the first thing it you lose is the easiest thing to keep going back to with a adaptation that is here. one that is terribly important is training people to tell stories. and we don't do that. that is not considered an important skill with the educational system but if you can how do they know what the alternatives are? they do worry about the mechanization in our lives and we have to rethink what people are paid to do. people were picking up stuff on the street the other day we really need people to do that. have to find a way to give people respect to do work we would not want to do.

machines would not change that but it is desperately needed. >> from the center from public integrity, could you address this question, are we headed for the dystopia inevitably and how can we avoid it if we want to? [laughter] >> i don't have a crystal ball i don't have my jet packs maidu's scenarios would it might be like that the factory on the ground right now. you basically end up with have been and how this is

the memorial scenario. it is now paying though lot into the future but the other is the mirror opposite with insane rapid change and we wipeout the human race in the next two days. that is a perfectly credible scenario that the most easily identify with. if you say it will go to hell everybody says yes. [laughter] but the third scenario that i am reaching for but not predicting but prevail is not a middle ground between heaven and hell day are deterministic meaning they

boses them what matters is how many transistors can talk to each other. prevail is its own territory because it has a fundamentally different proposition. may be but matters is how many surprising humans you could hook up and reasons for that connection so looking at the future of the human race to say it is over for this species. 1450 then all of a sudden you have a brand new way to distribute your ideas and the results are amazing with the renaissance, enlightenment and lots of the samples and a thorough literature we have a lot of prevail

stories. the question i asked myself this kid refigure runaway to accelerate the human response? the identical way the way darpa celebrates the technical challenges. a the prevail projects that is intended to do. and in that scenario, how do you know, if that prevail scenario is happening? i would guess you lindsay the outpaced of unexpected things. what about the bay? hundreds of millions of people doing complicated things without peters. facebook? twitter? i have no idea what it is good for but if it flips out

every tyrant in the middle east i am interested. >> i am from yale university. the question between technology and truce. coming from the of millenials degeneration. and maybe going to rue leukopenia and then on the other hand, of the more recent developments and the size that attempt to use data or simple ways to depict complex situations that people understand what is going on with the idea of the of very boiled down simple model masquerading as truth is that is related to the technology?

. . anything over 200 words, reading and writing is declining very fast because it is simply not going to be necessary, and i

think what we don't understand what that does to the thinking process and how the thinking process is formed by learning to read, and i think around 2025, 2030, we'll look back on these days when we used to look for kids with reading disabilities because we'll understand that reading is not a natural skill to begin with. now in 2025 we'll look for kid with reading abilities and say, we're going to teach you to read and write really well, just like star athletes that why we're seeing build down jargon journalism or graphic journalism and i don't think it's a good thing. >> can i just build on that? that's a scary scenario. one of the things -- i mean, as a professional story teller, i know that storytellers have been

getting the best piece of meat around the camp fire for an extremely long time, and the -- i don't expect that to change in the future because that's such a -- we're pattern-seeking story-telling moneys. that's whoa we are. rather than look up into the night sky and deal with the fact that maybe all those bright dots are random distribution. no. we come up with the most amazing stories about bears and princesses and lions and swords, and we just can't stand the possibility that is random and we create stories instead. if that were to change, if all of a sudden we were no longer the story-telling species, that would about a pro found shift in what it means to be human and it's one that i would have a hard time writing that scenario over the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. my problem is it's getting the

best piece of the meat around the camp fire, rewarding the story-tellers is the challenge, and that is where you -- i can imagine seeing a really dark next ten or 20 years before the next business between the collapse of the old business model, which has occurred already, and the rise of the new one. but to say that there is not going to be story-telling as part of the human species? in important and rich in complex ways? i don't want to think about that scenario. i have hard time with that. >> story-telling will always exist. someone will learn hour to -- an entire novel will come out in 140 character bursts, and nike will -- >> you believe that? >> oh, yeah. and nike will decide, they have 12 million people following them, i'll pay this person to keep doing that and put an ad up

for nike. not an interly new concept or model but maybe that's an area. >> thank you, gentlemen. i'm with humanity in action. your comments on unemployment in the country i found pregnant. there's a surplus of labor in the country and a row best hack -- robust state which ensnares black bodies and brown bodies, too. so, i'd love to hear your insight on incarceration, millenials, and surplus labor in this country. thank you. >> well, you know, i think mitty says something earlier on, which is a good point. we need to do two things about finding jobs for people.

one, we need to get service work more dignity, and we probably need to pay more for it, to have people have living wages. not unlike the early days of the factories and the factory work end did not make much money at all and it wasn't until the ewan afternoonization and suddenly they were the middle class, and the middle class drove the economic engine. now it's clear the service workers will be the jobs driving the economy. but not if they make seven dollars an hour. so, incarceration, i think, is what we try to prevent, and if we really need to relook again at the nature of work in society >> if you're looking at the technology that is aimed inward at modifying what we are as humans like cognition and

memory. you can imagine scenarios in which the not too does stand future we end up with three different kinds of humans. the enhances, naturals and the rest. the enhanced are the ones who embrace these technologies and for them and their children, and who every six months it's something brand new. i have some of the stuff in my pack. one that shuts off sleep. so more and more enhanced humans that jump at this. and their kids are the ones who end up being smarter and better able to get into the best colleges and so forth and you have to decide how you feel about that. then there's the naturals. ones who do have access to these technologies but choose to not to indulge. like today's modern fundamentalists who w.h.o.

eschew modern -- they don't have technology because of geography or class. that could get real ugly real fast. it's been a long time since we have seen more than one kind human walking around tame, 25 or thousands years, depending on how you read the fossil evidence. if we all of a sudden -- i wonder, you look at some of our wars right now, look at afghanistan, and look at our war fighters versus the people from the -- who essentially haven't changed a hell of a lot since the 14th century, and you say, wow, is this the beginning? scary scenarios. >> hi. from control risks. you talk about regulation with respect to emerging technology.

i wonder about safety and security beyond regulation. you mentioned the ability of mad men to wipe out the human race in two days. whether it's a mad man or somebody who makes a mistake, how do we create safety valves or law enforcement or security forces that can prevent such an accident or deliberate act from happening. >> i'm real pessimistic about police forces doing this. i'm much more optimistic about -- mycockeye ode optimism is based on what bottom-up solutions look like. for example, if you -- in 30 years ago, if we had said that in the year 2014, every day, every second of every day, our most important computers that regulate everything from our -- everything in the world would be

attacked by the most incredibly malicious and imaginative and sophisticated pieces of software, bugs and worms and everything, we would in the '70s you would have said, it's over, we're toast. so, but now in fact what has happened is that without really a hell of a lot in the way of government regulation, we have developed bottom-up responses and there are entire industries designed to scan -- i'm not saying it's perfect. i'm just saying they exist. i don't -- don't get me wrong. i'm not suggesting any of this is a pan see ya. i'm just saying -- pan see ya. i'm a student of good enough. does everybody's credit card get stolen? sure. do we indict half the chinese military? sure. is this the perfect solution? no. but it's not the catastrophe

that you would have imagined had i given you the scenario in the '70s. so, this species has a history of muddling through, and that's part of what prevailing is all about. heroic muddling through. like huckleberry finn, like exodus in the bible, those are all prevail stories, and can we imagine scenarios where we have heroic muddling through -- maybe that's what control rusk does for -- control risk does. >> let me just -- a couple of quick thoughts on regulation. first is in the life sciences. we have even some pretty good self-regulation. just recently, for example, what to do with the smallpox virus. within the scientific community there is the roots of some self-regulation that we have seen over the years that is not a bad thing, and works. when it gets into the capitalist

system, regulation -- self-regulation begins to break down. look at general motors. a bunch of engineers who knew that too heavy a key chain would cause the driver to die, right? but that never got reported because it was going to cost 18 cents more per switch to fix it. so, there's regulation but it can be overcome very easily by economics. second piece, when it comps to their the internet specifically this is is a case where we'll see much more global activity. right now it's very very desper. some countries controlling part of the internet, the united states laissez-faire. ultimately we'll move toward some elements of a more international step of guidelines. one thing we'll see is internet passports. some ability to have a real identity thon the internet. it's astonishing that such an important thing doesn't have legal identities at this point.

so, every country is working on how -- all the western democracies at least are working on how to make a legal identity, probable live we some biometric, when you enter into the virtual world we know who you are. sure, it's spoofable like a -- >> students are going to love that. >> that's why the americans are being so careful because national i.d. is a third rail, but these won't be i.d.es you have to use all the time. just the way driver's license -- but if you want to get on an airplane, it's handy to have a driver's license. so real identities on the internet will be a big step ford. >> the most effective regulators we have are the leakers. in the last year, and now that we learn what the nsa does for a living, that made more difference than the entire regulatory apparatus of washington, dc, i would argue. >> regulators who -- i won't name names but 99% of scientist

are wrong. >> and they admit it. that's part of the deal. >> my name is sarah and i wok for hewlett-packard. my question best about the i.t. industry. what can you say about the ability of the industry in terms of meeting people's needs and being ahead of the pack and where it's going and how does it fall into your vision of the future? how helpful? what deals you think? >> i think the i.t. industry is absolutely crucial. in the sense that -- to talk about the scenarios, we are in a -- running into a lot of challenges between now and 2015, given the population increase, the inevitable, the move toward sustainability, which we're really going to need to have, and move away from the constant

growth notion. i.t., the combination of the global network, smart objects, very intelligent software of the, say, ibm watson class, that is able to really look at a lot of data and come up with novel solutions to problems, enormously helpful. in terms of the whole world, i have -- i know analysts in the telecom industry who say by 2020 or 2021, absolutely everyone on the planet can have a phone if they want. which is amazing, amazing consent. a combination of low-cost chinese hard ware and the indian business model that lets you sell local service to people who earn two dollars a day and make a profit. so, pakistan just the other day was one of the last countries to approve 3g networks. so a lot of those people by the early 20s will have smart phones and be connected to the internet. it's really going to happen.

it's hard to imagine how transformative that will be. but i think i.t., along with smart approaches to biology, but biology takes a little longer. i.t. can make positive changes very, very quickly. >> in your question is imbedded the notion that information technology is a thing, a separate thing. that is somehow distinct from nano robotics, genetics, order life. i wonder. everything that we seem to be heading towards is smaller, more ubiquitous, more -- and if we're not carrying it on ourselves personally, nor we're being watched by somebody else who has a reason to do that for us. when it becomes that ubiquitous, when the chair becomes smart, the water glass becomes smart, is it useful to think of that as information technology or is

this a new state of being and how does hewlett-packard make any money off this? >> the question is, who controls all of the information, whether it's individuals, the government, the companies themselves. i think we have time for one more question. before we take this one, i want to remind all participants that's meeting has been on the record so everything said will be held against you in a court of law. yes, in the white jacket. >> i'm emmy with the johns hopkins applied physics lab. can you talk about the educational of policymakers on the state of the science and scientists on the state of policy and how to make sure there's not a gap between the two communities. >> good final question. >> i'm less interested in regulation than i am in ethics, frankly.

we're at this amazing point in history where we can do just about anything with material science, with energy and even with biology. when you can do just about anything, then the core question is what you should do. the -- and that's the core question of ethics. and i -- i mean, in my optimistic moments, it's because i'm seeing more people asking, given the opportunity to do anything, what should we do? and that's why i'm glad to see government entities like the military, like the navy, like our foreign policy establishment, asking more "should" questions and if you can arrive at what we should do -- some consensus or some novel thoughts about that, that strikes me as being much more important than writing regs. >> i think it's a really interesting thing that can start in scientific education. one example is for the last few

years i've gene to cold spring laboratories forks are those who follow jeanettes ticks, the wellspring of a lot of interesting work. just to talk to some graduate students about how society and science and the media work together, and a direct connection to policymaking there. but it's a little like -- i think as science and technology affect us more and more quickly, that should be part of the curriculum, and we're seeing that shift in medicine. medical school educations are more holistic approach. journalism education. that would clue entrepreneurialism so you can figure out how to make a living. so educations are shifting and the scientific education should as well. it's got to come from that side. the policymakers, it's hard -- you need someone to go to them. they don't necessarily come to you. >> are you seeing enough of that conversation happening?

should be doing it but is enough happening to make the most necessary changes? at least from the policiesmake -- poll policymakers' side. >> generalizing for the university -- a biodesign at arizona state university, 350,000 square feet of creatures that do not exist in nature. they're out there. and increasingly you're seeing people who are imbedded in biodesign who are in the ethics game, and an example is, for example, some woman scientist was involved in learning everything there was to know about some disease, and she want -- for which there was no cure. and the emphasis said would there be something interesting for you to do that might involve a molecule or an organism for which we could create a cure? i don't mean to dump on

scientists, but this is so classic. never ocoward to her. scientists do not wake up in the morning thinking about how they'll change the human race. they wake up in the morning thinking about how to wire the goddamn monkey. they don't read news. they read journals, and the idea of opening up their world to a much larger consideration of the impact of what they're doing is, i think, crucial, and i think it see it happening. >> slowly. >> has to be fast enough. >> the i.t. world right now, one of the big questions is net neutrality. the fcc, tom wheeler, dealing with this. i'm pretty convinced the fcc is hearing all sides of the question, and we have advocacy groups on all sides. some a lot richer than the others. but all sides of the argument are being brought to the fcc. can the regulators do the right thing?

probably sent the right thing, can they do something that causes the least damage? i think that's the case. >> at least in the short term. >> exactly. >> i think we're at our end. i want to thank our panelists, michael and joel, for joining us. [applause] >> thank you all for attending.