 Hi, again, my name is Bill O'Brien. I'm a senior advisor for program innovation for the National Endowment for the Arts. And very delighted to have two terrific panelists here with us today to address the question of who gets to imagine for the human race, which I think I felt like we drew the long straw and had the, in some ways, the most compelling question. I have with me over at the end Tom Khalil. Tom is the deputy director for technology and innovation, technology and innovation division at the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House. And then right here to my left is Laurie Silvers. Laurie, along with her husband, Mitchell Rubenstein, were founders of the Sci-Fi Channel. And she served as its CEO for many of its formative years. She's also the founder of Hollywood Media and has served as its vice chairman, president, and secretary since its inception. Thank you for joining us. So as I mentioned, I'm really, really engaged and curious about how this question will be unpacked throughout the next 45 minutes or so. But I just gave both of our panelists a little bit of warning that the first question I'm gonna ask is gonna twist this a little bit and really bring it into a more personal realm. It seems to me that the future is largely gonna be driven by people who are not necessarily just following a set career path but are rather driven by a set of passions or answering a certain internal call. And so I just wanted to ask both of you. We'll start with you, Tom, on how did you, just on a personal level, imagine your way to this sort of odd path that you've taken from practicing law through the Carter administration and where you are today? I must be thinking of someone else. Oh, I'm sorry. So I'll just tell you a little bit about my background. So I've had the opportunity to work at the White House for 14 years now, eight years under President Clinton, as we say during those dark days of peace and prosperity. And now six years, coming up on six years for President Obama. And what I find endlessly fascinating about the work that I get to do is that on a good day I get to serve as a policy entrepreneur. That is to talk to lots of smart people both inside and outside the government who have a really interesting and important idea and then to figure out how to build a coalition around that. So in the late 90s, for example, I began talking to researchers in physics and chemistry and engineering who had this idea about nanoscale science and engineering, which is that at the nanoscale, not only were things smaller, but they had new properties and that this would be the equivalent of adding another dimension to the periodic table of elements. And if we had the ability to not only understand those properties, but to harness them, we might be able to do things like store the equivalent of the Library of Congress in a device the size of a sugar cube, make materials that are stronger than steel in a fraction of the weight and develop smart anti-cancer therapeutics that would deliver drugs only to tumors while leaving healthy cells untouched. And so we presented this to President Clinton as one of his options and he got excited about this, went to Caltech and gave a whole speech about it. When we started, the federal government was investing $270 million a year and now it's investing $1.5 billion a year. And as a result, all these new products are beginning to emerge from that that will help address major economic and societal challenges in areas like health and energy and information technology. So what is fun about my role is that I have the ability to interact with lots of people inside and outside the government and then some fraction of the time build the coalition that is necessary to take that idea from something that, a small group of scientists and engineers are thinking about to something that is on the national and global agenda by virtue of the President of the United States talking about it. So it's a great position to make things translatable in a way. So Lori, you and your husband sort of thought this idea of their needing to be a sci-fi channel. And just tell us a little bit about what drove you from that kind of platform to establishing Hollywood.com, Broadway.com. Well, let me tell you a little bit about I'm a business entrepreneur. So and I'm in Ogretown, Florida, which is not a hotbed, it's not Silicon Valley, it's not New York, it's not a hotbed of entrepreneur ideas, although there are a lot more there than you would think. But the concept of creating and dreaming big dreams has always been something that I've wanted to do, I longed to do, I'm a lawyer by background. And I think that training has given me a wonderful ability to look at ideas and concepts and kind of hone in on what the issues are. So early on in my career as a lawyer, I was representing a lot of people that were in the media entertainment business. And to be a good lawyer, you have to become a student of what your client is doing. I became a student of that world. And I fell in love with it. It was love at first lawsuit. And I decided that I wanted to make the shift from being a lawyer and representing to actually being a business person and owning. And it was a big shift because it's one thing to bill your client for hours and then go home and not worry about it anymore. And it's another to own a business and have to worry about payroll and growth and funding and all the good things that go along with being in business as an entrepreneur. And the translation of that is how to get money on a grassroots level where nobody wants to finance what you're dreaming of. So that's really what an entrepreneur is. I wish I had the president of the United States at my back, but that isn't always the case. So you've got quite the luxury. And just for years owning radio and television and cable and understanding the industry. And then at one point saying, I really want to make the giant leap. I want to own a cable network. What's not out there? So this was back in the late 80s, early 90s. And the term channel locked isn't relevant anymore but it was back then. There were 64 channels that you got through your cable operator and every cable operator was full. So to come up with a new idea, you had to not only come up with a new idea, get the funding, get the contract for carriage, you had to get cable operators to kick off an existing channel which was, that was mighty hard. So it had to be a channel that would be compelling and that the cable operator understood that there would be a huge audience for and the concept of science fiction programming 24 hours a day, seven days a week was a big idea. And the minute that we announced it, it just sort of took off and I had to put on my running shoes to keep up with it. There was an audience for it. The cable operators understood it. Believe me, there were a lot of issues along the way but it was a great idea and look where it is today. My husband and I are the co-founders, owned it and ran it for a period of time. We've since sold it and it is enormously successful. And it's enormously successful because science fiction is great writing. It's great entertainment. So it appeals to such a vast audience, not only like the folks in this room who understand and create great storytelling but to the audience that is hungry for that. So a wonderful experience in my life and I've gone on to create other things and my sensibility is to grab on to an idea that will change the landscape. That to me is challenging. Some have worked and some have not. And that's for another story completely. Okay, great, well thanks. Tom, I wanna go back to you and ask you a little bit about what to me seems to be some of the most outrageously imagining for the human race projects that are happening right now. Out of the White House, there's grand challenges. The Brain Initiative is among those. And if you could just give us a little sense of what the thinking is from the administration standpoint and how you're trying to marshal the hive to sort of advance us forward in these things. Sure, so one of the elements of President Obama's innovation strategy is identifying 21st century moonshots. That is what are some goals that are ambitious but achievable that have the potential to get the public excited about science, technology and innovation. And if we actually pulled it off and achieved them, it would be a big deal. And so we've been talking to a number of agencies and again people also outside the government about what are some of these potential 21st century moonshots. And some examples, one that the Department of Energy has embraced is called Sun Shot. The goal is to make solar as cheap as coal. NASA is pursuing a grand challenge to identify all the potentially hazardous asteroids which you may not think is a problem that we have to worry about over the next two years but if you take a slightly longer term perspective then it is clear that this is something that is not just science fiction that we do have to worry about it. And then in April 2013, President Obama announced a grand challenge to dramatically increase our understanding of how human brains work by being able to study the brain in action. So the idea that the research community came up with is that we have a missing middle that right now we can either measure the activity of a very small number of neurons or we can take a fuzzy picture of your entire brain but we can't record in real time the activity of entire neural circuits. So that's an example where in the same way that the scientific revolution really didn't get going until we had telescopes and microscopes. There are areas where we don't have the tools to really understand how the brain works. And so not only are NIH and DARPA and the National Science Foundation making investments but we are helping to build a broad coalition of companies and research universities, of foundations of scientific societies that are also making a really important contribution towards achieving this goal because we think that this is gonna require an all hands on deck effort. The thing I'm excited about with respect to grand challenges is that it's not just about governments. So let me give you one example of that goes to the question of the panel which is who gets to imagine for the human race. So the National Academy of Engineering worked with the universities to create a grand challenge scholars program. And so they are now allowing undergraduates to organize their coursework, their research, their international experience and their service learning around one of these grand challenges. And when it is, I think I would challenge even the most hardened cynic and the biggest pessimist to interact with these students and not come away feeling optimistic and about the human race because they're taking with these big ideas and they're running with them. So just to follow up on the Brain Initiative for a second. If you could, from where you're sitting, being very familiar with what some of the goals are and what some of the potential might be, if you were able to dream that in 2024, what are some of the outcomes that you think might take place? One is really about just improved fundamental understanding. So there's just so many questions where we don't know what's going on. As the president said with the three pound mass between our ears. So there's an important element of this, which is just like there's so many things we don't know about how the brain works and hopefully we'll have tools that will allow researchers to ask and answer new types of questions about how the brain works and how that leads to behavior and cognition. The second is that our hope is that these new tools will also eventually lead to clinical benefits that will have an improved ability to diagnose, treat, prevent and cure diseases of the brain, whether it's TBI or PTSD, which is a high priority for the president or Alzheimer's, which already costs the United States $200 billion and it's heading towards a trillion dollars. So if you think that research is expensive, you should try not doing things. And the third thing is that we think that advances in our understanding of how the brain works will also have technological benefits. So people are already starting to think about neuromorphic computing. The types of supercomputers that government agencies are thinking about building, if we did nothing today, would eventually require their own dedicated power plant. And yet our brain, which has 80 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses, only uses 100 watts. Engineers are in awe of that. And so that's why you're seeing the emergence of this new field called a neuromorphic computing. So those are the three hopes and dreams of the administration, the research community and patient advocacy organizations. Great, cool. So Lori, last night we had a little bit of a conversation just to sort of prepare for the panel and you were, I have to say, very modest in imagining that from media it might not be as powerful or as impressive as Tom and his role, even though he didn't practice law. But I have to say, I think media really does have a huge impact on society and on the way that our thinking shifts. I was thinking after our conversation that running joke on Seinfeld on, not that there's anything wrong with it, probably had as much, if not more to do with shifting perceptions on tolerance or sexual preference as any advocacy fight might have had. And I think for me, the establishment of the sci-fi network just created such an opportunity for people to geek out with their remote on things like Dark Shadows and Doctor Who. I'm sure there's many fans of both of those shows here. Are there any Hoovians in the room? Any? Thank you. How about Dark Shadows? Okay. Very cool. I thought I saw some people dressed as Barnabas Collins. But I wanted to actually just get into a little bit of gossip maybe in the beginning of this on how did you, how did you create the ability to secure these properties and for Dark Shadows or Doctor Who because they existed long before you were able to come and provide a syndicate platform for them? Well, a little bit of history is with the very, very first thing that I realized when, and I will answer your question, but it's kind of a long path to get there. I realized when the an asset was made that these entrepreneurs from Boca Raton, who were they, were going to be launching the sci-fi channel. The first thing that I realized that there was this enormous fan base out there that had to be addressed. And I couldn't walk into a room and make a presentation and pretend to know everything about science, fiction, writing, and literature, and filmmaking that had gone on in previous years. So I kind of honed in on somebody that I thought could give me some gravitas if I had to go to those meetings and that was Isaac Asimov. And Isaac at the time, I'm assuming everyone here knows who Isaac Asimov is. It's so disheartening if I go and speak to a younger audience, not that we're all, not young. And they look at me like, and I say, robots, does anybody know robots around you? Anyway, so I went to Isaac and I told him what the idea was and he was just this delicious genius who got it. And he said, you know, speaking of humble, he said, not that many people know who I am. My God, you're Isaac Asimov. Not that many people know who I am because they don't read, but they watch TV. And they go to the movies, but they watch TV. And I will be, I'll be associated with this and I will help you because I want to be able to touch the younger generation and get them interested in space exploration, mathematics and all the things that are kind of, you know, the touch phrases, but he really believed that. And that was the reason why he did become a member of our Board of Advisors and he, boy did he advise. And he was terrific. And then going on with his, nobody knows who I am, but I have a friend that is very successful in this world of television and filmmaking. And that friend is Gene Roddenberry and we all know Gene Roddenberry, right? This is such a cool group. Okay. And so he picked up the phone and he had collaborated with Gene many times during the course of the Star Trek television series. And, but just because he was a friend and he never asked for payment. He picked up the phone, he said, I'm going to ask for a favor. I want you to meet Lori and her husband, Mitchell. They're going to come out and you're going to meet them and you're going to be on their Board of Advisors. So it was kind of neat going to, right. I already knew the answer was going to be yes. And having those two, having those two icons and geniuses help along the way was enormously, enormously powerful to help get this where it needed to be. And it really was a puzzle. How do you go from what I thought was a great compelling idea and turned out it was to actually launching a cable, a national cable network. How do you do that without the help of not only not the president, but not Time Warner, Viacom, Turner, how do you do it without being part of one of the major media companies? And it was, and as I said, it was a puzzle. It was just putting all the pieces. It was getting the programming. How did I get the programming? Well, ultimately it was getting the meeting so that I could just make my case. And a one time I found out the person I was meeting with was a huge fan of Isaac Asimov. And Isaac wasn't able to go to the meeting, but I got him to sign like 20 books. You know, in each one had like a different phrase in it. And I came with my books and then I made the presentation and yeah, that was successful. I got what I wanted. But you know, it was getting the meetings. It was sitting there, it was being knowledgeable about how this was a great business. The world of science fiction is a great business. And that's how I sold it to the cable operators. I sold, but it was equally as important was selling it to the science fiction fan community. The Huvians, the Dark Shadows. And the writers and the readers, because they supported it. And like anything else, you need the support underlying the concept. So it was that. And of course at the end of the day, writing a big check. That helps. I'm a little bit leery of doing this because I'm a huge fan of Neil Stevenson's. And last night I heard he's from Iowa, which even raises him higher in my book. But something did come up last night that he echoed today that I was thinking about last night. This notion that big innovation comes out of gigantic institutions. And I think, I wonder if like frogs in the pot, if that had been true in the past, certainly in places like DARPA and Innovation Labs at places like IBM and Skunkworks. But it feels like in our conversations, for example with the National Science Foundation, that there's a really big disruption going on in terms of who gets to imagine and participate in this stuff. So if you think of citizen science, citizen journalism, I think with 3D printing and 3D textile printing, the idea of citizen industrialists. And really it's, if you think about it, it's kind of been going on for a while. Facebook and Apple and Etsy and even Microsoft mostly started out with a couple of guys in a bedroom or a garage. So one of the questions and certainly media, who gets to be controlling or creating content is all over the map. This whole Pro-Am sort of thing, I mentioned last night, my son has a YouTube channel. He has 400 views on one of his videos, which is not the 100 million households of SciFi channel, but still there's an enormous amount of energy and I think in some ways drive to participate that is happening outside of the gatekeeping that used to happen in a lot of different sectors. So we'd love for each of you to think about how those kinds of energies are considered and thought about in, for example, the grand challenges and in the future of media, which I'm sure nobody has the answer to, but just in terms of how you think that might be heading. But let's just start with the White House. Sure. So one of the reasons that President Obama decided to have the first ever White House Maker Faire is that we really do think that the Maker Movement is a way of democratizing the ability to imagine and design and prototype and make just about anything. So in the same way that cloud computing has lowered the cost of doing an internet startup from millions of dollars to thousands of dollars and that allows more people who have a new idea for an online service. We're beginning to see some of the similar phenomena occur not only in the world of bits, but in the world of atoms. So the situation where for the cost of a gym membership you could get access to a tech shop, get access to a million dollars worth of machine tools, learn how to use a laser cutter, a water jet that can cut through four inches of steel, participate with your peers and get help from them. Then if you have a really interesting idea you might be able to launch a crowdfunding campaign on the Kickstarter or in any go-go. And then we've already seen a number of instances where something will go from an idea to a prototype coming out of a fab lab or a makerspace or tech shop. But I think large organizations continue to play an important role and as he said, there are lots of organizations that start off small and become big. So you have individuals like Elon Musk who said, I wanna die on Mars, but not on impact. Achieving that goal, you're not gonna do out of your garage, right? And so he has had to mobilize the financial and human resources partnering with NASA to build a rocket that is capable of going up to the International Space Station delivering and retrieving cargo and now along with Boeing astronauts so that U.S. astronauts can be getting rides on U.S. rockets. But his long-term vision is to make humanity a multi-planetary species. And I would like to see more individuals and organizations with that level of audacity and long-term vision. Right, so in some ways it's sort of like having your cake and eating it too on the gigantic institution. I suppose you could say the White House and policy setting is one but engaging with sort of the crowd in a way. Absolutely, yeah, so one mechanism for us to do that is OSTP work with Congress to pass legislation that gives every agency the ability to support incentive prizes for up to $50 million. And so that allows the government to set a goal while being agnostic about what team is most likely to be successful, what is the best approach. And I think in general, a government that is stronger on the what and more flexible on the how is gonna be able to get a lot more novel ideas from distributed communities of innovators. Great, and just very quickly, that we're gonna go to questions in just a minute, but any thoughts on the future of media? Where we're going next? Well, I have all the answers, but I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna, y'all have to write them. Intellectual properties. Right, right, right. No, expensive. I believe that everything has a place and I'm an entrepreneur, so dreaming and believing that you can create what doesn't create and then figuring out all the pieces to make that puzzle happen. To me, it's like lifeblood. And I think as long as every, as long as our culture, our society, make sure that there's a playing field out there for everybody, for the big corporations to do their thing, for government to do their thing with their wonderful array of resources, but for the individual to feel, whether it's your son, who has the 400 subscribers on YouTube as an outlet for what he's creating, but just as long as that entrepreneurial spirit continues to live on and be nurtured, which it is, I mean, like crowdfunding and all these places that you can go to to give yourself the ability to move forward on your ideas and your dreams, I think that we all can imagine the future. It's much easier today than it was back when I was imagining the SciFi channel. So I think that's the, and this is kind of the loop from the first question, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Science Foundation and Endowment for Humanities has been in conversations for about a year on how we can try to invest in intelligent ways and all these energies happening at the intersections. And one of the things that seems to be coming up a lot for all of us, and I just got back from the European Union conversation where they were concerned about the same things, the idea of broadening participation so that in these emerging economies, trying to create opportunities for everyone to have the sense of the term that's often used, agency. So people imagine themselves actually participating. When you don't allow enough people to participate in imagining for the human race, you cause trouble. I mean, revolutions happen when Arab Springs happen when that doesn't take place. So I think the Maker Faire, obviously, is one way that the White House is doing that and the sort of democratization of content creation is certainly another one. But anyway, a quick hand for my panelists and we're gonna get to questions. We'll have about 10 minutes, I think. We've got questions. Yes. Thank you. I'm from Europe. I'm born in one country, living in Norway and French National. I've been working for years with European Commission. And my question is, which countries in the world you would like to have partners in what you are doing? Europe has a new government now. What you said is right. And we face probably differently but the same serious problem, democratization, mobilization, awareness. And we have blocks, homogeneous blocks in Europe. Difficult to penetrate, you know, I think very well. So I did some work also in China, in Japan. Would you like, I mean, would you, in your policy, the president and others, I can't promise you the moon but I have those organizations behind me. And I can start tomorrow if I can be provocative in America. Thank you. Well, it's a great question. And, you know, science and research is inherently a global enterprise. And I think the only question is, does it make sense to have, you know, sort of formal MOUs between governments or does it make sense to sort of enable more grassroots and bottom up scientific collaboration? And, you know, my experience has been that these collaborations are already occurring in a number of the areas that are priorities for the administration. So I don't think the question is, should we collaborate? I think the question is, should it be driven by the researchers themselves? Or is there, in what role is there for the government to facilitate these collaborations? Well, I'd just say from the European Commission meetings that I was just in, kind of funny for a second because they asked me to come and respond to a report that they did that was similar to one we did with NSF a while ago on creativity and innovation to advance productivity and competitiveness. And there was one point in the report that I noticed that it said there was a sense of urgency in Europe so that they could compete better with China and the United States. So I wasn't sure if I should give them bad information to send them down the wrong path. But I think what we ended up with is really, I think, a useful exchange especially in recognizing the need to let everybody participate in these emerging economies. That ends up serving everybody. That addresses things like social unrest and healthy societies. So there can be, I think, a very interesting way of creating a healthy co-opetition where we're providing information exchanges back and forth so that we actually do this in a wise way, not just a smart and productive and profitable way. So one area where I'm really excited about global collaboration is working together to help address some of the challenges of developing countries. So how many of you know who James Grant was? Anyone know who James Grant was? Who is James Grant? James Grant was a Kennedy administration thinker about and creator of the US International for Agency of International Development. So he served as the head of UNICEF and under his watch, he basically browbeat the countries of the world to focus on child survival. And when he got started, 14 million children under the age of five were dying every year primarily from easily treatable and preventable diseases. And that is now down because of his efforts and the efforts of many other people, it is now down to 6.3 million. So it's still unconscionably high, but as a result of things like vaccines and oral rehydration therapy and new drugs and improving the public health systems in developing countries, there really has been a revolution in child survival. And child survival is continuing to prove now at a rate of 4% per year. So thinking about what's after the Millennium Development goals and how countries with lots of know-how in science, technology and innovation can help address those is, I think, a ripe area of collaboration between the United States and Europe. Next question. My question is to Tom. To what extent should the federal government be involved in imagining the future? And to what extent is it a problem that we farm these envisioning out to events like this today? So 34 years ago, we had the Office of Technology assessment in the Congressional Clearinghouse in the future and they would convene events like we're having here. I worked at the Congressional Clearinghouse in the year that a representative of Gore envisioned the information superhighway. So I'm having events like this here. But now there's a consensus that we don't want the government involved really in doing that type of thing and it's good to have think tanks and academic institutions do it, they can do a better job. But it's anything lost in terms of let's say the lack of engineering sophistication scale, some of the issues that related here when you have think tanks and whatnot address these issues. I mean, the OTA has a scale that's unimaginable for a think tank or even an academic institution in addressing many of these institutions. And yet I think there's a consensus that this is the best way to have these type of conversations almost exclusively. Yeah, so the federal government is investing $135 billion a year in research and development. And if that isn't about, you know, fundamentally imagining the future, I don't know what is. So that process is going on all the time. But I don't think it's a process that should just be happening internally within the government. I think it should be happening broadly within our economy and our society. Let me just give you one example of an idea that is bubbled up from NASA engineers that I am particularly excited about. They wrote a paper called Bootstrapping a Solar System Civilization. And their idea was the reason that space is expensive is that right now all of the matter and energy that we use in space comes from Earth. What would it look like? And Corey Doctorow's chapter was a baby step in this direction, but what would it look like for the entire supply chain needed to support an interplanetary civilization to use the matter and energy from space? And, you know, I just think that is a phenomenally inspiring, you know, long-term vision that we could begin to be taking steps towards achieving right now. Great, one more question right here. Mike is coming to you. Hi, my name is Vandana Singh and I have several questions, but I'll try to restrain myself. So, a couple of things. One is the issue of global collaboration and helping developing countries. Before I actually ask the question, I want to just make clear my discomfort with the term developing country because of the fact that it assumes, among other things, only one path to development. And we know that the world development machine is basically trashing the livability of the planet. So, but one of the things I was wondering about is whether anybody has thought of a non-top-down approach to global assistance, which is to collaborate with people there with communities to see what they want and to find technologies appropriate to them. Because in a sense, if you think about it, I think for instance that it's rude to say push your religion on somebody, but we push a certain model of development and economics on other societies and cultures without asking what it is that's important to them. I know of at least one engineering school in the US that has that approach of actually going to communities and seeing what they want and then trying to come up with satisfying their needs. So, that was one thing I was wondering about. And if I may also, as somebody who is a college professor, comment on, is there a grand challenge on science literacy because it seems like an impossible thing to imagine to have the richest country in the world have really low levels of science literacy there? And also that, where do you see citizen science play a role in my science fiction writing? One of the things I'm interested in is technology that enables citizen science. And then whether in the science literacy mix we can throw in issues of race and gender in the sciences, which is a cultural problem as well. And so the media has a really important role to play. After all, for instance, the sci-fi channel is not just about money or even just about dreams. It's about truth. Like all media should be about truth at some level. And it's true that women can do science and do do science. So I guess I'm asking a mixture of questions after all. And I apologize for that. I'm going to respond to the science fiction one. So going back to the creators, and I do have to go back to them, Isaac and Jean. Jean was a tremendous believer in storytelling. Male, female, didn't matter to him. He just was a believer in great storytelling. And one of the reasons that he was so excited about at this 24 hours a day, seven days a week, programming of this kind of content was because he looked at it as a laboratory and a place that you could make mistakes. You could bring in new ideas. You could bring in new subject matters. And the marketplace would tell you what was going to be accepted and what was going to be rejected. But you were going to live and die by the sword. If it didn't work, throw it away and you put something else up. And that was, to him, that was a great luxury to be able to create basically without the boundaries of the suits, of the networks, going back into the days when we're talking about. And while it's a for-profit enterprise, there's no question about that, the fact that not everything has to work doesn't mean it will be, it will go down the tubes. And that, just to expand on that just a little bit, is an enormous freedom to have the ability, the right to think outside the boundaries, to think things that may not be acceptable to most of the people, but it's your ability and it's your ability to have the freedom to think in those directions that I think starts to answer the question, who has the right to think for the human race? We all do. And it's great when media can embrace that by creating a niche network and et cetera, et cetera. And now, of course, we live in a world of niche networks, but it started with the sci-fi channel. I like to think. Yeah, and I think that you're actually echoing some of the things that we were mentioning earlier about broadening participation. That might be, absolutely diversity is a big part of that, making sure that everyone is given to what extent we can, the type of agency that these panelists both felt as they imagined themselves in the future and actually participating in the future of the human race. We're supposed to stop, but did you have anything very quick that you wanted to respond to? Yes, let's work together to create more positive self-fulfilling prophecies. Yeah, excellent. Great. Perfect. Thank you.