The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the Forum is tied to no political, partisan or national interests.
At the World Economic Forum’s Open Forum, “Which 2050 Do We Want?”, panelists converged on a vision of dignity, sustainability, and rights—while warning that reaching 2050 is not guaranteed. Zainab Azizi called for a “liberal, democratic… world at peace with itself,” arguing public policy often fails communities, leaving civic action to fill gaps (as with Afghanistan’s bans on girls’ education). Amnesty International’s Agnes Callamard opened starkly: “First of all, I want us to get to 2050,” warning that accelerating authoritarianism could make that impossible and insisting accountability must replace “double standards” in the global order.
Adam Tooze framed climate progress as both urgent and feasible—“tripling renewable energy… doubling energy efficiency”—and stressed Africa’s centrality to 2050 demographics and development. Taylor Hawkins emphasized rebuilding civic capacity and “the literacy and the hygiene” to engage policy, citing Australia’s under-16 social media ban as well-intentioned but systemically incomplete. AI CEO Arjun Prakash argued AI will amplify societal incentives; without redesign, it will concentrate “wealth… [and] agency.”
On misinformation, speakers moved from individual media literacy to structural reform: Callamard urged regulating “the entire business model” of platforms, Tooze called for “embodiment of knowledge” and sustained attention, and Prakash summarized the scalable solution as “accountability.”
Guten Abend. My name is Alois.
Good evening. I'm a member of the foundation of the World Economic Forum. I would like to bid you a hearty welcome to this first session of this year's Open Forum. The theme of this year is to develop visions for 2050. Tomorrow starts now or today is the first day of the future. As we can say, for more than 20 years, the Open Forum has been a place where we have dynamic debates. We want to bring in all the different perspectives and discuss about them, and also discuss themes which are of interest for you in the audience. We want you to participate in the debate, and therefore, we are very grateful that you have taken the time to be with us tonight and discuss with us over the next few days. We will have many discussions about decisions which we will take today or not take, and what will be the impact and influence of this on our future life. As far as technology is concerned, health, nature, climate or also the development of our societies and of all of us. Therefore, we are all concerned. Therefore, I would like to thank you again, as you have taken the time to be with us tonight, and I wish you to have interesting discussions this week, and I hope that you will leave Davos or stay in Davos. If you live here with new insights, many things you have learned and seen here for the first time, and I would like to wish you a wonderful evening. Thank you very much.
All right.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Rhoda, host of the global business report on Arise News. Happy to be here moderating this panel. And thank you to the World Economic Forum for doing the work for me and introducing the topic. We're very much looking forward to your thoughts as well. So we're going to begin with our panel. I think it's fair to allow everyone here briefly to pretty much tell us the 2050 that you're looking forward to. Some folks want a 2050 where there's only female presidents, or some folks want the 2050 where there's only electric cars. So just feel free to share the 2050 that you want, and then we'll get into more specific questions for each of you. Then round robin, and then we'll bring in our audience. Zainab, I'm going to start with you. What 2050 would you like to see?
Of course. Well, I am young. I'm a woman. I'm from the so-called Global South. So that should be a teaser for what's coming next. What 2050 do I want? And honestly, the question asks, what 2050 do I want? But I really went in and asked so many of my colleagues, friends, even a person who was in charge of running a social media company to tell me what 2050 do they want so that I can tell something along the lines that resonates with most of us. And the best of the answers, included a world that's liberal, that's democratic, and that's at peace with itself. And there was a strong emphasis on a world that's at peace with itself. And that doesn't need to really have this fight back and forth. And that strongly connects with the 2050 that I want. Of course, human rights at the center of it. I don't want a 2050 where we need to come back again and talk about the conversations, the conflicts and all these problems that we are dealing with today. But also at the same time, I wanted 2050 that we feel prepared. We know that across generations, youth, elders, children all feel ready for what's coming next and what's happening now and that they feel included and that they are included. A little idealistic, for sure, as we can see it. But that's what young, young, a young woman can do, you know, that's what they can put forward in front of everyone and push for it as a result of their, hope and resilience. And I would stop there.
All right. And I actually should be introducing everyone. Zainab Azizi, of course, global shaper with the World Economic Forum in Kabul. I'm going to come over to. Yes, fantastic stuff. Wealth is doing some great work. This is a very diverse panel. Everybody's doing great work here. Up next, of course, is Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International UK. Agnes, what's what, 2050?
Well, first of all, I want us to get to 2050, right. That's the first thing. And frankly, given, how some of the political leaders are behaving right now, I think we do need to question whether we as, as a, as, as a collective can actually reach 2050. So that's my first wish. My second wish is that we get to 2050 without annihilation of half of the world, without World War three, without more repression, more genocide, more destruction of the environment that we have seen. So that's my two big wish, for 2050. Now, if we do manage to get to 2050, if we manage to have the vision to imagine a 2050 without the destruction of the world, if we have the strength to be like the 1945 generation that reimagine a world, but without World War Two, I would want to have 2050 that is predicated on a relationship between human and the planet, that allows for a sustaining lives. I would like to see biodiversity, respected. I would like to see equality, being, maybe not a thing of the past, but certainly something that we are committed to decrease equality, inequality within, state and between state. I would want to see a 2050 that is centered on human rights protection, individual rights, collective rights. I would want to see a 2050 that recognizes the ills of the past, the injustice of the past that is predicated on the notion that those responsible for those ills, those responsible for bringing the planet to its knees, those responsible for genocide, are actually paying for it in 2050. Thank you.
All right.
Thank you so much for that. Professor, professor Adam Tooze is the director of the European Institute at Columbia University. Professor, what's your, what, 2050 do you want to see?
I don't think I ever thought I'd be saying this, but an autonomous and self-determining Greenland, I would.
Take all right.
At this point. And all that implies of the one of the two countries that I hold a passport of, because getting us there at this point imply a substantial change in mind, which may be one of the themes of this week here at Davos, an unusually important, important Davos, I think in that respect, more seriously, I think I would double down not that that isn't serious. I would double down on I would double down on the climate and environmental balance question. And I would double down on it because it's so precisely defined what we need to do. And because the astonishing good news is that we're actually now in the mid 2020s, in a position to get to, at least for a very large part of the problem, something like sustainability over the next is quickly as the next ten years we can, we have a chance of hitting the Dubai commitments of 2023, which is a tripling of renewable energy capacity and a doubling of energy efficiency. These are not impossible goals and they're crucial. They're absolutely crucial. And you just see it all around. This is the warmest I've ever seen Davos. It's crazy. As we were coming up it was like eight degrees at Klosters. It's mad I mean this is truly a thing that is happening. And of course this isn't a problem principally for incredibly rich and privileged people like ourselves. Here we'll all find ways of coping, I'm sure. But I think if you're looking out to the horizon of 2050, the absolutely central question are the developmental possibilities of Africa full stop? Because by 2050, I'm going to be white and very old, and the majority of young people in the world will be African. And that is a radically new scenario. I mean, you know, Asian predominance is the historical norm, but the emergence of Africa as a densely populated center of global demographic dynamism is a radically novel phenomenon in some ways, of course, a very good news story, but one that demands an answer to the question of development and energy is central to that. And we have the opportunity at this moment to make that sustainable. So that, for me, is the thing. That's my hope, I think.
Thank you. Well, I'm from Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa. So thank you so much for mentioning.
That your ground.
Zero, I. appreciate you. I appreciate that very much. Taylor Hawkins, you, of course, are the global shaper with Sydney. Of course, here. Of course, in Kabul. What's your 2050 that you want to see?
So I think my head in my heart have different answers. I give us both. Well, both, I think are a future that's defined by dignity, by justice, by things that feel far out of reach at the moment, by sustainability. I think where my head sits, though, is that we need strategy fueled by hope, and hope alone won't get us where we need to be. And I feel like there's been two unfortunate windows that have clashed, which is one where we didn't have access to the information we needed, another one where information is now so freely available, but our attention is kidnapped and so we've not. And I would say I speak for young people. Maybe in this perspective, I don't think we've both had access to the massive information and command over our attention at the same time. And so I hope for a 2050, because we can't possibly predict the challenges that we will be facing in 2050. We can estimate, I think, or anticipate. But what I hope is that we have the societal infrastructure, we have the literacy and the hygiene to know what levers to put our hands on, because right now, that literacy, that understanding, I think is predominantly in the hands of people who are not correcting the trajectory in the way that we need it. So I hope that the shiny conversations about policy, about infrastructure, about social connectivity become become cool, become engaging and become something that we can engage with effectively and practice the art of difficult conversations. It really deeply worries me. It has. I'm seeing that art sort of shrivel up in society, so our ability to sit in the presence of people we disagree with and and almost find a sense of fulfillment and joy in that. So if we can be defined by that in 2050, I think we'll be in a far better situation, whatever emerges.
Fantastic. Thank you so much for that. Arjun. Prakash, he's a co-founder and chief executive officer at distill AI. And that, of course, is one of the core topics here at Davos around the world. Prakash. What? Arjun, what 2050 do you want to see?
Yeah. As a technologist, I spend a lot of time thinking about what this paradigm shift that AI is going to bring is going to mean for all of us. And I have a very simple hope for 2050, which is I hope we as a world can afford every single human agency and dignity. And let me explain why I say that, it is inevitable to me that in 2050 we will have a world where there is an abundance of systems that require intelligence. I think, healthcare, human services, education is going to be abundant. It's going to be very easy to scale these systems. And what it also means is that there are consequences for economic structures that today require these systems to scale with people. And there is a, in my opinion, bad version of this, which causes disenfranchisement of a lot of people who today are part of scaling these systems. And I think there's a very optimistic version of it where we today make a commitment and a choice to redesign our economic and cultural systems to accommodate this new world and afford each person the freedom to have agency to participate in it, because the nature of many people's jobs is going to change, and we need to bring them into the fold, because I think this should be a collective move upwards. I think there are a few times in our history where there have been the opportunities to make a collective move upwards, and I genuinely wish we do not waste this opportunity.
All right. Fantastic. Thank you all for your opening thoughts there. So now we're going to get more specific. Zainab, how does what how much of an impact will, should public policy have in shepherding us towards the 2050 that you want? With all the things you mentioned that you want to see, how much does public policy. And you can also tell us with what you've seen with public policy, is living up to your standards?
Yes, I have seen it all. I guess, It's interesting. So I mentioned a liberal world, a democratic world, and a world at peace. And all of it combined from a top, bottom approach would center itself in public policy because all of us are bound to each other, serving each other or becoming one by Allah. And throughout history, it was either the law of nature or the law, some sort of law, some sort of policy, some sort of regulation has ruled upon us, and we have wanted that law to be there for a purpose, to serve, ourselves, to serve our needs. But does it really meet all the needs we are putting out there, to respond to? That's another question, of course. And my I have a deep from from all the experiences in life, immigration, conflict, our schools being bombed, my country being cornered, and of course, many other countries being cornered. Around the world, you see that public policy at times doesn't really respond to the needs of people, but it's the civic engagement is the the deeply societal, efforts from young people and at times old or children really bring the change. And, it has happened in its simplest form that we can see or hear about these days is protests. When public policy doesn't respond to our needs, people get up, raise their voice, and they protest, and we see that everywhere. But sometimes if it doesn't, if you if your country or the system that should govern and respond to your needs doesn't respond to you, respond to you, but restrict you, and you cannot protest, then you go and create or establish efforts, hidden or in the public that can address your needs. And as an example, huge example is education is banned for girls above sixth grade in Afghanistan specifically, not specifically, but mainly for young girls. But what happened? And the policy is not responding. Regional efforts are not there. International law, nothing is responding, responding. And it's a basic human right that's denied. So what is happening is youth around the world, Afghans non-afghans. They are putting in efforts creating platforms using tools such as AI or other, or they're just basic efforts to reach out to these girls through internet, through websites, through, meetings, to respond to their basic wish of getting education. And that's where I believe public policy fails, because we as humans, not all of us, some of us fail to really, center it on the people of that community. That's just as an example. That's just an example closest to my heart. But, I'm sure we all have many examples, other examples that we can resonate with and talk about.
Thank you for that. Zainab. Agnes, you've spoken, you know, about the your worries over the spread of authoritarianism across the world. And Zainab was just talking about, you know, protests. And we've seen a number of protests flare up in different regions as we march towards 2050. The protests seem to be matching. Well, I'm going to put that to you. Do you think the protests are matching the spread of authoritarianism and authoritarianism essentially? Is there a check on it in your view?
Well, authoritarianism is galloping, it's increasing. It's not just an Amnesty International finding. It's a finding of everyone who research human rights, democracy and so on. Some of the, the most, long term studies have concluded that right now we're back to 1985 level, in terms of how many people in the world live in so-called democracies. So we have lost some, counts since 1985, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, all the progress we've seen, a U-turn for people around the world. Authoritarianism is quick. Democracy takes a very long time to be established. Look at the United States. 12 months of Donald Trump in the white House. And it is a playbook of how authoritarian practices get embedded into every institutions, from attacks on freedom of expression, freedom of the media, academic freedom, freedom of association, attacks on dissent, creation of new, militarized, security forces that are unbounded. The attacks on migrants and refugees, on trans, on women's all of those things have taken place in 12 months. Can you quite grasp that? How long does it take to create equality? A true sense and experience of safety, of security? All of that has been literally destroyed in 12 months. And I have many friends in the United States. I've lived there. There are many friends who are brown people, black people. And the fear, the fear that they under which they live every day is palpable, palpable. So it's everywhere. And it's not just Donald Trump. You, you you could believe that Donald Trump has brought us to there. No. For more than eight years, Amnesty International has been denouncing the slow but true spread of authoritarian practices, throughout Europe, emergency legal decisions have become normalized. Policing has become grounded on practices and including linked to surveillance and facial recognition that have led to many, many abuses. Attacks on non-discrimination have become very commonplace. And what what do we have to say about other places, such as such as Iran, for instance, where thousands of people have lost their lives in in the last week, combating one of the most cruel authoritarian regimes. So we are all being impacted by the rise of authoritarian practices around the world. There is no easy solution to it. It's not just, disrupting Donald Trump. It's not just resisting Donald Trump. It is also looking at our own society and unpacking the dynamics that have made those authoritarian practices possible. The fears, the anxieties, including over AI. And how do we tackle it? I think that's the key questions. I mean, there is no doubt that it is unchecked. There is no doubt that it is everywhere right now. The key question that we need to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it? Because make no mistake, authoritarian practices lead to very bad things for a lot of people. And when it becomes a global phenomena, it leads to, you know, what we saw in 1940. So we really need it is incumbent upon us to combat authoritarian practices wherever we are. We do not need to be in New York. We do not need to be in Paris. We do not need to be in Davos. We can combat authoritarian practices in our village, in our communities, in our families. And we must combat it, because if we don't, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the destination will not be 2050. Let's be very clear. We will not get to 2050.
You raised a very great point. Yeah, clap if you want to go ahead. And, I know we're running short of time, but I have to follow up on this because you just mentioned the authoritarianism in the United States and the cruel regime in Iran. Well, what do you make of Donald Trump threatening? He doesn't like Iran, right? So that's one authoritarian figure taking on another regime. And then with what happened in Venezuela, can you what does that muddle things up when one authoritarian.
Well, of course, I mean, if you know, everything is muddy, everything is gray. I can fully understand why many of my friends and colleagues from Venezuela have a lot of reluctance to denounce what was an act of aggression against Venezuela. And maybe if I was Venezuelan, I will say, yeah, maybe it's not great for international law, but wow, 150 political prisoners have been released. So this is the reality. This is a messy world we live in. But do we need to sign a pact with evil in order to get something that we believe is going to be okay? And do we have any historical evidence of that kind of. Well, we have just Afghanistan here. Do we have a lot of evidence where this kind of foreign aggression against the country is bringing lots of betterment in the long term for people? Actually, I don't have a lot of evidence to it. So I think I'm going to resist being forced into a corner where I need to make a choice. And I want us to make, to create and to claim the space of denouncing, both denouncing U.S. aggression on Venezuela and denouncing the crimes against humanity that have been committed by the Maduro regime against its own people, and that he will need to be held accountable for. But that is not going to happen in a New York prison. It should happen in a Venezuelan prison, and it should render account to his people, not to God knows who. In fact, in New York.
Well said. Thank you so much. Professor, I saw you raised your hand. I think I read your mind. If anyone wants to chime in on this, you don't necessarily have to go with the question. If you want to follow up on what's been said, that's fine. But, professor, go ahead. Do you want to follow up on that? Because I want to ask you about climate change and where we're going, or did you want to comment on, what Agnes said?
Yes, please. I mean, I know it's not very Davos, but I think at some level we actually have to talk about politics, right? I mean, when you talk about public policy, we need to talk about the politics that make public policy. Right. When we talk about the long struggle for various types of rights in the United States, we have to talk about the political forces that conducted that struggle and who their opponents are. And though I take it, I think your point is right about the fragility of rights regimes and how quickly they can be broken. They're a little bit like ice. It takes a while to grow and then you can break it. But we shouldn't underestimate the extraordinary persistence with which right wing politics in the United States since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which is the truly convulsive upheaval in American democracy that still is working its way through our society today, right from that moment onwards, a countermovement began that is now finding its success. And we are hosting them here, and we are going to sit with them, and they are the legitimate and bona fide heirs of that generation, including the president himself and his family. And the very least we can do is speak openly about the history of the clan and the history of the lynching and the history of Jim Crow, and the history of Segregationism and its apologists running all the way through to the 90s and the 2000, who are deep inside the Republican Party. And I say this as a Democrat who lives in a highly segregated city. So this is not just about party politics. Racism and America can't be reduced to that. But we need to be clear about who it is has been trying to make change and who it is, who's been trying to do the opposite and to undo it. And those cultures of violence that we see in ice, they come from somewhere. Anyone who spent any time in America knows that people have reason to fear the police. They have reason to fear the police. As a white guy, I've never felt this before. But since I've lived in the United States, I've known at least around the edges, what it means to fear people in uniform because it's capricious and it's hypermasculine and it's deliberately violent and it's deliberately abusive, and it's simply a fact that we have lived with in the United States forever. Right. So at that level, this isn't new, but what's radical about it is just how uninhibited, how empowered, how shameless it is and how little resistance, frankly, there has been to what's been going on. The big hope are the midterm elections in November, and everyone has just got their fingers crossed. The democracy will work and they will deliver a giant, crushing rejection because American society has an overwhelming majority of decent people who, even if they are conservative, hate the sight of giant, overgrown bully boy men hurling women to the ground and abusing children. That's that. It isn't popular. It's one of the weird things about it. It's not actually a proper authoritarian populism in that sense. It's quite sectional. It's very, very strange what's going on. But yeah, let's talk about climate. Yes. Do these people also deny the climate? Yes they do. They do in a staggering way and in a way which has the same qualities. Right. Because this time around they haven't just politely withdrawn from the Paris Accords, which is Trump versus one. Right. Very gradually he says cheerio. And then finally they exit in 2020. No, this time around, they've left every single UN organization, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which America brought into being under a conservative American president in the late 1980s and then in the Maritime Organization, we known where there was an effort to clean up one of the great, hard to abate sectors, which is maritime transport. We know they used literally mafioso methods of going into the negotiations and picking off the representatives of small countries and threatening them with personal sanctions, which is ruinous to anyone who moves around the world. Right, because it basically means you lose access to your bank, to your phone. You can't function. And they threatened the representatives of the smallest states so as to create a blocking veto minority. That prevented us from moving rapidly towards the decarbonization of shipping, where we actually had well organized. Let's be clear, Maersk well-organized first mover business groups were pushing that. That has been one of the projects of this organization and this American government that we are hosting, who has a house on the promenade celebrating 250 years of God knows what. Those people deliberately sabotaged these negotiations. We are still going to sit with them. I'm going to chair a meeting with Lutnick tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon, like I am going to do my job as chair. But we should be clear about who it is we're dealing with. And they are taking those tactics of intimidation and personal threat into the climate space. And that is the reality that we're dealing with at this moment.
Thank you so much.
Very much. Appreciate the passion of the of the panel. Taylor, I'm going to come to Australia and it's still on public policy. You wear many hats. You're also, you know, working on a lot of youth initiatives. As far as the future of youth is concerned. I do want to ask you about the policy in Australia, where, under 16 are banned from social media moving forward to 2050. Is that you know, they're saying they're doing it because they're protecting the youth and that's what you that's where your work is. How do you how are you viewing that dynamic?
Well.
Feel free to be as passionate as the rest of our panelists.
No, I have to say it's a really good sign when you're on a panel and you get so enthralled with what someone else is saying that you lose all comprehension for the fact that you're about to have to talk. Look, I think I request the grace of the room as I navigate what, at least in Australia, is a very political question. As someone who runs a non-partisan organization. So, humor me as I do some acrobatics. Look, I think that the social media ban policy in Australia is an excellent example of long, termist looking policy that maybe fails to look at the broader system. If we break that down into three elements, you can think participation, policy and people. So from a participation perspective, it maybe wasn't best practice the way that it was done. It was moved through incredibly quickly from a lot of the youth networks that I work with. They didn't feel adequately engaged. And given that it is a youth centered policy, that's a fascinating feature of this policy that's come to be, and the impact of that is not just on the outcome in the policy itself, which I'll get to in a second, but it erodes the sense of engagement and that civic infrastructure that we've spoken about. And I think that comes back to what are the things that we watch silently and allow to happen, because as an Australian who feels way off in the corner away from the US, I've been trying to take it very seriously to say what of what I'm seeing over here? Do I see in small doses in my own country? And it's it's a fascinating thing to think about. The second thing that I would say is on the policy itself, do we need to get young people off social media? I would say unequivocally, yes. I don't have an objection to that concept because I imagine in 2050 will view social media the same way we do many other drugs. I don't know, many deeply happy, joyful and fulfilled people who spend a large amount of time on social media. That being said, is it a systemically viewing policy that's looking at all of the factors to keeping someone safe online, which is the skills, your ability to interpret mis and disinformation, your ability to build the supportive relationships if and when something damaging does happen online? And as a woman who spent enough time on the internet, I can tell you it's probably if you spend time on the internet for the duration of your life, at some point you will see something that is damaging to you psychologically in one way or another. And we need the skills, we need the relationships, we need the support networks in order to address that. And at this point, that policy in isolation, without the systems view, does not deliver on that. I have hopes and ambitions that we can build that around it. But it's an interesting, maybe hamstringing of the policy as it stands. And then you've got to look at the people factor. When we're leaving people without the systemic support, the blame game will inevitably start to happen. And so what we need to be doing is trying to set ourselves up for success from the beginning, thinking about who's involved in this decision making process. It's a heartbreaking reality that democracy done well is slow, but it is that upfront investment for long term payoff. And it comes back to the central truth of it's short termism is the drug. We want the payoff, we want it quick and we go for the sugar hit immediately. But what we really need to do is invest in the kind of robust policy and processes that can stand the test of time and be safeguarded against some of the frightening things on our horizon.
Thank you so much for that, Taylor. Arjun.
Let me. Arjun, I want to ask you about artificial intelligence and some worries about a divide that is growing. I mean, your company distill your assisting enterprise, giving enterprise solutions to companies with artificial intelligence. And my question to you is, do you share in that worry, with respect to inequality, to where as we move forward to 2050, those who have the resources and have access to AI, will be far outpacing those that don't have the resources to to access that. What are your thoughts there?
It's a very relevant question. So let me just start by saying something that I think, hopefully most of us can agree with technology. And AI is an amplifier of a set of intense and culture we choose to program it with. It's not AI making decisions. It is a set of values. We as a society choose to align the system with. And I think that fundamentally we need to decide what are the incentives we want to set up for society in pursuit of this new model. In the lead up to 2050? I, I think that again, this requires long term thinking. There are there is a lot of short termism right now. Right. Like CEOs are optimizing for the next quarter. There is a there's a temptation to optimize for the next election. And what the moment calls for is some statesmanship and long term thinking to design what are the policies and systems we want that actually can perpetuate. And once we program the AI with it, it's going to amplify that. If we don't change the incentive structure that had been designed for the last few decades with a certain economic model, you're going to end up with concentration of wealth. More importantly, and you're going to end up with concentration of agency because fewer people are going to make most of the decisions that get amplified ten-x larger by these systems. Things that used to take five years now can happen in six months with AI. So there is a need for conscientious long term thinking, which is, which is, I think, a moment that is here and now and not a problem. We can afford to kick the can down the road five, ten years. That's my point of view on that.
Thank you so much for that.
All right. So those are the specific questions. Now we're going to go you know round robin got a few more minutes where we get our audience involved. Before the World Economic Forum began with did here in Davos left did release a report on global risks based on surveys. They had a top ten or top 20, the number one based on surveys. The risk that, you know, respondents, you know, indicated was geopolitical tensions. Right. And we've touched on that already. But within that top ten was misinformation and disinformation. And I guess you know how your worldview is shaped in addition to your education background and so on, is the information that you're filtering in. And there is a worry that as we get closer to 2050, you know, misinformation and disinformation is just it's gathering steam. So my question to the panel, just one after the other is how to combat that. Because even with AI and the deepfakes and so on and so forth, this stuff is getting more complex. And social media is also has a role in that as well. So how do we how do you think we can effectively combat misinformation and disinformation as it spreads?
It's super important. It's at the heart of awareness and knowledge to understand what misinformation and disinformation is. And it's also relatively important to touch upon the fact that how misinformation and disinformation can be categorized for certain set of information and a specific region, is not the same or not explained the same way to another region. So there is always that the different standards set around how we defined these terms or any other term. But yes, what we can do, ground realities are usually so different than what we see on, on, on our screens. And of course, we are so used to seeing our screens that we forget to touch and reach out to people who are on the ground, who are living the life. I have lived under conflict. I have been refugee in several countries and people to people relationship has always been extremely different than what they portrayed in two words either newspaper back in the day or now. I'm not too old though. Or now the social media, that you would see people come, you would see someone new come to you, talk to you with a prejudgment of a situation, not trying to understand you, but just to impose their ideal, ideal reality in their head on you. And that judgment is created through, not knowing really what misinformation and disinformation is and just reading the text or the words in front of you and following through. Okay, this is correct. There are things. There are contexts without having context, you cannot really understand the situation. So to fight back the misinformation or disinformation, in any region in the world, I believe we can take several actions. One, to engage those local voices into these global platforms that we are all seeing. If you don't have the local voices, if you really don't understand what the ground living lifestyle is, let alone knowing in general what the tradition or what the ruling authority there is, you cannot really understand the difference between the different subjective opinions that you can have towards the story. Let's say in a village for I would give examples for my country because that's where I come from. And I don't feel, okay with giving examples from other countries. That would be me questioning myself first. So in villages in my country, there are some traditional norms and systems that allow people to respect elders with their decisions and listen to them, and that's basically a transaction created in that society. Governments changed, interventions happen. So much happened, War happened. But that transaction between the elders and its community or that tradition or, naturally established.
Relationship between that community is always there. It's there till today when governments fail. People didn't have anyone to go to or an office or an authority to go to, to get a letter for their employment or anything else. And what they would do is rely on that elder of the community that they had selected to get their word and go present that to another village or wherever they wanted to go. So but when it comes to international understanding of those ground realities, we think that those these people don't like systems, whereas they have been filled throughout history and they don't feel that anyone responded to their needs, so that any system that was brought upon them that was imposed on them was able to sustain itself. So when you don't understand these small nuances around someone's understanding of life, which has been truly different from you, everyone in this room is truly, truly privileged. I myself am very privileged. I wish instead of me there was a woman from a country who was who was under conflict, who has been stripped of all their life, who has lost family. Sitting here and talking to you guys instead of me. And I truly, truly wish that happens one day in any platform like Davos so that not us. It's not us versus them or someone going through all this process and formality to explain these nuances around us, stories, culture and inclusion or any other thing that we want to raise. So that's where we can fight misinformation and disinformation, to create context, to understand, to listen to people, to not come with a prejudgment or think that what we think, what we have been taught through academia or any platform is correct for the whole world. It's not. You have to listen to the people. If it's war, if it's anything, just those people. If they say, we don't want your system, that's their decision. So you cannot impose your reality on them. And that's where the whole divide increases if you keep imposing. If the world, if the one region of the world keeps imposing, imposing on the rest of the world.
Thank you for that. Thank you so much for that, Agnes. I have to tell you, I've had a debate with a family member who didn't believe the amnesty information. Amnesty data I was giving them about the issues going on in Venezuela, about the Maduro, regime. So I really want to throw this to you. How do we if if I'm talking to somebody who's educated and has, you know, doesn't believe data I'm giving them? How do we how do we combat misinformation and disinformation? How do we do this education?
I think, is certainly key literacy on, apprehending what people can read on social media and internet. And I think in many, curriculum right now, it is starting. So I'm hoping that there will be, you know, at least in 2 or 2 generations from now, I think we will have people far better able to tackle what they are reading on social media. Look, I think we need we need the holistic approach to technology, and it means the regulation of the business model of of social media, the the notion that, some hateful information, some, some kind of information gets much more, spread and circulation because they are more likely to resonate in some part of the people's brain. I mean, that is what needs to be tackled. It is the entire business model of the of the big tech companies that we need to be able to challenge. That can be done through better regulation. We did attempt to do that in Europe through, through the AI act that was adopted last year. And for the last 12 months, the, the, the, the president of the United States has waged a war against, against, the the regulation of social media and the regulation of AI. Why? Because of this, you know, the kind of techno techno state that he's trying to to establish. So we always go back to the necessity of public policies and governments being prepared to enact policy for the betterment of people, not for the sake of few profit and greed. In fact, of people. Why do we need trillionaires in this world? Can I ask, do we need trillionaires? We don't even need billionaires, frankly. So I mean, that is part of what you're talking about, that misinformation, disinformation. We need to tackle media ownership. Over the last ten years or so, we've gotten to a process of heavy concentration of, I'm not talking about social media, I'm talking about actual media ownership by a few here. A fewer number of people, that needs to be tackled through public policies and better regulations. And same with the politicization of media and the fact that more political or people with a political agenda are using their ownership of media to be pushing for, for such an agenda that should be tackled as well in the name of, first of all, our rights to freedom of expression and freedom of information, the fight against censorship, all of those things matter. But ultimately, we need to be able to resist. We need to be able to say no. We need to be able to have elected officials who are prepared to fight the fight, including against very powerful corporate actors. You know, it's an integrated world. We are not going to just pick disinformation and make it, separated from every other ills that we are confronting at the moment with respect to authoritarianism. Just fighting that won't bring us to away from extinction and to the annihilation that some leaders are so keen for us to get into.
Professor. I mean, you know, climate is an issue that has, you know, is a big information war going on there with a lot of folks that deny climate change and so on and so forth. So I guess, I mean, that is I'm just using that as an example. But generally, how would you how do you think we should approach this fight against misinformation and disinformation?
Maybe I might speak instead as a, as an educator.
Right. As a professor.
Yeah. As a and and in that role, I mean, I have to say I feel more uncertain about what I'm doing and what the rationale of what I'm doing is than ever before in my career. I mean, I'm old enough to remember pencil and paper, right? I vividly remember the advent of personal computers, the laptop, the internet. These were all huge shocks and overwhelmingly positive. And I still cling to the idea that AI also, in some senses, is overwhelmingly positive. It enables us to do things we just simply couldn't comprehend before. I'm not I'm not a I have colleagues who are skeptics who want just bans blanket bans on AI and humanities education. I'm not in that position, but I use it every day myself. In fact, I have a kind of routine of forcing myself to ask crazy questions from, you know, my high end AI, which I couldn't possibly answer myself in reasonable time. And yet it gives me a kind of B-plus answer to a crazy question right now. And that's amazing. I can get like, several B-plus answers to really wacky questions that I, I actually have guilt because, you know, you couldn't ask a human to answer these questions back to back. And my machine just runs away like a kind of eager dog and comes back with these answers. So for somebody like me who just loves exotic knowledge, this is this is a huge gift. I mean, really, it's amazing. But what is it that we are doing? And I and I both of you said education is part of the solution. I'm thinking, oh my God, like, what is it? And I'm increasingly I love the village example. Of course, it doesn't generalize. The problem is we don't live in villages anymore. We live in these gigantic communities of hundreds of millions of people I live in.
I still do.
But but, but but increasingly few. Right. And and urbanization is the trend we've passed when we can. The majority of people live in urban or suburban spaces now worldwide. And I'm only saying that because the, the in the end, I end up thinking again and again that there is something about the embodiment of knowledge. There is something about the directly interpersonal, which is the only really good answer to this question. And then and so one of the questions is an educator. It's a really old fashioned question I actually start asking myself is, what is it that I want my students to remember not to know, but to remember to take into their bodies and keep there? Because that's going to be the prompting bit of them. That's the bootstrap. Those are the instincts. That's the taste, the creativity, the thing that triggers the clever question to the AI. And of course, in due course, AI will do this as well. But it seems to me that that's one thing that we really need to focus on in a way that I never thought I would be emphasizing. I've always been somebody who fled from memory practice, like, why would you do that? You can just look it up. You're very good at googling, like, why? But I think with AI the challenge is actually to know what we want inside ourselves. And then I think the other thing we presumably have to cultivate, this is the economist in me talking is this has got to be demand driven. If we're going to keep truth in circulation, people are going to have to want it. They are really going to have to want it. And if the fake stuff and the artificial stuff and the slop is no longer slop but cordon Bleu, let alone like three Michelin or just McDonald's, if that's the way your mind goes, right? It's we don't have a chance. So we're going to have to have like some motivations for actually desiring truth, even if it's hard, even if it's difficult to swallow, even if it's somebody else's truth that might actually turn out to be better than, you know. And those seem to me this are these chairs are lethal. If I actually fall over and die like first day. It's not a conspiracy. It's the chair, the, the. But those two things seem to me to be the newer kind of educational purpose. For me, it's like a what is it you want to know? Like really want to have. And then where are you going to put it? You're going to put it inside yourself and keep it there. So maybe, maybe, maybe learning and teaching now has to be a bit more like learning a language in the way that a language remaps your brain and the way that it becomes part of who you are and how you express yourself. The fact that we can all communicate in English up here, after all, is a flippant miracle, right? And like, maybe that's where we need to think about the deep answers to this, this question. But as I say, like I feel more confounded than ever before in my my life on this issue. Taylor, thanks to you, thanks to you and your mind bending things you do.
Thank you, Professor Taylor. Yeah. I mean, earlier you were talking about, you know, youth and them staying off social media. So what's your take on misinformation?
So I think as fourth speaker, just before the technical expert, I'll try and come at it from maybe building off what you just shared, which is I think the mis and disinformation is a rampant virus in a weakened system. And so I think what we also need to think about is what is it within ourselves that makes us so ready to grab the polarizing slop or cordon bleu that we're presented with? And that's the hard internal work that must be met with systemic policy solutions and technical responsibility and a whole bunch of other things. But I think we need to do the hard and uncomfortable thing of looking within ourselves and seeing what what has this society cooked within myself that makes me so ready to believe that thing that makes me like it gives you that feeling that is kind of addictive. And I've gotten myself trapped in that before. The algorithm has gotten me because it's feeding me that exact flavor of what I want. That makes me feel like I'm right in that person that I want to argue with is wrong. And so it is the responsibility. And I'm so hesitant because I think the climate movement has really suffered from this. The whole individuals need to recycle and that's how you'll save the planet. But I do think that on this mis and disinformation piece, there is a huge responsibility that we need to have to keep our internal world in check and sort of the internal system that we're operating on at a place where we don't seek the polarization and where we reject the algorithm serving that up to us. But I defer to the technical expertise.
Arjun, there's been a lot of tech talking with misinformation, disinformation. I would love to hear your thoughts as well. How do we combat this with AI playing such a big role in going forward to 2050?
So I will say that, I have a tendency to try to model the world in systems. It has a beautiful quality of generalizability and scalability. And, on this matter of misinformation, I the system that scales, in my opinion, is accountability. I think fundamentally any technology, be it AI or whatever else, is ultimately reflecting the architect and creator of the system. And I don't just mean the model creator. I mean, once you have a model, you give it a set of system prompts or you give it some instructions, you're creating a system. Ultimately, it's just scalable intelligence at the end of the day. And, people need to be accountable for what they create. It's that simple. There are two versions of this I can give example of. I think, I think the social media world didn't have that accountability. I think, the platforms and the creators were generally shielded from accountability for various reasons. And I think it led to this almost uncontrolled propagation of mass reach and speed, combined with information that people didn't take accountability of. And I think, there are some serious consequences to that that we all see. And I don't think we should do that with AI. I think, systems that people create, institutions create, countries create should take accountability for what they do. I don't think it's the agent that's responsible. It's the legal entity or the human that created that is accountable. And I think we don't think about it enough that way. That's my point of view on it. I do also want to just address something you said that I thought was very, very eloquently put the role of education in it. I think increasingly the shift that's happening is one from where people are doing work to one where people are describing what the work needs to be done is. Yes. And we are all moving towards a world where you can pick the time horizon, but over some time horizon, the opportunity is for everybody to be an architect. And I think the most important thing that I think we can learn in the educational system is how to describe a system. And, and I love the liberal arts educational system for that reason. It teaches you how to think. It teaches you how to describe. I think physics is a beautiful modeling of the natural world. I think philosophy is a beautiful modeling of the societal world. And I do think that that is a very important thing. We need to learn to architect a world that we all are proud of.
All right. Thank you so much. Enjoying this so much. I have more questions, but now it's your turn, ladies and gentlemen. So, please. There we go. Here come the hands. So, we'll just, you know, introduce yourself and, direct your question to anyone on the panel. Try and be brief, because there's a whole lot of people here that want to ask questions. Thank you.
Oh, thanks. And we appreciate you for coming and meeting. I am Japanese. I'm from Japan. You are great. And, so, I have a question for you. What makes you come to the Davos and driving force? Your your passion is great. So I want to know, You are driving force.
So all driving force.
Well, you're driving force for being here at Davos, I guess. Right. His driving force, his motivation. All right.
Why don't we collect a bunch. No, no, no, let's collect a bunch and oh what a question. Yeah. Let's get like 2 or 3 questions and.
I guess okay. Lady in the back.
Yeah. So hello. Manuela foster from Germany, also the future medicine woman and diplomat of Mother Earth in the galactic nations. So I'm an awakened starseed. Nowadays I talk about that. And from that perspective, with the cosmic wisdom and the higher consciousness level, I'm wondering why, when we want so much change, we are not talking more about spirituality and our sovereignty, which we can gain back through spirituality and practice of energetic leadership. So what do you think about what can you do in your area to make people aware that they actually have the power inside of them? And only if you have the inner guidance and inner stability, you also can really decipher what's true and what's not true, because it comes with feeling, not with knowing.
I have to say that is a very interesting question.
This is great. Let's have one more.
One more.
This is a fantastic.
So great audience. Okay. Go ahead.
Sir, I have the mic. My name is Sidney Samson, from Nigeria. My.
Hey.
.
My brother, go right ahead.
My question goes to, and the prof. And, it's this in an increasingly fragmented and polarized world where might now seems to be right, what role do you see multilateral global alliances playing in trying to balance these tensions? And how can they be strengthened to do that? Because I don't want to go to the other part. But that's the question. I hope you got it. Thank you.
Okay. I think those three first, your motivation for Davos, the spirituality question and then the multilateralism, being able to address the issues we're seeing. So who would like to I guess you you were directed the first question was directed at you.
So I mean I think, you know there might have been years in which the rationale for coming to Davos wasn't clear. But this isn't one of them. I mean, and it goes directly to your point about multilateralism. I mean, this is an unusually significant week. Because what's happening here, and it has, after all, to do so to do with the change of leadership at Whef, is that we have in the form of Larry Fink, one of the absolutely key figures in the world of global finance, CEO, the dominant thinker of Blackrock, a gigantic ten, what, 13, $14 trillion plus asset manager. This is the new generation of global finance. If JP Morgan and JB and Goldman Sachs were the 2008 star players, we're now in a new world. And heat to extraordinary efforts has convened the most amazing gathering of, both political and financial firepower. And it's quite obvious what it's for. It is a, I would say, maybe last ditch, certainly important effort to try and contain the impact of nationalist populism in the most powerful state in the world, the United States. That's those are the stakes. It's no less than that. And this won't be the last effort. But this is an important moment, and the Europeans are clearly going to need this as a venue for discreet talks with the Europe, the Americans over Greenland without having to be too far out in the public. And that's that, no less, ladies and gentlemen, is what's up this week in this town. Is we're trying to we're trying to figure that out. So that kind of answers answers your question. You don't you don't need much personal motivation to to, to, well, a to witness it and B, to contribute whatever you can to an honest conversation. I was very struck by Fink's remarks about how his project and with the authority of Blackrock behind him, is to raise and to elevate the conversation and to the level of frankness. And also, you know, whatever my remarks were about the Trump administration, I'm wholly committed to trying actually talk with American Republicans, which is not something I get the chance to do very often in New York. Right? We live in bubbles. I'm very conscious of living in the liberal bubble, and this is the first time I actually get to encounter my own government and on a on a stage. So those are the it's it's these two questions are directly parallel. I think this is true for the very, very many of the people who are in the official delegations and so on are here because they are concerned with your question.
Thank you. Does anyone want to take a stab at the spirituality question with respect to looking inward and that solving the issues that we're seeing? All right, Taylor, take a swing at it. Go ahead.
For for me, what came up for me is that I have the privilege of living in Australia, which has the longest unbroken thread of human culture in the world, and we should be a world leader in thinking about the future, thinking intergenerationally being connected with these incredibly deep wisdom systems of knowing, being and doing, and the spiritual practices that surround that. And yet we find ourselves entirely detached from it. Had we never forgotten how to practice leadership in the way that First Nations people still do, and that they have for over 65,000 years, we'd be in an entirely different governance situation than we are right now. And so for me, so many of these sort of introspective prompts that I've been giving us tonight come to remembering what's at the core of our humanity, not starting to do something new, but remembering these incredible practices that, you know, First Nations people has never left. We just have forgotten often in the halls of power and and let that slip out of our grasp. So I think that piece of how do we remember what's at the core of our humanity is we can't leave that behind.
All right. We've got nine minutes to go. So. All right, we've got a gentleman here, okay? We've got so many hands up. All right, go ahead.
Hello. My name is Kojo. I'm just a master's graduate, and I'm from France. And, pardon my French, but I think we kind of all agree with the many points that were mentioned this evening. We're not the ones who need convincing. And at some point, there was a case made on education, which is long term. And I wanted to ask if any of you had any idea about the how we could do this. For example, AI slop is slop that it works. It's fun. People like it and it has an effect. How do we fight this? The dopamine receptors that people just follow.
Okay. All right. Second question. I've got someone in the front. Well, okay. I guess the back is still getting some some some love. And we'll get to you as soon as possible.
Hello? I'm. I have a mic here. Yes. So my name is Leah. I'm from Romania, from Bucharest. And I have a question for, professor, I want to ask you, considering that, you are at Columbia, and considering international students, but as well domestic students who get admitted into Ivy leagues, what would be the first skill or the number one skill that a student needs to develop before getting into university in order to do well at the university and after university? Because I see I'm working in this field and for 15 years, and I've done a research in the last four years, and I see a lot of students from very good schools, and they don't achieve the type of success that they want, or they are successful in their professional life, but not in the other part of their life. So they are on medication, on they are depressed or anxiety overwhelming and so on. Thank you.
Okay, I'm so sorry to make you walk, but this gentleman, we have to get this gentleman in the front, right. He's had his hand up for quite a while and he's going to he's he's very close to me. So you know I want to make sure he asks this question.
Thank you so much for giving me some attention. My name is Abby from London. And first of all, thank you so much for the fantastic insight. I really appreciate that. My question as a lawyer is very simple. The opposite of law is anarchy. How do you think? And what is your take, how strong the law is and give it a chance if you think you can change one law which can bring a massive improvement, what that law going to be.
All right. Thank you so much. So, Arjun, I think you should take the dopamine question. The AI, the addiction part. If you if you want to take a stab at that and then maybe we'll have Agnes and Zainab on the other and you have another question for you as well. Go ahead.
And just to make sure I get the question right, it's how do we deal with the AI slop that leads to just creating a lot.
Of addictive effects?
Right. Addictive effect. Yeah. Listen, I, I think a lot of in my opinion, it's not the, the addictiveness that's the problem is accountability. That's the problem. I keep going back to this, I, I think there is a beautiful quality to addictive material that is constructive. I think there is a destructive quality to addictive material that is, benignly a waste of time, but also, more destructively spreading misinformation. And I fundamentally think tracing that back to the provenance of the creators will automatically introduce an incentive for people to stop producing things that are destructive. And I think we don't have that with social media, but I think we have the opportunity to to do that with AI.
Thank you. Professor. The one skill that his students should have to, you know, have success or something.
I mean, so many people have iterated in different ways, but it's a sustained attention. I mean, that's the fundamental thing, the ability to sustain prolonged, serious attention to a text, to read, to think, to at a problem, to solve, to work out a problem. That doesn't necessarily mean like just strapping yourself to the desk and lashing yourself. It means learning your own internal rhythms, like where does your spirit go? Where does your mind wander to? How do you contain that? How do you manage it? And that, I think is the absolutely key, thing. And it is rare and it's difficult and, and it takes habit and it's a kind of training. It's like learning to play an instrument or perform well in sport. It's that kind of that kind of habit. And, and it requires a kind of bravery because you have to be willing to be lonely. You have to be willing to be on your own. You have to be on on your own, with your own thoughts, not constantly just in the loop with the thing that's feeding your prejudice, but actually pursuing your own thread. So that would be challenge students to read for half an hour solidly, then 45 minutes, then an hour, and so on from there. And once they've gotten up to several hours, they're in the they're already in the Super League.
All right. Thank you. Agnes, let me give you a chance to ask the question on loi said the opposite of law is, you know, anarchy.
I don't know, law on death penalty in too many countries, law on female guardianship in South Africa and and Afghanistan. Law that prevent women from accessing education in Afghanistan, law that declares that your support for Palestinian rights is, amounting to terrorism and must be and must be stopped. Laws that describes an organization like Extinction Rebellion as a threat to national security. I have so many laws that I want to get rid of it. That will make the world a better place. Many.
Thank you, sir.
I think you might be the last question because we've only got three minutes to go, so.
Hello, everyone. My name is Rasool. I am the president of the Syrian National Dome. Nationality is Syrian and it is political organization. Actually, my question is to miss amnesty and also speaking about refugees as well. When we, when we see that we have more than 88 million refugees, around the world, they are not welcomed. They are undermined. They are heavy burden on the whole international society. At the same time, you can see that perpetrators are doing their deeds openly with authoritarian regime. I mean, and, they don't fear any consequences or they don't, or even a kind of punishment. What we see is just, you know, the verbal denouncing and, you know, in worst scenario, just Mr. Trump, brings somebody to, you know, uproot a dictator. So, do you think there will be any kind of mechanism that can really and truly be obliged to stop those authoritarian regimes before they go on and on in, you know, grinding people, committing genocide, fleeing like Assad, just, you know, he is enjoying the fortune, in, Russia and also the Iranian regime and everybody else. Thank you.
All right, so you guys, you both got the last one. Let me have you take a crack at that. Well, you got a minute. So actually I'm going to have Zainab to just jump on that and you get the last one.
Yeah. Totally. Fine. Professor.
Okay. Go ahead, go ahead.
Okay.
Look, it's, it's it's a fundamental question that you are asking. Are there mechanisms to hold them accountable? Are there mechanisms to prevent them from getting into power? I think there are, but there is no political will to implement them. Throughout the last 20 years, particularly the last 20 years, we have seen time and time again governments using double standards in order to protect some of those governments and denounce others in order to make deals with Syria or Egypt and so on, while denouncing other, governments. It is eating at any kind of rule based, principle system that we need to establish the double standard, the rejection of any universal approach to, how we see the world, how we protect rights, how we hold others accountable. That is killing the international system, that is killing any pretense of creating an international system. But the alternative, as you say, it's, it's real anarchy. So the answer is not to destroy what doesn't work very well. There is absolutely no doubt that the global rule based system of the last eight years has left many people out, has made, millions. I was in Syria, so I know the cruelty of that regime, and I cannot tell you enough how deeply, deeply touched I was by the family of the disappeared. This was the most cruel regime that has gone on and on and on and on. And we have plenty of examples like this around the world, the world, the rule based order was and is not perfect. Destroying it like Donald Trump is doing at the moment, like Putin is doing like, Netanyahu is doing that is not the solution, trying to tackle the limitations and the problem, trying to reform what can be reformed, strengthening the accountability dimension, tackling the double standard, truly, truly ensuring a universal approach to what we believe must be implemented around the world that are the solution. But the destruction will only bring us to annihilation. So I'm calling on all of you, when we say that the rule based order is on its way out and that it is a problem, we we don't mean that the rule based system was perfect. And we need to acknowledge that we must continue to have a transformative agenda. We cannot be cornered into protecting what should not be protected, but we also cannot be forced into destroying something that has held us together, not perfectly, but held us together. So we must absolutely resist the destruction of that system that is being put forward by Donald Trump and others with the complicity or the the silence of our leaders. Because many of you are European. I think I need I think I am here at Davos because I want to send a message of resistance. We must resist what they are planning right now. We must resist the destruction of the system. We must resist the notion that corporate actors can rule every aspect of our life. We must resist the destruction of the environment. And I wish I will be as hopeful as you are. I'm not at all that hopeful. I'm not at all that hopeful. But I think it could come about if together we say no and we stand up and we resist. It cannot just be about about Greenland, but it also must be about Greenland. But it cannot just be about territorial integrity. It must be about values. It must be about the Syrian people who are still demanding accountability. It must be about all of our rights that must be protected. And for that, we must be bloody brave and bloody courageous, because those people have no limits.
Who.
Xena, we're we're unfortunately out of time. But I take it you agree with you agree with that comment?
I, okay, well, I don't know how to say I honestly didn't. I tend to avoid political questions overall, and that's for some reasons that you would understand from those who have been through what I have been through. But in short, as long as there is a Security Council that's governed by just certain countries and it's not rotated, it's not allowed to have like it doesn't provide the seeds for other countries to take over as, like just make it a rotational, not make it power centered, but more of a representation focused than the whole world order, the legal system, everything will remain the same. So there are questions around what things in the current legal order should change for it to respond to our needs better. We will never have a perfect world, but how can we make it better is by questioning the current system. You don't need to completely remove or replace the system, but rather find the solution. We often talk about disruption, but we forget that some of the solutions, some of the boundaries that we can create right now exist within the current system. So I'll stop there.
Thank you. Round of applause for our panelists.
Thank you all.
So much. Thank you, thank you.
You guys have also been here. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you all. So our panelists you guys are fantastic.
Thank you.
So you really think that's what they are? I don't know if we are being heard. Really. You need to tell.
Me more. That was great.