back on the positive side of that issue. they have been on both sides but at different times. one potential negative outcome is there is a bad security incident, a bombing incident or something else that could be traced to or laid at the door of .akistan that would be a situation where would be a tough and probably military response. we do not have a way of figuring that out in advance. asked thing to look at is afghanistan. he has not said much about not,nistan, modi has

but it is sensible that he would maintain as close relations a s as possible with afghanistan. if the country next to you is a problem, the country next to them is a friend. he is unlikely to be interested indian rolet of security in afghanistan. he has not, i think left us many clues and a lot will depend on what happens in afghanistan. accident i put on continuity in afghanistan will show up in other places as well, if modi is successful in forming a government. indian foreign policy tends not to turn on a dime. in the party manifesto,

there was a delphic statement about the need to re-examine and nuclear policy's which is now centered on no first use. after a certain amount of press commentary, modi himself made a statement that i did not say we were going to can do no first use policy. i think you've will see some policy changes to my that it will not be like flicking a switch. you are of the changes likely to see is in that direction the government liens -on some kind of- leans on some kind of issues particularly in the economic sphere. dumb,oes not have it so even though you would think so, looking at the press. the most dangerous outcome of

this election would be that rickety coalition i spoke about. kind ofally, that government in india has not lasted long, has not made decisions, and has been the prototypical weak government which is not able to deal with issues like its relations with pakistan. and anyone who is hoping for a move toward peace in pakistan had better hope for a strong or at least strong governments in countries, because of what not happen without that you consider a return of a congress-led coalition unlikely. so do the leaders of congress, who have left slip that they will be happy if they get 120 seats, which is less than half the majority. di iss far as how much mo going to be able to do, if successful in winning an election, the size of his

coalition matters quite a lot. and there the speculative modi how many seats and his allies will be able to win before they have to start looking for other coalition 240ers ranges from 120 two 70to 240 out of the 200 and they need to do to get -- 278 need to get to me coalition. the closer you get to that number, the greater the magnetic attraction to people who want to be sitting in the government. and the greater is their ability to make bolder changes in policy, some of which we might welcome, some of which we might very much regret. >> thank you. i have one clarifying question. you got to it to an extent, so i

want to set the baseline, then a question before we go to you. the question is about the state of india's economy today, the basic economic backdrops to the election, and i am reminded about three years ago "the economist" had a cover which i do not agree with about saying india is going to rule the 21st century, that india is going to overtake china, and economic potential, and that was before we saw india's growth rate start to slip. i would like your take. in the context of this modi -dominatedr modi feeling its india oats come or is india fundamentally doubting whether it is a major rising power of the 21st-century? >> actually, some of both.

it's economy grew at some 9% a 2000 nine.ough growth rates have been significantly lower since then, down to below 5% last year. below 5% is still substantially above population growth, which is about 1.5%. if you are measuring it by the ability to deliver more to people, it meets that test. there is some sense that the worst of the recession-induced slowdown has probably passed. there are some longer-term problem india faces including the inability to deliver a rising quantum of well-trained people for a modernizing labor force, which is both an education problem and eight is this-organization problem. i think india is going to resume

a higher growth path. it will do it more quickly in a modi government, not so much because he is magic, but because there will be decisions made that might otherwise be there dithered, and there is a business type about modi that will lead people to make decisions quicker than they otherwise would. will india overtake china economically? i am not so sure. there is a lot to overtake, to start with. there is a difference -- it is about a factor of two in per capita gdp. i think there is an overall power deficit and economic deficit with china. to a is just going in period of chop your seas. curvespe of those two

may shift, but i am not good about making long-term protections about who will win that race in the next hundred years. fortunately, none of us will be around. [laughter] i want to pose one question to vanda. it in yournted at remarks, but how much does the outcome in afghanistan shape the likely future for afghan-pakistani relations? is this an issue that we need to think about, not only as a choice for the afghan people, but in terms of implications for afghan-pakistani relations, or is that too soon to say? is there influence that both might have available that will allow us to work with both outcomes we get?

how do you see those relations going under the likely scenarios? >> i think the first question needs to be and are served is what afghanistan's politics look like after both the candidates. i was struck by cameron's characterization of imagining the world as [indiscernible] is the expectation that associated with both -- and it might turn out that they will very much be playing within the world and whatever better they can imagine in terms of internal governance or external relations will end up very hampered by the physical politics. and the moves we are asking from -- to reaching out to warlords, to pashto and power brokers who [indiscernible]

indicative that there is an expectation that , if they start materializing quickly, in the system of government is problematic, but also seen as a depreciation -- a capricious [indiscernible] and coming from different reform back reagan's -- backgrounds might find it difficult. [indiscernible] i think for pakistan the single worst outcome would be a strong government that is strongly pro-india. they are equally concerned about instability, disintegration into civil war, and they have except

the --associated with that they would be capable working with them rather than being a priority to the government. the message issues have existed between the countries and the negotiations with the taliban, which will be on the agenda of the next president, and it is not going to be smooth, easy, for afghanistan-pakistan relationship. the difficulty is that the -- and blame the outcome on pakistani mischief. that might be just too optimistic in terms of what pakistan can actually do. there will be a misalignment of

expectations, that they will have to manage regardless of who is the next president. it also may bring india into it, but i do a very strong relations with india. been seen for many years by the indian as deborah should as their man. it will be a burden for him that he will have to address because the difficult position for the afghan president with respect to pakistan. the pakistanis have been reaching out to people. itre have been signals, that does not have to be either/or, completely hostile relationship. again, they have to be their unmanned and they will have a difficult set of constraints to manage and decisions to make over which powerbrokers they bring in and which powerbrokers

they leave out. and the powerbrokers they will leave out will be heavily quoted by their neighbors. it will be a very complex management, but what they do internally will -- or hamper the regional engagements as well. >> very sober, your assessment. ambassador,, mr. what implications you see in the election. >> if we are sober. the good news is that i do not think there is a master plan despite what you might hear from your contacts in intelligence. there's not a master pakistani plan to restart the civil wars and send in the proxies to try to take over the country no matter what happens in the power vacuum that will develop after 2014. this notion of a pakistan that has this kind of vision, the good news is they do not have a

vision. the bad news is they do not have a vision. i do not think that pakistan has an attenuating vision that is a good vision. it is that they are waiting to see and direct to what they see as what is on the ground, a realist reactive sense, and this goes for the army, the isi, as well as for civilians who still have not reached out to the northern alliance and to the people traditionally not known -- waitilitary is going to and see, and what makes it harder is that people in afghanistan would like to have rejected ability from pakistan. i'm not sure that pakistan can at thisat point, other than people can have a fantasy. i do not think they have one. they are going to be -- they are going to respond to ferry us

to various warlords being brought into the people who may lose the election. they are going to respond to that kind of personality theircs with a sense of own personality in question. perhaps what is more important is not so much the result of the election, but the result of the next stage after the election, when the winner of the elections in afghanistan have not been acknowledged by the people who took part in the process. they will have to reengage with the telephone in a way -- and the way they reengage with the taliban, that will have a huge impact on what understand's -- on what pakistan's people do it in a good or bad way. in afghanistanss and what opening is left to the pakistanis. i think what worries me is that the idea that there is a potential in a post 2014 world,

assuming the international presence is not only there, but if the international attention is not their somewhat, the people who live in the neighborhood will stay interested in what happens in the neighborhood. by nightmare would be along the lines of an india construction crew in had to stand, seeing a n peoplef ethnic pashtu in the air and saying those are a bunch of proxies where the pashuns, where the at spies, anddia's there's no way to prevent the crash of people who see themselves as enemies. sadly then could be place where the india-pakistan misunderstandings get acted out, and i would hope for india and

pakistan to have a high level which --ther areas in in something -- if something like this would happen. the two theories is there is a vacuum of planning and the possibility that unexpected events such as india-pakistan competition in afghanistan will get in the way. >> you talk about a lack of strategic vision in pakistan towards afghanistan, and you talk about the vacuum, the inability to fashion a division. is that because they have within their government two conflicting visions, one of which is regional economic integration makes sense, it is good for our growth, etc., the other which is by golly india is always going to be behind the tree, behind the rock, in afghanistan.

we know they are up to no good. the pakistani paranoia, constant worry about india, and dominatingd be afghanistan because afghanistan, the poor mountain people to the daredwest -- and they gav raise the notion that the border should shift and should take pakistan into its own territory and it covers and influences. feel?t pakistanis fundamentally conflicted on good days they might want to get along with afghanistan, maybe in india, and grow economically together. on bad days they want to ominate day in -- dominate them? >> you can find representatives of both of those ideas in pakistan. i will stick with process.

more concernedm about is there are not competing visions, but there is a habit of thinking tactically. it is true of civilians and military. if something is good for the pun upset the that domestic apple cart, or if there are business interests that have to be balanced within pakistan, that would be what makes decisions about afghanistan. that will be the domestic calculations. in the military there will be the question of let's say we are past strategic depth as a concept, but still concern what is going on on our border if this group come if this particular warlord or group of people is in power here and there inclined to be printed us, we can respond with another move and we can talk to people who might be friendly to us. but i do not sense a broader

vision of how some of the pakistani military of what ought to happen there. i think they believed in a broad sense we would like to have a friendly country next to us, a country we do not feel threatened by, but we will have to see what happens in the election, in the process in order to decide that. i get back to the lack of vision as a problem, rather than competing visions. >> thank you. please, if you can get my attention and wait for microphone and identify yourself. if you like to identify which panelist you would like to begin your answer. we will start here in the third row. steve, did you want to ask also? then we will go up to the front for the first two. >> thank you. i am a scholar at the woodrow wilson center. in a former life i was one of cameron's predecessors and also one of howie schaffer's

successors. that leads me to make one note here, which is there was a agoth election a few months in bangladesh, very problematical. it seems to have fallen off the charts as perhaps i hope you are not ruling bangladesh out of salvation. >> never. >> have a question for tessie. that is, if under the hypothesis or gets wins -- together a substantial kind of coalition, not a majority, but a you think what do indian policy will be towards bangladesh given that its policy in the past during the election and before that was relatively pernicious and unhelpful to both bangladesh and to the rest of south asia? my second question is towards

cameron, and i have to preface it by saying, cameron, i took the election of a year ago in pakistan to be a vote for continuity, not the kind of continuity that would bring back the ppp, which was hopelessly ineffective, but the kind of continuity where there were not the changes. only people were voting for a better economy, or economic action. that is my view. they have notthat produced -- and i agree with you on the economy, nor on anything else -- you said something that i think i agree with, and you that you did not think there would be this move towards by the military into northwest waziristan -- we will still be it a year from outsourcing think of time. >> i agree with that. >> do you think they are waiting

to see what happens in afghanistan, or do you think that -- i am more inclined to think that it is because they all of the sudden looked around and said, wait a minute, what do we do when we attack north waziristan about all their allies in punjab and elsewhere, and don't we have a serious problem there, and how are we going to handle that? and they have not got a late for that, and he probably do not have the capability. >> thank you. and we will take one more before we get to the panel. i opened the first pakistan bureau for the associated press many, many years ago. and, one, i want to second bill's remarks about bangladesh. i hope we will hear more about that, if not now, a later time. this is basically directed

felbab-brown, because election in afghanistan will mean the transfer of office from one individual to another. but will it actually be the transfer of power? time and time again you have asay -- and your colleagues well -- have talked about powerbrokers. so where will power rest once the decision about the election is made, and that includes references toward taliban, which, of course, did not anticipate, but holds tremendous power in afghanistan? >> this is perfect. one question for everyone. right in the sense office isransfer of inevitably not a transfer of

power trick i believe there is going to be a transfer of power. i say so because one of the fundamental questions really is what will be the role of president karzai or post -- president, x-president comment karzai? we know he is building a massive compound for himself in the presidential grounds indicating that he is willing to move maybe a hundred meters away, but not very far from the center of speculationt is my is that he has some sort of position in the next government, that he will be named senior minister or advisor, perhaps given some sort of role or power. it is very much to be worked out . so how much power will be transferred away from him on to someone else? powercond layer of the

transfer is of course the negotiations between the powerbrokers and who the next man who will be the formal president will be. and it is still up for grabs, in my view. they can very well be that the next president is unfortunately very weak, even if the expectation domestically and abroad is there is going to be a decisive reformer, really -- buting unsustainable. presidentan, who the might become a very constrained in terms of politics. nonetheless, the afghanistan president is a very powerful office. the reasons why hamid karzai became president is because there was a broad sense he was a very weak man who would not challenge the established system of power. although he ultimately ended up challenging the system in

producing reform, he was able to a lot and to accumulate of power grid then the presidency to play a role and hamper others from getting more power than he had. this was something that even a weak successor might well end up in the same position. how desirable that is with respect reform is questionable, and i was a problematic. a chance forl be not just offices, but a transfer of power. that will also involve not just the president and the national -- at the national level, but in that very difficult way also involved layers and layers of appointments in the key ministries and in the minister of interior, which manages the police, in the ministry of defense, which manages the army. it is quite possible that the competent that the afghan army has experience will be very much challenged as layers and layers

of appointments are being challenged or thrown out. as many of the ministers and people underneath them really create these personal networks of power, and if they go out, how much will that tear up these institutions? the third element of the negotiation of power is the taliban. and, again, it is something we do not know. it might be that 2015 will be a difficult year, if the taliban has every intent to challenge the new government, to challenge the army, particularly as the relationship between the army and the new president is being negotiated. presidentine the next , what he would do to pashtun networks, at a time when the taliban is going to throw what

ever they can to show that the system is weak. it might not succeed. if they do not succeed, if the army reasonably stays together and they take a beating, but they still standing, it might then be a better type form for negotiations for the taliban in 2016 that we have had at any point since the issue of negotiations stacamed up. it will be difficult and messy and will go on months and months before the elections. i would expect there will be several sets of negations, and -- to establish somebody as a president. and then a year down the road or several months down the road, the next president will realize that he really does not like to that hein struck, that he owes so many political debts that he will have to negotiate and violate the conditions of the deal. and then there will be a

difficult second set of negotiations that he is testing his power and either succeeding potency withore his presidency or not. >> ambassador? >> i would hate to have you as an enemy. ishink the point you make right, that there is enormous hesitation on the part of the army in part going into north waziristan, because of the unforeseen or the suspected of how the groups some the various groups that we call -- fit within north waziristan would call upon their allies throughout several pakistan to hit the government where it hurts. and so since many of the people in the higher levels of the army, i would say the court commanders, always say we do not want to take this kind of move

until we are sure that the people are behind us, we want to have the people behind us while we do this, this was seen by various american critics as you guys are just chickens, you do not want to go in, or you are shy of the militant in waziristan, he yoyou are friend. the reason it would be is a difficult operation to go in and it would be very difficult if the army is going to -- shock and a number of bombs go off in hore, and the prime minister says i do not bargain for this. it is ok for people to die up in this hills, but i do not want the overpasses that i built throughout lahore to come tumbling down because it is the part of the bargain. i come back to the question of the -- of domestic politics at a time when we all wished there

would be more vision, or a regional vision that pakistan could do what it says what he wants to do which is to be a good neighbor. it's good neighborliness will not be because it has a way of extending itself. will bebe much more we hesitant to make any moves like moving into waziristan because we are afraid it will have such an impact on domestic politics that we will not move. if they do not move, that means that there will always be in any game they will be the second player to play the chess piece. can we expect an outcome of pakistan if we are looking to india or afghanistan? after thesers selections are wise enough to have initiatives and allow pakistan to move, if they read pakistani politics well, is a wonderful opportunity for india and afghanistan to lead them, if

they can, because i do not think that the indians are the afghans are going to be on their -- after some new pakistani initiative. it is all about domestic politics. bangladesh -- yes, bill, they had a terrible election in december, for those who do not follow bangladesh politics on a regular basis. about two decades ago the bangladeshis pirated what was a brilliant way of managing bytile election environments connecting a constitutional amendment that required the outgoing government to step down for the 90 days bc the elections, to be replaced by a government of technocrats who were legally precluded from seeking office in the next election. and this would be the groups that oversaw the election.

unfortunately for both of the political leaders who have alternated in the intervening time, under this arrangement the outgoing government never came back. and both of these women had been looking for 20 years for a way of breaking that curse and hanging onto the chair that they rather liked sitting on. the current prime minister had a huge majority, and pushed through with no difficulty at all a constitutional amendment the interim government arrangement, bolstered by a supreme court ruling which permitted them to use the interim government arrangement one or two more times, but said it was basically unconstitutional. sher those circumstances, would not agree to any

election rules that it included hernparty government, and principal opponent would not agree to any election rules that did not include the interim government. primeore, the current minister and her allies boycotted the election. awarded, ands were the other half went to the shei k. majority.eik has a during the run-up to the election, the united states to anyone whoall cared to listen and to lock the people who did not care to listen for elections that were free, fair, and inclusive, and sometime after the election do united states government

continued to call for having the newly elected government resign and hold a fresh election, something which had about as much chance as happening a snowball surviving a few years in hell. the indian government on the other hand are basically stuck with this traditional friend. this has always been the party that was closest india. and not incidentally, it is the party that has not at least, in itselfmemory aligned with any of the islamic parties. the indians concluded that and wety was bad news are going to stick with that guys whose overall outlook on life is more sympathetic to india. i do not expect to see a significant change in indian policy. the one thing that might change in the next -- and actually i

is that youhange -- might conceivably have a government in delhi that is better able to manage the mercurial personality and strong interests of the chief minister bengal in using policy toward bangladesh as a way of managing its relationship with delhi. if that sounds convoluted, it is only because it is. has pretty much dropped its call for fresh elections, recognizing that these were not going to happen. every once in a while the u.s. government still calls for more inclusive politics in bangladesh. the tea leaves are not looking particularly good, whether did they come from -- none of them look particularly good. the -- has been leading

processions come and another currently on a long march. they are trying to carry this out without getting themselves all arrested. my guess is you will see sputtering's of bangladesh's traditional confrontational politics for the next couple of years, following which they well may get beyond sputtering is, and that will be the point at which we can see whether -- is indeed going to go in the direction closer to a one-partneriny state. i do not think the issue will be forced, but this lifecycle of elections during the political environment in the government plus ability to make decision has started out not terribly , has dropped on a gentle

curve initially, and has been fallen off completely by year four out of a five-year parliamentary cycle. >> thank you. we will start with gary and then actually, marjorie, and then after marjorie, gary. >> thanks. i want to ask a question ab-brown,to dr. felb but given to the amount of intelligence on this issue, any observation for the panel, if you're about to become the next president of afghanistan, you have a got a lot to worry about, but the most obvious prescient you would seem to be -- obvious question you would seem to be thinking about is, what is the taliban going to do, what is karzai going to do, what are the and how do ito,

get a message to the world community that we are stable and we are moving ahead? my question is, if you were serving as a political advisor to the next president of afghanistan, what do you think should be on his agenda for the first hundred days? >> we will go here for the second question, please. >> retiree an interested observer. very open-ended question. what should be the role of the u.s. government -- i do not mean in the run-up to the elections, promote presume try to some positive steps forward after the elections, and by what instruments would be or could we do that? i would answer that the other

-- the next president needs to immediately-- whether the loser is in the runoff, but the broader set of losers that are part of the -- right now. the key powerbrokers that are running or much many relating in the background. that will structure the domestic bargains that will enable or structuring the restructuring governance. so they are not exclusive. in fact, if the politics that can low up much faster and far more acutely than the taliban bombs can start blowing up. clearly the mud the next president will need to make a decision on the relationships with the united states and the

international community. both have said they will sign the security agreement. i think our expectation is washington is that they will sign very quickly. presumably, they have an interest decide -- to sign the accord. we are expecting them to sign simply on the premise by the fact that there is a strategic deal is good for afghanistan and whatever we put on the table, they must take because it is good for them, and whether it is 2000 troops that will counter their objectives or 8000 troops broadhat include more support for the national security army, -- i do not think that is the case. next afghanp the president by being more transparent about what is it that we will give them and what is it that they get out of it,

targeting the capacity to target [indiscernible] but i will need to come to a deal, and the more we tell them now, the more they are transparent and what it will look like, the easier it will be to put the policy in place that they can sign very quickly. then they will need to take on some key reform issues, possibly very few. international community, which is losing interest, there is right now a big budget crisis in afghanistan. the gdp this year was lower than expected. key ministries will not have money to pay their employees. the armies are dependent on foreign funding, so very quickly even perhaps before the new

government is formed there will some there will need to be assistance package to tide over afghanistan in terms of very narrow payment capacity. presidentbe -- by the which will be a more stable and there will be a hit. big economic it will be a vision that is thatre near close to being serializing. the easy thing is to think about how to revise the economy without stepping too much on the toes of the powerbrokers to whom the next president will be indebted. a year or two down the road, they will need to find how to redesigning those deals. otherwise, we end up in the same morass in the political

system that is not sustainable. >> to try to get at your question, which is sufficiently broad. i think one of the problems that has limited the american capacity to help pakistan, is the idea we are going to be the people who will be doing things. wwell may be after 2014 [indiscernible] entire a focus on the military mission, that we may be able to come above what can we do? that we are dealing with a number of issues in the region and those issues, since americans are famously patient, strategic, thinking in the long term, it may give us an opportunity to stop responding , that we as they come

may be able using 2014 as a kind how symbol to think about can we look at the decisions we are making about india, the issues that we need to be dealing with in the afghan world, that we can come up with priorities that have something , that otherll three fortries, it would be wise us to take this opportunity to think about the way we think about these regions. there is no drive to do this. there will be less drive, impulse to play close attention when a certain number of troops -- there will will be very strong reasons why most american policymakers will say that is so yesterday.

i want to work on crimea, i want to think about -- not that we get so tired of thinking about -- the danger and the let thesey of let's guys solve it on their own, and what all three of us have said is they can do that. it may not be the way we like. i think for the past 10 years, 15 years, maybe even more, the u.s. government has made policy towards pakistan basically out of fear of the bad things that could happen if things go bad. towards made policy india out of the hope that good things would happen if we got thingsght -- if we got right. the basic attitude is neither is there a sufficient basis for policy, but we still have to structure.hat basic

since we established -- really, since 9/11, before we established the present bureaucratic structure, pakistan has been joined at the hip in policy terms with afghanistan. and it has, although it is in my judgment the more important country for the united states in the long term -- vanda may want to argue with that -- is very much the junior partner are critically in this setup. i would argue that the first thing that needs to happen, and despite of the different ways we have articulated this scenario where cameron and i agree, is that we need to start cultivating some aspects of the relationship with pakistan that are not derivative of afghanistan.

had a net kind of a transition with india in the sense that one of the more successful areas of our changing relationship with india is the way we both look at east asia, where india is trying to expand its role and where in fact our interest align pretty well. sense the in a dehyphenation part of it. there are some that sometimes down the road maven themselves to this kind of treatment in a -ordered universe. afghan security should be one of them. i do not think india and pakistan are there yet for reasons that have already been

mentioned. on other issues, and i am thinking in terms of trade and climate change, actually the aretries in the region united in their opposition to some of the things the united states would like to do. so this may be a blow for unity, but something that is not likely policy lead item in u.s. toward the region. i think we have got our work cut out for us on this. enough love to see improvement in india-pakistan relations that we could in fact build on the opening, and i think the best candidate for that is the trade opening that these two countries have been working on fitfully and inconsistently for a while. but if they were actually able to complete the first round of actions that they had supposedly

in principle agreed on, i think that might unlock some possibilities for at least common consultations on issues where we really do have common concerns. i'm not sure they are quite ready for afghanistan to be part of that, but that would be my favorite candidate. is it doesg to add not mean to be seen as only government to government work. we need is this actors to take a part of this. -- teague needs to happen he lead needs to happen. to realize that the salvation market is something that is attractive to them. who are and academic, very engaged that part of the world, and one of the things i like about pakistan -- much of it is secular. it is a great partner for

american philanthropic interest. you need not have the kind of legislation or the kind of structure only to be able to engage with the country with a lot of things we have strength. -- we can dores this and we do not just have to do this -- [indiscernible] we have time for one more round. the woman in the sixth row, and then the gentleman in the silver and black tie to round up. >> cathy robinson. my question is primarily for dr. felbab-brown. women played a tremendous role in coming out for the vote. what is the future, and how will increased this role, role, in the government going forward, and how will that shape outcomes in afghanistan?

and if there are thoughts on how women leaders in parliament and elsewhere, in india and pakistan, can play a role in women's further governance in afghanistan, that would be great to know, too. i am a researcher at the brookings institution. regarding the future of trilateral relationship between india, afghanistan, and iran. regarding around a port on the gulf of oman. indian andus them afghan officials are talking about how the sport will connect the two countries, by way of railways, and i was curious to know the opinions regarding

limitations of prospects in terms of india and afghanistan regarding this port. >> i will take one more in the hope that it works out one per panelist. teresita.tion is for what will be the biggest implications for u.s.-indian nations under modi? do you think there will be significant changes in the relationship, or that things will mostly stay the same? thanks. right, i spoke about how impressive the afghan people were in turning out for the vote and understanding that this is the make or break moment for the immediate teacher of afghanistan. just on its happen own spontaneously. much had to do with work that afghan civil side he had --

civil society had performed in mobilization over the past two years, and women groups paid a helpingortant role in the removal of the quota. to 20%.educed it was because of the result of women's group and civil society groups that it was slashed. >> both of the candidates, there is a sense that would be inorded a far greater role general and embrace man had been the case in the karzai administration. the legitimacy of karzai as reforming, regrettably, the last, and he increasingly embraced a conservative -- as his base of legitimacy. one of the -- the most major rollback of women's rights and

responsiveness to traditional two sectors in society that had not been sent advising with the opening had not been supervising with the opening for women. it is going to be a very tough engagement for afghan women. regardless whether it is either candidate, there is much sentiment among traditional sectors about the rights of women, and you have to remember , such asa constitution the quota for women, but in practice much of what a woman can achieve is still a function of what the male role of the father or husband permits the woman to achieve. and then for women to have , it isdent social role

close to impossible without the approval of male.s it will take time and will not be a fiction of the law, but will be a function of long-term of negotiation of the relationship in society. what will enable that is a thriving economy. the worst economy gets, the fewer jobs there are, the impedance there will be two women having access to jobs. country,unstable the the more of a disintegration toward intense fighting and confrontation, the more -- and focus of the international community, which has been the principal supporter of the women's groups. women's group would not have achieved as much power and potency without international

backing. if that remains because crimea is the issue and everybody is signetf afghanistan, usc -- you will see significant impact on women's groups in civil society. it is something that is important, that civil society expands beyond looking at the -- perhaps inand places like pakistan. that women insues pakistan face are very much analogous to what women in afghanistan face. what is to say they have to be divided by the grand line in the sense of the complicated ways that the two countries are divided? maybe there can be alliances that can have effects beyond the economic or the social engagements. the aspectsment is

of civil society. it is not necessarily the pro-democratic women moving civil society. there are other countries that are trying to cultivate. is afghan future painted as the virtuous youth of afghanistan, but there is a youth that is the muslim brotherhood that might be good for the country. we can assume they are not bad because they are islamist. [indiscernible] to bring to washington and that are very -- are a fraction of a much larger youth up for grabs that can go in a good direction, and go in an interesting direction, or in a very troubled direction. >> thank you. >> because the other two questions are --

iran question. india values its relations with iran, but one of them is that aiiran has been willing to work with india to provide lan access through a port. actually, i think the more relevant point is access to central asia. after transit through pakistan continues to be impossible, that will be a more attractive feature. it is too late to discuss what role inuture afghanistan will be, and i will be a big question having to do with afghanistan's future. if i could backtrack to what van da just said about women's groups, in talking about other places women's hoops in

afghanistan might find useful to -- groups in afghanistan might find useful to talk to and think about, do not forget bangladesh. there is an amazingly lively women's seen in bangladesh, people who grew up with, sort of, house rules, but were not that different from what vanda described, but carved out a niche for themselves and achieved acceptance on a scale not a lot of people would have expected. , his focus on economics and economics as a feature of foreign policy will be very welcome in washington. history of bad relations

with muslims will be somewhat worrisome. fact thaton to the for nine years we would not issue him a visa might be a problem for him, although if he is prime minister of india, he will get a visa if he wanted. you heard it here. [laughter] the technical term is his inadmissibility would be waived. that makes it sound nice and bureaucratic, doesn't it? [laughter] i think if you compare the guessing about a modi prime hip with a coalition, looks easier to deal with.

made efforts to position himself as an all-india figure during the election. when we called on business gosh, about one year ago, and there were breathless about how wonderful he was, the second talking point was always there were 27 muslim legislative assembly members that got themselves elected. i will let you interpret that if you will, but even before they were going at it hot and heavy, he was trying to reinvent himself. the other interesting factoid is that after the riots, which were -- by and on explosion explosion on a train carrying hindu pilgrims, there was

another incident. a bomb went off in a hindu temple. not a bar -- dog barked. no riots. no nothing. personally, i think that tends to point you towards to conclusions. one is the chief minister had good control of his law enforcement apparatus. the other is that he had concluded the rioting was not working for him anymore. that might not be morally uplifting, but if that logic still holds, then maybe that will save india from further horrible troubles like the ones that went through at that time. >> on that pragmatic note, we will thank you all for being here, and please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> a reminder, you can watch this program in its entirety again on our website, c-span.org. president obama continuing his week-long four asian nation trip. he is in tokyo tomorrow.

later he will be talking to leaders in south korea, the philippines, and malaysia. he is the first sitting president to visit malaysia since lyndon johnson in 1966. looking ahead on c-span, will bring you are still stories from women supreme court justices for the world. is joined bynsburg colleagues from canada and israel. here is some of what you will see tonight. generationing of my -- the women of my generation in the law had to overcome certain obstacles. it was not ok to indulge in jokes about race or religion, but women were fair game. i will give you one example. i was arguing before a federal court in new jersey.

understand that ,omen have made great progress they even have equal opportunity in the military. said women are not allowed to have flight training. "mythe judge responded dear, do not tell me that, women have been in the air always. i know from experience with my own wife and daughter." is one thing you do not say "you sexist pig." [laughter] you want to win the case. if you got angry, it would be self-defeating, so the best a sense of have

humor and satire meant many men feet innot have their the ground. >> it was inconceivable when we started kissing law that there would ever be a judge. inconceivable. inre were no -- started year law there would -- that we would ever be a judge. inconceivable. we all understand what it feels like to be an outside insider. you do what you feel is the right thing to do. >> what do you mean, outsider? >> if you know you are different, not like the rest of the culture you are professionally and, for me in ontario, i was jewish, immigrant, female, in a male profession that was largely -- my grandfather was a supreme court judge, father was a

supreme court judge. anyway, i say that only because it can be a great advantage to understand that you are different, you will never be like anybody else, that is good, and enjoy the fact that you are different. do not try to homogenize. the reason it is good, if you're comfortable in your skin, is because it means you do things not toward the possibility of an ultimate objective, i want to be on the supreme court of canada, against which you measure all of your opportunities and choices, you take risks. you say sure, i will run a labor board. i will be a judge at 29. i will run a lot reform commission when nobody else wants to do it. nothing was against my ultimate objection because i was having a wonderful ride in the legal profession. i now give advice, whenever i am asked, to young people to say you do not end your legal education and say this is where

i want to end up. you have no idea where you're going to end up. chance.rself a a great songwriter was once asked what comes first, the music or the words, and he said the phone call. [laughter] eric >> you can see all of that event from the national museum of women in the arts tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> our number on saturday the first conversation i had with a group of people was not about where you're from or what your school is like, but it was about ukraine, politics, our belief in education, religion, and after that moment i was like this week is going to be intense, but it has been cool to see the evolution of all of our friendships, bonds, talking about politics, even our experiences, what we learned, who we have met, and this is an experience i will never forget.

.> i have always been cynical i've always thought i could never really go that far in politics, but slowly, throughout the week, different speakers in different people that i have met have chipped away at that opinion that has been ingrained in my head and thought they be i do want to make a difference and run for something local and state local in my community. like president obama said yesterday, he told us do not get cynical because the nation does not really need any more cynical people. it will not help us believe the problems that we have. >> one of the things that gets brought up about our generation is social media, as we are able to express opinions very easily. i think that starts conversation, and we like to talk a lot, so there is conversation, and we like to get our opinions out there. >> i think this whole week has been about learning. i come from a small town where ,t is very political homogenic

and there is not much chance for people that do not think the same to get their pans out without being ridiculed, and being here -- think the same without being -- to get their opinions out without being ridiculed. >> high school students from across the country described there -- discuss their dissipation in the u.s. senate youth program, a weeklong program held annually in washington. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on ."span's "q&a >> during this month, c-span is pleased to design the winning entries in the studentcam video competition here at it is the annual -- competition. it is the annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about the issues. base the asked to documentary off of the question what was the most important

issue for congress to consider in 2014. first prize winner donald de alwis, gabriel cote, and ajay kharkar are sophomores from silver spring, maryland. they want congress to take action against water pollution in our nations waterways. >> water. it makes up 75% of our bodies. take water away and humanity would perish within a week. water is the most vital substance to a human body, yet it is because of us humans and nearly 50% of all stream miles, lakes, and estuaries are unsuitable for use you to pollution. in the u.s., we have learned to take water for granted. faucets, bottled water, and flush toilets reinforce the same idea -- water is an unlimited resource, but step outside to our local water raise, --

waterways and the diminishing condition tells a different story. water pollution kills marine life, destroys ecosystems, and disrupting food chain. animals are not the ones that suffer the negative effects. >> without clean water and clean air, we cannot live. >> what chance do we giving protect to grow up to children and a swimming. >> congress, it is time to take charge of the situation. you have the power to protect one of our most vital resources. ♪ >> one of the most polluted rivers in the state of maryland is the anacostia. it was once full of life and

analogical diversity. areentirety of the miles polluted. between 75 and 90% of the pollution are combined to overflows. washington, d.c., and the surrounding area use a sewage system that carry both sewage and surrounding water in a set of pipes. the hardest hit being the anacostia. between the 17 entry points to two to three miles of sewage pollute every year. d.c. water has started a project to reduce these. ae clean rivers project has schedule for massive tunnels

that will capture and source the tunnels. we took a tour of the d.c. water waste treatment plant to learn more. >> so, this tunnel itself is designed as a storage tunnel and a conveyance tunnel. what that means is when the cso overflows the combined sewer system, instead of going into the anacostia and potomac rivers, pacific way anacostia -- specifically the anacostia, it will overflow through deep shafts. it will fill up the tunnel and transfer all of that overflow and he can be slowly pumped out. it captures, stores, and conveys it to the plant for treatment. one of the biggest sources for solution -- pollution is the overflows. with this project, it would be

essentially eliminated. it would make a huge difference. instead of overflowing 70 or 80 times a year, it will overflow twice per year, which will make a huge difference. overflow outjor there. it is not safe to be on the periods.ring those the clean rivers project will fix that. 98%. it reduces the overflows to the anacostia by 98%. >> when fully implemented, the project is expected to help take the anacostia river off of the list of impaired waterways in the u.s., but d.c. is not alone in its struggle for clean water. raw sewage ands, storm water come pouring into the harbor. we need to stop that. >> the seriousness of the pollution the rivers have endured is much -- is unknown to

many pittsburghers. click to would be nice to jump off and not know what you are -- >> it would be nice to jump off and know what you're going to get. >> the biggest polluting is combined through overflow. >> overflow. >> combined sewer overflow. >> overflow. >> the clean rivers project and other initiatives like it will benefit waterways tremendously, but it comes at a price. >> one of the obstacles is obviously funding. it is a heavy burden. the biggest thing the government could do would be help fund this. behind every river there is a wastewater treatment agency trying to scrape together funds in their quest for clean water. congress, in 2014, you must provide federal funding to wastewater treatment agencies across the country. of our nation.

it must stop here. >> to watch all of the winning videos and learn more about the competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam and tell us what you think about the issues the students want congress to consider. post your comments on the facebook page and previous using #studentcam. >> for over 35 years c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at white house events, briefings, and countenances, and offering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a service of the cable industry. we were created 35 years ago i brought here as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> now a debate on the safety of genetically modified food. you will hear from consumer

advocate and author jeffrey smith and biotech entrepreneur gregory stock in this individual of our debate -- helio-our debate. two-our debate. >> jeffrey smith is a national best-selling author and film maker. he is the executive director for the institute of responsible technology. his book includes seeds of deception come exposing industry and government lies about the safety of genetically engineered food you're eating, which is the best bestseller on gm owes -- on gmo's. gregory stock, to my immediate left, dr. gregory stock is a biotech entrepreneur, best selling author and public communicator. he is a leading authority on advanced technology.

he founded the -- at ucla school of medicine in 1997. served as its director for 10 years. a series of high-profile lectures, dr. stock has categorized and brought to the debate about the public policy applications. one of you ask him what bio informatics means. among his books are redesigning humans, our inevitable genetic future, engineering the human drum line, and the book of questions. we look forward to your presentation. [applause]

>> how many of you ski? i'm in the right place. forgive me if i have recognized today. i went to vail for the first time. how many of you here are farmers? let's hear it for the farmers. [applause] how many of you are gardeners? how many eat? make note of it, there are more people who ski than eat here. [laughter] let's talk about something that is in our food and you may or may not know about it. soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugarbeet, alfalfa, zucchini, yellow squash, and papaya. the agency is not aware of any

information showing that gmo's are significantly different therefore no safety testing is necessary. so companies like monsanto, who i previously -- imperiously told us that ddt was safe, they can determine on their own and maybe get it right this time that gmo seeds and the crops they produce are safe. it turns out that that basic sentence, which is in fact the basics for the u.s. policy overseas, the state department, etc., etc. -- it was a lie. it was complete fiction. we did not know about in 1992, but we found out about it in 1999 game 40,000 secret internal memos from the fda were forced into public domain from a lawsuit. not only were they aware that

gmo's were significantly different, it was the consensus among their own scientists that they were different and of high risk, that they could create allergies and nutritional problems. they repeatedly urged their superiors to require long-term study. and every time they read the policy, they noticed that more and more of their science rose removed from that -- was removed from that document. the person in charge of policy at the fda, the political appointee was michael taylor, monsanto's former attorney. the fda was taken instructions to promote that technology. they created a position for him. taylor became monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist. now he is back at the fda as the two safeties are -- food safety czar.

one of the scientists at the fda predicted correctly that, without required safety studies, the companies would not even do the normal studies that they would do because they are not on the fda list. so we have very few safety studies. but enough for the academy of environmental medicine to evaluate and discover that the rats and the mice that were fed gmo's had gastrointestinal disorders, organ damage, accelerated aging, reproductive disorders, and dysfunction of cholesterol and insulin. they said this information is not casual. it is a causal relationship based on standard scientific

criteria. and on that basis, all doctors should recommend non-gmo diets to all patients. this came out in 2009. i went to the a.m. conference with a videoconference -- with a video camera. i had been representing scientists around the world, independent scientists found that the entire approach to genetic engineering of food was completely premature, that we did not yet have enough information about genes, dna, insertion process to safely introduce it and expose it to the entire population who eat, which is most of you. and we could not release it with confidence into the environment with the self propagating portion of the gene pool without the effects of global warming and nuclear faced because it is the background to the genetic pool. so i was interviewing the scientists and translating their

concerns so that everyone could understand. and anything i wrote in book form was looked at by at least three scientists. and when i saw folk, converging lines of evidence suggest that i might be chilly. nothing is deficit definite. but when i meet these doctors at this conference, they did not speak like scientists. they said gmo cause inflammation. gmo's cause my allergic patients to have more allergic reactions. i was skeptical. for years, people would come up to me and say i react to gmo's, and when i take him out of my diet, i feel better. and my skeptic brain was saying how do you know? maybe it's true, but probably not. how do you know? i was looking for a background trend.

but here were doctors. i said to this woman, what percentage? she said 100% get better, maybe 98%. i asked her again, how many patients do you have that you prescribe non-gmo diets to? she said about 5000 over the years. someone with 25 days into a non-gmo diet, they had symptoms disappear in three days. kids with terrible that pain had disappeared. another doctor was invited into their office and i interviewed their patients. so many dramatic improvements. then i started asking rooms like this have many of you have noticed improvement in your health and every civil time i ask this, the most consistent reaction is guessed it -- gastrointestinal getting better. energy issues, weight loss,

allergies, asthma and also behavioral problems with kids, autistic problems. when i ask people as i did in the doctors office, how do you avoid gmo? they are not labeled. and they often say they buy organic or reduce processed food. so soon as they buy organic or reduce processed food because i'm representing the scientific community, i say there are too many cofactors. maybe if the diet. is it the nine gmo aspect -- the non-gmo aspect of the diet? is it the chemicals that is usually found in processed food?

at the same time, i started visiting farms and veterinarians who had taken livestock and offer them gmo corn or soy and they took him off gmo corn or soy and they were getting better from the same problems that the people were getting better from and there were no other cofactors. on the farm, the pig had diarrhea and in the opposite called irritable bowel. they would tell their patients -- tell their pet owners to take the animals off of gmo's and they get better. i have video of several pet owners repeating the same thing. now we see a pattern.

people getting better from these same diseases and disorders when they read more -- when they remove gmo's from their diet. these same disorders and diseases are on the rise in the u.s. population. there is a big variety of disorders and diseases. how was it that gmo's might impact of these? if you look at gmo's there are two main traits. there is the pesticide producing on and cotton, producing d.c. toxin that make little holes in

the insects to kill them and then there is a nervous side that is rounder pretty that is designed to be treated with round of artists -- roundup herbicide and it is absorbed. roundup, about 85% of the crops out there and prayed with round up. roundup was the subject of a paper last year and the authors, just looking at the biochemical property to cancer, obesity, diabetes, alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and eric sierra, and depression. -- anorexia and depression. they have linked it to gluten sensitivity and silly activities and death by kidney dysfunction.

the way roundup works is it binds with nutrients with trace minerals, making them unavailable to plants, making them unavailable to us. that is one of the reactions in our body that can deprive us of important nutrients. it is also opposing antibiotics. how many people here that got back area -- that gut bacteria is a port and for health? gut bacteria is google for the digestion and immunity. it kills bacteria but it is selective. it kills the beneficial bacteria but not the e. coli, some in noah, and botulism. so it causes an overgrowth -- salmonella, and botulism. so it causes an overgrowth.

when it messes up the gut bacteria, that can affect the immune system, the digestive system, cause leaky gut, holes in the gut walls. undigested food proteins can get in there causing immune reaction, information, allergies, autoimmune disease, and has led to cancer or parkinson's and alzheimer's and other diseases. roundup also blocks a certain pathway, a metabolic pathway. monsanto said humans don't have the pathway so it doesn't matter if it gets blocked because it does not get locked in us. but our gut bacteria is a precursor to serotonin and tryptophan which is our mood changers. there is plenty of specific details that roundup does,

including an apron disruption, where it can mess up a reproductive capacity, possibly linking to birth the cap -- birth detects -- birth defects. it has a strong competitor in the bt toxin. it wasn't supposed to have any impact on human beings. but a 2012 study found that it creates in human cells just like in insects during if it breaks up a little holes in our intestinal walls come it also creates the leaky gut that we just talked about. it doesn't just allow the undigested food proteins to get

in there. but also the bt toxin and the round up. so in the blood of canadian women that were tested, they found bt toxin and roundup. in pregnant women, 93% of their blood and in 80% of the blood in their unborn fetuses. another study with mice showed that it caused damage to the red blood cells. so it might be causing damage to our blood cells. and then when he gets the unborn fetus, there is no developed blood brain barrier. i talked to a scientist, several scientists, who talk about the bt toxin in the blood, saying it would probably. wash out very quickly if it washes out very quickly, why would 93% of the pregnant women in canada have bt toxin in their but if it washes out quickly.

it must have a constant source. it probably came from the milk in animals fed bt corn. i think there is another plausible explanation. in a 2004 study, they found that part of the roundup-ready gene transfer into the dna of the bacteria living inside our intestines. and that that bacteria was only tillable with roundup. this suggests that doesn't prove that when the gina genetically engineered crops transfers to gut bacteria, it continues to function. genetically modified proteins continuously, 24/07 inside our digestive tract. they didn't see whether eating acorns ship -- acorns ship could turn your intestinal for into -- corn in the united states is made with bt corn and with round of corn.

what if it transfers to the gut bacteria and continues to produce it? this was never confirmed. this was never tested. each is a tragedy. because we are feeding it to the entire population. but if you just look at the quality of the bt toxin and roundup, it could explain all of the different reports we are hearing from now thousands of physicians prescribing non-gmo diets. i have counted 5000 or 6000 and

in conferences and i asked for a show of hands of how many are prescribing non-gmo diets. in 2007, 15% said they were avoiding gmo's. last year, it was 39%. unfortunately, the biotech industry has earned a reputation as being underhanded and let's say not so appreciative of the facts. when scientists discover problems, according to nature and other publications and interviews i have done with those scientists, there are typically -- they are typically attacked, often fired or gagged during they lose funding, lose access to seeds. they will be demoted. so much so that there are very

few scientists willing to do research in this area. and we have tracked very consistently the reaction by scientists in attacking these independent scientists and destroying their evidence. when you look at industry funded studies however, they are designed to avoid finding problems. we call it about the science. i sit with scientists and go over the research done by the industry and they point out exactly how this thing -- it is either not tested or they don't use modern techniques and if they do find problems, they just explain it away with often nonscientific explanations. so during the q and a, if you want to know more specifics about how they rated their research, there -- rig their research, there is an adoption.

fortunately, by educating people about the health dangers, many of us have seen the revolution that is occurring. non-gmo label products are the fastest-growing. it grew faster than any other category in terms of sales than any of the other 35 health and will thus claims. in europe, we saw a solution to the gm of issue -- the gmo issue, not by political and enactment but from consumer education. i will talk a little bit about the way out of gmo's if you like. i'm just showing some of the photographs, not the peer-reviewed published studies.

just some of the photographs. here on the left side is a normal intestine of a rat. on the right side, the change in the architecture and cell walls along the intestines after eating a genetically modified potato. this is the stomach lining. this is a potato that is not current on the market this was almost certainly due to the genetic process of genetic engineering, not the particular gene that was inserted your massive collateral damage in the dna and causes unpredicted side effects like. in india, thousands and thousands of farm workers who pick the cotton that produces the bt toxin are reporting itching, rashes and other gastrointestinal or immune system problems. i went to a village in india

were they allowed their buffalo to graze on bt confines for a single day. all 13 of their buffalo died within two or three days. many of them have been eating non-gmo harvest plants for up to eight years. rats on genetically modified soybeans. rats that were fed gm soybeans, there testicles change from pink to blue. i gave a talk at the european parliament. more than 50% of their offspring died within three weeks compared to 10% in the control.

there is a study that was done in france showing massive multiple tumors, organ damage, and early death. i'm sure my colleague will pick apart and i will be happy to pick up the pieces. here are pictures of pigs stomachs after fed genetically modified feed on the right. it is hard to see in this light, but it is severe irritation and show 25% larger your uses -- larger uteruses. not to flip through some of the cause estimates. this does not guarantee causation. but if gmo has a problem and we are feeding it to the population and if it is significant enough that we take people off gmo's and they're getting better --

this is death from parkinson's disease. this is number of new cases of diabetes diagnosed annually. if you take at the tram line, the gym a factor came into play. this is the number of hospitalizations for two kidney injuries. end-stage kidney disease. pelvis cancer incident. thyroid cancer incident liver and bile duct they are the

target tissues for like a sake or roundup -- for glycocate or roundup. this is autism. this is low birthrate baby. hospital discharge diagnosis for inflammatory about. death due to intestinal infection. hospital discharge and notice of peritonitis. celiac disease in a canadian hospital in an area where they increase the planting of soybean and canola.

the correlations are rather shocking. they are very parallel. so what i would love to do is come back in about 21 minutes after my esteemed colleague and competitor has a chance to try and rebut all of this information and give you a sense that gmo's are easy, are safe to eat. we will be able to pick apart the argument in great detail. i want to thank the veil supposedly -- vale symposium for this opportunity. [applause] >> before i turn this over to dr. stock, those of you

particularly in the front row, i need you to notice the computer stand here. with that, dr. stock. >> i am not going to try and rebut these things at this point on a case-by-case basis. this is the most absurd fabrication that i have ever listened to. i didn't know anything about jeffrey smith before i agreed to come to this. i assumed that it was less distorted than i am really listening to. this graph is suggestive. i get the same sort of graphs from the internet with what is potentially possible for all of these things, everything increasing over time. what i am hearing is that gmo crops are the most extraordinary poison that ever existed among responsible for all sorts of diseases and yet you would have all of the major scientific organizations and medical organizations be in some sort of

a extraordinary conspiracy to deny this. it denies all of these institutions. and you have someone here who is actually profiting gmo by the controversy and has zero scientific training and talks about speaking before medical audiences, speaking before scientific audiences. we will get into that in a moment. so i will ask you to suspend your judgment on some of the stuff. what i might do is to try and talk a little bit about the context of these changes. with gmo's there is only one aspect. i want you to step back. some things that are absolutely fundamental in the history of life are occurring right now.

there are two revolutions that are without precedent. the first is the silicon revolution. what is really occurring is taking the inert materials around us, silicon, and reading a level of complexity to it that rivals like itself. that's why we have all of our amazing gadgets and such. they are almost intelligent and this is just the first baby step in that direction. what we are doing is animating the inanimate world around that. if you project forward a little bit, it is mind-boggling to even think what will be possible in a short period of time. it's not surprising that this is creating a certain angst about technology. the second revolution that is occurring -- everybody is profound, which is made possible by this first revolution, and that is the biotech revolution. learning the process,

understanding it at an intimate level the processes of life at such a level that we can begin to intervene and tweak them and adjust them in ways. that is something that is the central part of all the possibilities in medicine and biology and the life sciences that are arriving today. it is a step that never will -- that nothing will ever be the same. life is beginning to control its own future and we are starting to alter the world around us to where it becomes almost intelligent. this is blurring a lot of boundaries. the kinds of things that are

occurring are to the boundary between the born and the made, between life and the nonliving. here is a synthetic light treated by craig venter, a designed bacterium. here is kanye mitchell, the line between our tools and ourselves. she is using this prosthesis and controlling it with her mind through just thinking about how to to move it which excites the nerves on her chest which translates into movement of her arm. and this is just the baby steps of what is occurring. here is -- did you print up the list that i sent there is a video of him at a tech conference. you have to look at this. this guy was a climber. he got frostbite. he was caught in a blizzard for three days.

with these trustee sees, he can go from four feet to 9 p.m. hide. now he is a much better climber. he said he would never go back to having legs [laughter] what's the video. here is embryonic stem cells that are being repurposed in various ways in order to create tissues and various aspects of therapies that are interesting this is a journey to who knows where. and it is moving very, very rapidly and it is happening right here, now. and the kinds of questions we are really dealing with, is the cutting edge of life and silicon and all of itself. if you project 50 or 100 years, what will they be capable of? but right now, we are talking

about biology. the next frontier isn't what they thought in the 1960's, out there in space somewhere. it's ourselves. it is this inner journey into who we are and what life is it is a very jarring thing. it is very amazing what's happening. so it comes up, genetic engineering in general. is this something that we should worry about really with gmo's? i am going to give you a few examples. first of all, there is a lot of gmo angst. i think jeffrey wasn't going to eat some of the fruits up there because some of them were -- some of them have gmo possibilities. there is a lot of angst about all sorts of things and we will talk about it. it is unwarranted? the areas where you can have potential concern about gmo -- by the way, gmo is not a state. it is a process.

it is a technique by which you can create certain kinds of plants and that is why it is not regulated the same way by the fda. it is not something that you can detect. it is a product. some things are societal and some things are environmental. some of these things are much bigger than gmo's. gmo is a little part of that. and we may have issue with the way the world is organized, but that is separate, above and beyond the issue of the specific technology so i will not get into that issue. it is environmental issues. there are much bigger fish to fry in that realm as well you can make a strong argument, by increasing yields, you really are very much in a positive way affecting the environmental footprint of agriculture, we are in a state where you try to go

back to a pre-green revolution agriculture, we could have the paul ehrlich kinds of starvation that were feared back in the 1960's. what i want to talk about his two other things. health, once again, i have never heard such nonsense. 5000 patients have all been cured by getting off of gmo ingredients of some sort or another? doctors are absolutely certain about that and somehow the whole world is ignoring it. the other is spiritual, fear of the big thing. what are the limits of what we are doing and how do we feel about it and what does it mean to be human? that is where jeffrey really took it from. and the sense of the spiritual place of man and that is what we are really talking about.

when we are talking about anything, it is a matter of cost and benefits. here, the costs would seem to be extra nearly high. it seems to me there are two. 1 is the one on the left and many of us have fallen into the affluent category. and there are people on the right to are actually just scrabbling along, trying to survive. it actually makes a difference some of these things because they solve very real problems. let's talk about some of the possibilities here. 1, bt cotton. oh, my god, that is horrible. you better really be careful about sprays on organic foods.

this is pesticide use by about 40%. that is an abstraction for us. really, is that something that is important? but if you are one of these kids around with a shotgun on his back all day long spreading pesticides in the field so he is swimming in the stuff. and not using as much of that is big deal. i don't see a problem with that. the banana will disease. it turns out that that is affecting a huge percentage of the crops of bananas that is the staple of a large fraction of the population. the only way or a very good have been trying to prevent that

disease is to engineer in a gene from rice that is protected against that disease. flood tolerant life. they can continue to produce product after a flood. so flood tolerant rice. citrus grooming disease, something that is wiping out the citrus greening disease, something that is wiping out the citrus crops in florida. nobody knows how to deal with it. one avenues to engineers in some resistance. some people who are citrus farmers there don't know what to do because of the campaign that has been waged about the dangers of gmo's. you can see here what the oranges look like after they have been infected with a

disease bacteria that is associated with fuller's. so wrecking the orange crops there. papaya, there is no way to avoiding this ring spot virus. so in a short time and most of the papaya is in hawaii has been protected from the virus by this resistance game. when you eat papaya, if you can find non-gmo papaya, it has about 10,000 times. then there is frozen rice switch as vitamin a to rice. i see no evidence that there is a safety problem, a health problem with rice.