot of problems. So if we need new partnerships and we need new ways of speaking to each other and we, how do we put all these things together in the same place, guys? Well, I don't think you will find anybody capable enough to make it into one big master plan. It won't happen. I think what will happen is that those 7 billion people, 7 billion times one with a voice will have indeed on the local level an enormous amount of impact that wasn't being capable to be tapped into as recent as 10 years ago. It is there today. So that is a, I would say a force for good, but it will be a force with a brutal force into it as well because the adaptation on the factor of time that we have in our system, you wait till it's your turn, we first do it here and then we do it there, is no longer acceptable. Innovation today is happening everywhere at the same time. You know, in the old days, it was very good for my industry. I could sell stuff to the west and then when it was old fashioned, I could bring it to the next market and then I would come to Latin America. No way. Today, everything is happening everywhere at the same time. So the factor of time is not there. Localization is there and there's one other thing that we haven't tapped into. That is the collaboration between disciplines. We all state in our own territory. No more. If you are in education, you better open your doors nowadays. Well, let me speak to some of this. You know, there was a terminology that people had used a few years ago that came under the rubric of local and people spoke about localization and I think the marriage between what the two gentlemen here talked about is the problems and therefore the testbed can exist on a relatively local level and where there can be a lot of innovation but the solutions can take advantage of networks and collaborative opportunity to access a much larger set of minds and talents but the problem definition comes from what is happening in the given place. And by definition, when one does that, one will get multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary perspectives. Now, you know, I run a university. We in fact educate our students in disciplines but how we have them work is across disciplines and then we partner them actually with other teams in other countries at other universities and sometimes companies to work on problems of their definition. Of their definition. Not ours. And that's where I think you get the benefit of understanding what the local and regional needs are but you get the ability to bring more minds to the problem and so, and I'm not one who's so naive as to say we're about to enter Nirvana but I'm also one who says that we can't just talk about the problems and not think about solution paths at the same time. Can we talk a little bit more maybe about, you were talking about new tools for bringing those solutions. I'd like to hear, I think the audience would like to hear some specific examples of such tools. Well, you know, it's interesting and you run a university that's world famous and is doing this. If you think about 20 years ago, we really sat together physically in one place. There were institutions that were completely local in their arrangement and today we take advantage of IT and have these much broader conversations across disciplines, across countries, across problems and it's interesting because I suspect now universities, colleges, even secondary schools who are thinking locally are gonna be a thing of the past because they're not gonna be able to compete with this. The downside you talked about of the change and the knowledge and competition but what we need to have is in essence a new education system that trains people how to work in that environment and how to be culturally sensitive to those issues, how to have that level of efficiency but to work in a distributive fashion and in the disease area it's changed dramatically. We know hundreds of years ago diseases stayed localized. Today you can have breakfast in or dinner I should say in Nairobi, breakfast in Europe and lunch in New York and that virus hasn't had a chance to show itself and so people are moving, viruses are moving it has to be one global conversation with local solutions but we need to be working in a distributive network and that's really what's changed. Oh, as we look to educate our students we say they have to exhibit three things. One, they have to have more multicultural sophistication than they typically have the day they walk in the door. Secondly they have to have intellectual agility. Not that they work in every field but they can work with people across fields and across sectors. And third, that they have to develop more of a global view as well to understand how all of these things play off of each other. Now you ask what can we use? Well, we have ability to gather data from multiple places, massive amounts of data. People have developed and are developing ever better tools both to bring data from disparate sources, unstructured data and extract information. One is able to in fact apply better analytical tools to see what emergent phenomena may come out of that data. There are internet based collaborative tools, there are telepresence tools and all of these things people are using today they haven't become as ubiquitously used as one would like to see but it is happening. And it's interesting, I was actually a government official in an area that people worry about a lot, namely nuclear. I was chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So I don't see the world always in the rosy but the rosy colored glasses. But being a scientist one has to be solutions oriented. And I think out of this discussion, believe it or not, I think we're talking about solutions and so I'm excited about the discussion. I just think that one of the very important developments is to a point Ben was making earlier. It is no longer easy to simply transport a solution from China to Latin America to other parts of Asia. It has to have a local flavor. That's right. And if it doesn't, Ben's business is gonna have trouble or any other business because the competition that's going to come is very large. So we live in a world where tremendous amount of disruption and we will continue to have a lot of those disruption and we see it increasingly saying consumer goods. Especially as you see changes of taste taking place as you see this huge emergence of middle classes that is happening especially in the emerging countries. So it's really the partnerships and I think in this regard there's a tremendous change in business attitude of how to develop those partnerships with local governments, with national governments, in many areas, especially on many of these key areas where we need to find solutions very quickly. Food is one, chronic disease which we used to think that chronic disease is something of the ritual that's no longer the case. Obesity, cancer, especially in the case of women. All of these things are coming very quickly. And so the way to deal with them, you don't have a one stop shop. It has to be constructed in a different way. And I think this is the real, and no one model is equal to the next. And I think that's what makes this world in which we live extremely fascinating but increasingly more complex. So because no model is the same as the next, jobs like these of Louise or your previous job become increasingly more difficult. Because it's not just solutions that we want, we want affordable solutions. Because it's no longer acceptable to say to somebody, wait till the price comes down and it's also there for you. In a totally informed society, a totally connected society, a solution is not a solution unless it's affordable. And I see it day to day in our industry, well we have fantastic technology, but it wouldn't work unless it's affordable and the affordability is not defined by the top. It's maybe not defined by the bottom but it's defined somewhere close to the bottom. Because that's where the volume is. So I think that we will have that not just in the physical side but also in the policy side. We need solutions that are affordable and therefore implementable on a scale that we have never seen before. And time is no longer available to us. I think it depends on how we educate our young people. People talk about so-called frugal innovation which is meant to get at the kind of thing you're talking about, which is very important. But you have companies that are able to build a major machinery and they build it for a certain cost point in the West but they build machinery that works for a different cost point but it works. It's not that it's less reliable and so on. And so I think we have to educate the next generation to think more in those terms for solutions that work. And the combination of that plus what I believe is using the wise use of collaborative tools allows us to address these sorts of issues. Now, one of you, you may have asked the question about where do we get people to do this? Well, maybe it's not in one physical place but we draw ideas, again, locally focused solutions but we draw on a larger talent pool. And maybe this is a good segue actually to draw on the larger pool of talent in the room who I'm sure have questions from some of the statements the panelists have been making. There's a microphone in the room and I'd ask if you have a question or a comment for the group up here to please identify yourself before you make that comment or question. I see one on the left-hand side there. Thank you. My name is Shukla. I am president with Mahindra Group in India. I had a conceptual query and I agree with most of the conversation which flowed today but conceptually it's very interesting that more we talk about globalization, the more we talk about people facing similar issues all over the world, more we talk about issues going beyond the borders of a country, more we come down to solving, resolving, reconciling at local level. The two trends are actually happening at the same time. It's fascinating. We have seen it in the world of voice, data, internet, having seen the growth of mobile industry for long in India, China, developing world. I agree with some of the observations made. Actually last 10 years, GDP growth of many countries, half a percent to one percent was added by the growth of mobile industry. Once that growth tapered off from 2009 onward, not many realized that easily the half a percent got shaved from the GDP growth. Now is that a local phenomenon? Do we find local solutions to this? Or this is a global phenomenon. So when we combine science, technology, development, are we talking globalization or are we talking localization? So here is my theory and that's what I'll share online. Co-creation, what is happening is technology is what is going global, issues will remain local and therefore co-creation of solution is what is happening more and more. Any observations from the panel members? Thank you. Thank you. I think need, I like the way you articulated this codependency and co-solutions that are being done and I think need is ultimately what's gonna drive this. So if I look in the medical sector, we saw some new technologies for example to treat HIV. We saw companies try to reduce the prices and they did okay. We saw Indian engineers make dramatic reduction sometimes 60 and 70% with process improvements and scale up of the operation. That has effects then going back in the West as well to try to move to a world where prices hopefully are going to be coming down across all of these. And in that case, it was the skill of the Indian engineers in trying to serve a very large population at a low price point put together with some of the innovation that occurred on new disease pathways that together led to solution of a problem. And I think those type of co-solutions are gonna be more and more of what we're gonna see and driven by the local needs in different places. So I agree with your point. Well, I mean, let me say a few words. I mean, yes, I mean, when you say a lot of issues, I mean the currently we're in the process of globalization, a lot of issues seems to be localized issues, but actually they're not. I mean, localized issues, they are international issues. Let's say the critical point is that, I mean, in a seven billion people population world, I mean, there's one billion people that's rich. They're already, I mean, but they're six billion people they are trying to catch up. But one, they try to catch up. Think of the sort of energy, food, I mean, the environment issues. I mean, it's some of them are probably on the surface it's a local issue, but they are global issues. I mean, they ought to be dealt with with the international, the partnership, the international. I mean, they need to be well sorted out. I mean, research those issues to be dealt with, they are hard issues. I mean, there's something that you cannot easily get rid of. I mean, so it is sort of a challenge, a seven billion challenge facing us. One point that I think is important to take in mind, and this I'm sure Ben can say more about it, is that yes, we're more connected, but we still have a lot of gaps. And those gaps are related to the extension of badminton, especially in emerging countries. We've done studies that demonstrate that increases for every 1% that you increase in reach in bandwidth, you get an effect of about 3% in productivity. So it's huge. And the need for more bandwidth, especially I can speak for Latin America, which we study a lot, but I wouldn't think that that's very different in other parts of the world, is fundamental because the more connectivity that you have, eventually you're gonna be, it's gonna be more and more of an app's world and that's where the co-creation can happen. It's how do you begin to do that sharing to be able to deploy the creativity that we all need to, that we're talking about here. I think many times we tend to think that the problems are local because the gaps show up and the needs are more acute depending upon where one is in the world. But that doesn't mean that some of the solutions, in fact, are not global. Mr. Berkeley deals with the issue of vaccines and has structured very unique public-private partnership model, but those vaccines come out of research that will go on around the world. The question is how to get them in a cost-effective way to populations who need them. If one thinks about disease states more broadly, cost-effective ways to decontaminate, whether it's water sources or surfaces, these things may have an expression at the local level, but the solution can come out of a global framework. And so I would not want us to think that there, here's the bucket of the local and here's the bucket of the global. The point is they do play off of each other and I think it's a question, again, of accessing a larger solution pool. And the question of cost-effectiveness and having things not cost so much is not purely an issue for the developing world. It is more acute in many ways because of the gaps that you mentioned, Mr. Moreno. But in fact, if you look at the healthcare system in the United States, if we're gonna get to where we need to be, we've got to be thinking a lot more about costs and taking costs out and cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities and the role of diagnostics dealing with chronic disease and so on. So in that sense, and I would not like to have us devolve into thinking we have things that can only be amenable to local solutions. Well, you could start with getting the lawyers out of the system in the U.S., which is called healthcare, but leave that aside for a second. I think we have a multiple agenda item here. And I think the gentleman was absolutely right with his point that we globalize at the same time we localize. And the time that we have for an infrastructure is 20 years. The time for an application before you decide to pull it is 30 days on average. So on all dimensions, we're going to extremes and have to bring them together. We have seven billion and we have the one billion rich and the six billion who are aspirational. Those aspirations will not stay there forever. So we have a lot of these tendencies in extremes that we bring together. And therefore I think the observation was quite right. I have a follow on question for the panel. I'd like to ask everybody what you've found most instructive during this discussion and if there was one change you could make, what would that change be? We start with Mr. Wong and then go across. Very difficult question. Well, I mean, seven billion challenge is really the multiple. I mean, because before I came here, I'm not aware that the chronic disease becomes a part of this seven billion challenge. So it's really, I think in the agenda, I mean, there's a food, it's energy, it's environment. I think the list goes on. I mean, so the solution I guess, I mean, there's no easy solution there, but to identify what are the, you know, that list or what are the list? Then piece by piece, you have to deal with it. There is no grand scheme that one solution would cure all the problems, I guess. So it's really, you know, for each one of the problems you just have to come up with specific solutions to this and that's not an easy job. Thing I heard that in a sense scared me the most and interesting, I do a lot of conference calls and working with lots of people and you often feel like you're hurting cats and the idea that there were seven billion individuals who were gonna bring their creativity, it's a little of scary of a thought. And so for me, I think the one thing that brings all of this together is this issue of local and global together because I do think at the end that we're really gonna solve the big problems of our times by bringing together different fields but also by connecting the experiences in different places and I don't know whether it's seven billion people being creative about it but it is thinking new ways to bring those creative peoples together, structuring different types of partnerships and you know, if you think about it, it's not that long ago, 50 years ago where we had isolated parts of the world that were polarized and today more and more we're moving into a world where those are breaking down and that's what's leading to creativity so that's the excitement. So to me the most spectacular thing today was that we didn't have a discussion in between the developed and the underdeveloped world and what you said, we all need the same solution. That's really an eye-opening remark to me because you may be more right than I thought at the time that you made that remark. It is probably going to be a very, very different analysis that you're going to make if it isn't us against them but it's us. Well to me I guess the biggest point is whenever you have a problem it's important to begin to size it up and I think part of what we have all collectively said here and with the questions is kind of the nature of the challenge and I think before one can resolve any challenge it's important to understand what it looks like and certainly there is no easy way about it and I concur with Ben, it requires partnerships and it's going to be about all of us and not just us against them. I think for me what was interesting and edifying was the seven billion times one and that we really are talking about individuals. There are a lot of them but we're talking about individuals and there is a need to match and balance people's aspirations with their needs and that all of us have a stake as countries develop to think about how new models of development can occur. Of course I'm a big believer in the role of science and technology but that's not the only piece of it but we are all in it together and I do like the word co-creation. Thank you so this has been a fascinating discussion and I think you probably all see me taking notes up here just because I wanna remember these things myself, we talked about multifaceted problems that require synergistic solutions. I think we heard that in many ways from the panelists across the table. I was very impressed that we all understood that although there are some larger, broadly applicable solutions that they nonetheless need to be adapted for local needs and concerns and that we have to find new ways to build partnerships both public private, we talked about the China experience and trying to develop that, local to broader. I loved this, it isn't us against them but it's us, it's all of us together to have to work together to find these solutions that we have to better understand the challenges and bring in new ways of understanding not just the broader challenges that face us but how they flex from place to place, perhaps their data capture, there are many new tools for this and we need to figure out which we didn't dwell on so much in this conversation but touched on new models for development to bring those together with business in productive ways and along the lines of co-creation which is another word that I like as well. I guess I'd like to leave everybody with the idea that we might through better working together not just the policy and business leaders which we've talked about many times the World Economic Forum and other venues been terrific for doing that but also bringing in the research community in productive ways to help make those conversations happen. Like that would be great value to all of us. I'd like to just conclude by thanking I should have before mentioning that our reporture in the audience is Richard Jefferson, founder and chief executive officer at Cambio Australia and he'll be writing up these thoughts from this meeting. Before we conclude, any last thoughts from the panelists? I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for being such a good moderator. Very good. Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much.