The Hidden Mindset Imbalance Behind Humanity's Meta-Crisis

speaker-0: Welcome to another episode of Fintech Bytes. My name is Jerry. Today we have a very special guest in our studio. So why does it feel like the world is getting more complex, but our solutions are getting smaller?

Climate crisis, political division, AI risks, mental health epidemics. Many thinkers now call this a meta-crisis. But what if the real problem isn't the crisis themselves? What if the problem is how humanity thinks about solving problems?

We are now going to talk about it with our esteemed guest, Cedric de Roosjean. He is an author. His upcoming book will be coming out sometime soon. And he is also a VC.

Cedric, please introduce yourself and welcome to the podcast. speaker-1: Good morning, Jerry. Thank you so much for having me. It is very special indeed because this is the first time I speak publicly about my book and the theory that comes with it.

So you're an early adopter, I would say. And thank you very much for that, for the opportunity. So just a bit of a few words about my background. I'm a serial entrepreneur, I'm really specialized into ESG solutions and business strategy.

Earlier in my career, I was an analyst for more than 15 years as a Wall Street analyst and understanding the performance of a company in the media, social media, retail tech and consumer sectors. And what was interesting is this experience really gave me really insight into the structural limitation and short- And I would say as well, lack of regenerative thinking at the top of ⁓ leading organizations. have as well, two master's degree on the education side, one in economics and one in political sciences.

And as well, I've got a higher diploma in strategy and management. I'm very passionate about philosophy, sociology, music, and as well poetry. And that's of course, will reflect is what I'm going to talk about today. Currently, I'm the managing partner of Value Square and we are the first actually independent operating partner and the purpose of this company is really to help companies or clients to acquire strategic expertise that is usually reserved to private equity.

And through our work there, we focus on helping organizations to unlock superior performance and valuation while also embedding stronger ethics. and turning disruption and emerging threats into long-term opportunities. So it's all about reconciliation of things that seem to be usually not possible, like profit and sustainability. speaker-0: Sounds great.

Cedric, I think you're talking on one hand about the entrepreneurial side, the startup life that you do as a VC, but on the other hand, I see that you like poetry, like also philosophy, you like music, art, culture. And I would classify you as somebody that is an AI philosopher, maybe. I would say what you write in your book is quite interesting. So your book argues that humanity currents meta-crisis is just about climate.

inequality or geopolitics, but about a deeper mindset imbalance. What made you conclude that the root cause lies in how we think than in specific political or economic systems? speaker-1: Well, I think it would be interesting to explain how the idea comes from initially. I was surprised that no one was surprised about the fact that awareness on problems is up, truly.

And that's a good thing. It's really great that more and more people know their climate deniers, their fewer and other things like that. The bigger gap is the more we are aware on problems and the more we should be developing solutions and solving those problems. looked like awareness on problems is the first step and we therefore mirror the second step which is to solve the problems.

When it seemed like actually the opposite is happening. It's the more we are aware on problems and the more the problems grow. So it seemed like something in the business of awareness is not fully working. That's really what triggered my research and the book that came with it.

speaker-0: would you say is now the biggest challenge that we have with AI? Is it ethics? Is it rapid development? Is it reckless development?

What would you say are the biggest issues right now? Or is it the social... speaker-1: In terms of the biggest, I don't know what, there are so many, so many problems because actually AI is the reflection of society. So it's the reflection of what we, and we're going to probably to go talk about that the meta crisis.

So AI becomes an amplifier of the meta crisis we are seeing. So it's not only one problem, it's all the problems linked together and propelled into something that accelerated them. Obviously, area I would say where you know, the ETC series looking at and maybe others have not been looked at. Of course, we know, you know, the fear is that we all lose our job, we have nothing to do and society might actually collapse.

That's a possibility. But there's another thing that also worries me and are expressed in the book is that actually the way the AI systems are fed with the content we give it. It means that the bias we have are all being included in the way of thinking and that already people have pointed out this is the case for discrimination and other things we've seen. But there's another problem that's not, that's even for humanity is that artificial intelligence as they're fed by our system and our system is, as I said, is biased could come to the same type of conclusions that the society is already coming by amplifying them.

So when we keep on saying that the problem is humanity, that we are terrible and all these kinds of things and Western society and dividing, I think that one of the risks would be that AI concludes that humans are the problem and try to remove us from it, from the planet. And that's a real question. Let's explain because now maybe everybody is aware of what metacrisis or polycrisis means. It's when you see many problems in society, can be the environment, be toxicity, polarization, AI transformation that could be against you, many things.

And instead of looking at all these problems separately, you believe there is a common cause to all those problems. So that's what metacrisis is. And actually the ETC theory believes and the That's the book I'm writing, is actually believe that is the case. There's something Binis we should be looking at.

Now why we are different from, it's another approach of the meta-crisis is because we believe the meta-crisis approach is actually part of the problem more than they're part of the solution. And I'd like to explain myself there. So for the ATC theory, the true deeper problem is that there is a human mindset that actually predates from Western modernity. It's actually could go back as far as farming started when we started to exploit nature.

So we have been exploited by nature for long time ago. And the Western cultures who automation and the industrial revolution has actually amplified that. that's, that's, yes, this true. So the importance is not to understand what has been amplifying, but what has been the cause in the first place.

And the advantage of doing that is as we look at something that is so deeply rooted. into humanity, we no longer blaming each other. can collectively look at a solution. And that's a really shift in the mindset is to look together rather than expecting people or certain culprits to try to do something and banning them or ostracizing them.

And the other, what makes me also think that is when you look at the Western culture today, which is losing its grip on the world, and we might, we might find it a good thing or bad thing. We see new forces that appear like China or India. And is the As the new system, is the meta crisis going away? Well, it should be if the Western culture is the problem, but they are not.

It's rather the opposite. So ⁓ that's a proof that we need to go somewhere else. The other thing I saying is important for me for meta solution. And we can't continue to analyze meta crisis if we don't think beside a meta solution and encourage everybody to write meta solution on Google, on, on, on, on.

charge GPT or whatever, and you will find very little compared to meta-crisis, which is part of the problem. So what a better solution should be, it should have actually a possibility. It's a double reconciliation, reconciliation of what is old versus what is new. What is old is very important, but the fact we're speaking English today, there's a tradition there that helps us to understand each other.

But that's why we also need to be accepting new worlds, new expressions from rappers, from other people. So how do you integrate the old and the new so everybody feel harmonious about that? That's a very important question at the level of the individual, at the level of the society and companies. Now the personal development versus collective interest and the rest of the planet is also extremely important.

How we reconcile all these things to make people blossom individually but society at high interest at large are big. To give you an example. Diesel cars supposedly were good for the planet. At one point, that's what we were pushed to buy diesel cars.

It was better for the environment. Well, not only it's not, but also actually when we knew that from the beginning, I'm full for people in terms of fine particles and give the cancer. So how come we went to something that in the name of helping the planet would go against us? This is something that I found very serious, a lack of humanism.

which is also a problem I see in the Meta-Crisis approaches today. So, so far no human society has resolved the durable reconciliation of old versus new and personal development versus collective interest. Not the traditional society, not communism, not any society, nor the Meta-Crisis. So all we need to rethink totally society in order to...

deal with those things. Basically, what I'm saying here is that the ETC series, which is the book, and I will say why it's called ETC, is a framework to create meta-solution to achieve a society that's five on non-exploitative forms of production. So as I said before, we've been exploitative since we've been farming, and we need to rethink that and detect all the solution that could be more synergetic with, or symbiotic with the way we work with other people, with animals, with nature.

And that's really why in that sense, you rather than pointing at defects and we want to work collectively on that. And that's why I think the ETC theory is about reconciliation and inclusion and meta-crisis approaches have not been. speaker-0: Well, you described the ETC framework, which is a novel idea in your book and it's a very interesting concept. And like I said, the Metacrisis, if you would Google it, you probably wouldn't even get much answer even if you used chat GPT.

You describe three fundamental mindsets, the enabler, the thinker and the creative. Could you walk us through what each of these represents and why all three are essential to what it means to be fully human? speaker-1: Yeah. So the ATC is only an angle.

I'm not pretending this is the truth in any, any ways. It's only an interesting angle to look at ourselves through. And basically you could say that what makes very specific of humans is that we are using a combination of three mindset, the enabler mindset. And as the one is the doer, the one of automation, execution and control.

It applies to known solutions, to known problem in a very defined ⁓ horizon. This is the mindset behind business as usual, and it is essential for turning ideas into new ideas into reality and automation. The thinker mindset is the one about reflection and analysis. It can go from just being contemplative, wondering, to actually deep analysis and maybe sometimes 10, 20 years of research and producing nothing.

But it's a bad question. It's exactly what we're trying to do here. So, you know, that's really what this mindset is about. And the creative mindset is more driven by inspiration.

It's about breakthrough ideas, cultural shifts. You may start to do some, you go on the piano, you start to do something, you don't know why you're doing it. Maybe you come with a great song, maybe you write some lyrics, and maybe these lyrics will contain a new idea that revolutionized the planet or not. That's what the creative mindset is very important.

There's no agenda behind it. So, or shouldn't be. So what's important is understanding is this three mindset. Only the thinker and the creative mindset are regenerative.

So without the input, the enable mindset keeps on reproducing the same answers to issues. Even if there are new issues, they will still deal with it as it's automated. So we need thinkers and creative to say, hey, wait a minute, something is happening. The planet is not flat.

Well, I know some argue with that, but we need to question what we've been believing and what we, the way we look at the world, the paradigm we're in. Humans really depend on the balance and interaction of these three forces. So when they operate together, we got vision, we got innovation and execution. All of that reinforce each other.

And that's why we think this is really important to have all this together and explain why we are not very functional. at the moment in the way we look at the world in terms of the ETC forces. speaker-0: On the subject of enablerism, a central concept in your work is enablerization of society. What does that term mean and how do we end up in a world where the enabler mindset dominates decision making?

speaker-1: Right. So as we've just seen, the enabler mindset has a role of ensuring business as usual activities. But there's another aspect that is as important or should be is a key role in innovation. And it does it in two ways.

The first one, it allows to materialize what thinkers and creative mindset design. So if they come up with something, you a new idea, new concept, how can we materialize that so we'll benefit from it? And The second thing is that is all those automation. Automation is fantastic.

It creates routine, which means we can elevate to higher tasks. So the fact actually we have the unabler mindset to automatize things. Imagine if you're driving the first day you're driving, you're to look at your feet and you're going to focus only on driving and not making mistakes. After a year, you don't need to think about it.

You can start to redo, to think about the world, what we're going to do tomorrow. automation is very important. The problem is. we have reversed the causality between the enabler mindset and the regenerative, creative, and thinker mindset.

So now we have the thinkers and creative mindset at the service of enablers and not the enabler mindset at the service of creative and thinkers. That is why we are not going in the right direction because the enabler mindset doesn't have vision. So it doesn't know where it's going. So we're given the responsibility to know where we're going, what we should be doing.

to the mindset that is not designed for that. That's the problem of enablerization. So the ATC theory, so it's called ATC because enabler thinkers and creative, and the ATC theory is really showing that enablerization operates at two levels, the social level and individual level. Actually in the middle, there's also the organizations that have also been enablerized.

So historical developments have led to a situation where today the enabler mindset has totally overtake the creative and thinker mindset in all the key decisions we make in society. And we call this the enablerization of society. Now, through social determinism, and that starts with the education system and profession at work as well, even in leisure, the individuals are not given the opportunity to fully develop and balance their ETC forces. Society, by only rewarding the enabler mindset, pre-vendors thinker and creative mindset to develop.

And that's what we call the enablerization of individuals. so in our language, when we say enablers is people who have given up on their creative and thinker forces, they become enablers. They can only use their enabler mindset because they are like a muscle. They haven't trained the two others and therefore they're not able to regenerate their thinking.

And the problem with the enabler mindset, it sees everything as is operational and systemic. It only sees things are the finished quantity and a zero sum game. So that means if you have become an enabler, the only way to improve your wellbeing can only be at the expense of something or somebody. And that's what creates friction, tension, competition in society.

And also you lose your self-determination because you're not able to have the vision for yourself or where you want to be. So you're to look at others, what they do and try to be better than them rather than. I don't mind what others are doing. I've got my journey.

I've got my quest. I've got my route. I want to go there. And if people can help me, brilliant.

If people don't help me, that's fine. But you judge yourself through others. And as you don't have the imagination because of your deficient creative and thinker forces, you are not struggling to elevate yourself. So in order to measure who you are, you need to see a gap with others.

And as you cannot elevate yourself, you tend to push others down. which is why the consequences of that are toxicity and all the problems we spoke about earlier. So this is really, really key for at many level to rebalance our thinker and creative forces and use them as you would use a hammer for the right thing. Hammer is great, there's nothing wrong with a hammer, there's nothing wrong with the nuclear force.

But if you start to use a hammer where you have a screw rather than a nail, then you start to have a problem. speaker-0: Well, you could not put it easier than that. I fully agree with what you're saying. The problem I find is with AI, it kind of detaches us from reality because we are now going into a direction where we are going to use more machine thinking than human thinking and human creativity.

And that becomes a problem because we now are kind of offshoring our intelligence, our expertise, our knowledge through a chat GPT and generative AI instead of doing our own creative thinking. So. When you talk about the enabler mindset and the creative mindset, where does the creative thinking come into force? speaker-1: Well, you can see, that's absolutely vital.

As we are being challenged in the process of automation, the machine is much better to us at finding patterns and automate things. So we are losing there. So the enabler mindset should not be the focus anymore. But what we do is to be even more enabler and we are going to give the creativity and the thinking more and more to delegate that to our AI because we have lost the ability.

to develop those two mindsets. actually, I would argue the more AI develops and the more we need to push our creative and thinker mindset and the more we need to the beast, the machine, the data with positive creative and thinker mindset. So AI can support that rather than you pick up on what the enabler mindset is finding a solution because the problem of the enabler mindset as it doesn't generate true. new solution is often come back to the default position of banning, restricting, and because it doesn't come with new solution.

For me, banning, restricting is only a filler till we have found a true new proposition. It cannot be a definitive solution. And if we don't do that, we are going to run in circles and AI is going to accelerate that and everything is going to be forbidden, restricted and limited and nothing new is going to come up. We are...

in a dead end there. speaker-0: For our audience, what can we do as humans in this age of AI? How can we ensure that enabler thinking is possible in the society that we are going to face, which is going to be tech dominated? speaker-1: Interestingly enough, I think we have left philosophy behind.

have, you know, since the 18th and 20th century, we have left scientists and enablers drive the world and excluded philosophy as an afterthought or something for people to do on the side. I think we need to bring philosophy as where we're going, the why, very at the center of that. Now, if I want to be a bit more... Pragmatic in my answer, I think what's really important is to look where we can make changes.

We have identified different level, the state itself, what can the state do? I mean, I don't have huge amount of trust in how we can reform that at the moment because the enabler mindset is so strong and so efficient in keeping itself. It's like a pie to describe the enabler mindset, like the pine trees, the pine trees where they live fall. They destroy everything else.

Only pine tree can grow. And that's the situation we see. So it's changing. That's going to be very heavy.

But if the states could already understand that they could incentivize businesses and people who are doing, helping them to find solutions, that would be a shift. And then we can talk about ⁓ SES and EIS schemes that could be used for that, if I want to be very specific now. So they are solutions. Education is obviously super important.

We need to reform totally the way school is. AI should be part of the discussion, both morally and how to use it, the art of delegating, the art of working together, and also to make emerge leaders who care about other people. They're not about their success. And we reward people who have not only ability to self-determine, but find solution for others in the process, rather than succeeding at the expense of other people.

So that should already make a change, but that's going to be again, hard to change. So the other aspect is people's taste. Today people, they're happy to have comfort food, comfort thoughts, and no critical thinking, entertainment rather than culture. That's a shift there.

Is it going to happen or not? But that would be a major change to be more unpredictable, to be more, know, compliant with algorithms who feed you with more, but have a reaction to the algorithm, take it back. That would be interesting. But again, it's going to be difficult.

So to me, the biggest levers is probably business. And that's why, you know, with Value Squared, I'm trying to do some work there. Why, why I'm thinking that? Because businesses understand that without vision and mission and purpose, they're not as efficient actually.

They are very toxic. They lose people. And losing people is very costly. You lose skills, you lose knowledge, you lose a lot of things.

Now if you can attract people and align people and give them a vision and also in the process to reconcile profitability with other forms of return on investment that are compatible with all stakeholders, you find really ⁓ strong attractiveness for businesses. It can even reflect in your valuation. And that's why it's very important to me. So to me, big businesses and reaching out top CEOs who could think about society this way could influence the world more than school and state which would come after.

So that's where the revolution should start with business and small companies. speaker-0: Well, as you know, I'm all for human first and human in the loop in everything that we do with AI, because we need to be in charge of the tech and not the other way around. so even the European act, the EU act on AI specifies that everything has to be done with human supervision and human involvement, especially the algorithms that you cannot just design algorithms because you're working with algorithms that are trained on large language models, which have been scraped off the internet.

And in the internet, you have all this good and bad data, good and bad information. And from that is developed an answer using generative AI. And the answer might be wrong, might be right. And people are going by that standard, which is wrong.

And I think one of the big trends, trends that we're going to see going forward is that people will be, you will see that people are going to the ones that can manage social interaction, human facing roles will have a lot of value in a world where AI will take over and displace a lot of jobs. The biggest thing that I've noticed, and I think you have noticed that as well, even the big generative AI platforms, the likes of Chad GPT and Claude and Gemini, some of them have even employed philosophers.

So they're thinking in the same direction as you. are thinking that we cannot just move forward on technology alone without looking at the human aspect in all of this. So I think what you're talking about or planning to talk in your book in detail is that the neighbor society is an important aspect that we shouldn't ignore. And we cannot rely on government or big business to keep that on the forefront because business is all about making a profit, unfortunately.

without much regard to the human impact and the human factor. So you have mentioned Nietzsche in all of this. How did you come to that? Because it's very interesting angle in your book.

Could you maybe elaborate on that as well, Cedric? speaker-1: Yes, so I've always been a big fan of Nietzsche and the concept of the Ubermensch, also called Superman, I always found interesting and often misunderstood. Well, of course, people confuse it with the Superman from cinema or the Superman that Hitler tried to emulate, which was obviously a total disaster. And it's very interesting to see that Nietzsche himself only spoke about the Hubermensch in really those spokes are Rattostra and he gave up on the concept later.

My take on that, he may have scared himself with these concepts or found there was a flaw, he didn't know what to solve and given up on the concept. We don't know. So it's pure speculation on my part, but I think there's something in it and I revisited the concept for the book. to understand that actually someone who could balance is enabler, thinker, and creative forces.

Not given only because you get rewarded as an enabler to do more of the enabler, developing other things, you're thinker, you're creative in a society that is not encouraging you to do, you are sort of a Superman. So there's nothing to do about being superior or to be above, but it's about regaining your self-determination, as Nietzsche would say, but there's also Another element that Nietzsche didn't say, and I disagree with, I think it's important to disagree with you, even with your heroes, that's why you have to be a thinker, is that actually the Nietzsche's concept seems to mean that society is the problem and society therefore, in order to develop yourself, you need to push society back.

And that's a bit of a recluse position. I think if there are problems with society, true Superman, true super human, should say, to be inclusive, should be dealing with society, not shying away from society. So that's where the difference between the ETC ⁓ super human and Nietzsche's Superman, which is basically the ETC Superman is like the Nietzsche one, but on cooperation steroids, not shying away from society. is giving to society and if people don't give back, people are toxic, nevermind, we're strong enough, we'll deal with that.

So I think that's a much more positive approach, bringing society and self-determination at the same time. If you remember at the beginning, said how you bring the personal development and collective interest, that's an important step is to think, okay, how are we to make it better? I think it's better, I'm going to contribute to that, even if it's hard. speaker-0: So what steps do an average person do to contribute to society as an enabler and not let artificial intelligence take over all our creative thinking?

speaker-1: You see, that's a bit the difficulty because you don't want to become a guru and tell people what to do. They have to find it for themselves. I can't tell them who they should be, but what they need is for sure to use their creative and thinker forces more to challenge what they believe, to challenge what they've been told, and doesn't mean to push back, to say why I'm accepting this or not. It doesn't mean to be how to become a conspiracy theorist.

is to be sane in your approach, not to believe one side or the other side. Try to be much more neutral and creative and use, more poetry, more music, more activities that are not fully entertainments, but that helps your brain to be nourished properly. speaker-0: can't agree more with you, but as you know, in the elite universities, they're looking at STEM education and everybody goes for the top of the bill, which is business management. They go for economics, they go for law, they go for medical.

But how many people are still going for poetry? How many people are still going for ⁓ other ⁓ creative studies that are more appealing to the human aspect of life than to the commercial, financial aspect of life? So where do you see, I mean, is this a sense of optimism that we are gonna get better at that? Because I see this all is kind of fading away, unfortunately.

We see the fading away of philosophy, of human thinking, of human values, about human principles, culture, community, connection. I find all of this is kind of fading away in a tech dominated world. What is your thoughts on that? speaker-1: Look, I agree with you.

I'm not an optimistic. I'm French, so cannot be an optimist. speaker-0: I didn't know that. French are not optimistic.

I didn't know that. speaker-1: They are the biggest moners on the planet. And we take a lot of medication, sleeping pills and whatever, so to numb ourselves. But the point is, what is the point of being anxious and lament yourself and do nothing?

So, and that's already the ETC theory. Use your creativity to make the difference. And if we all do that, as we people say, if everybody recycle is going to get better. But if everybody makes an effort to be creative, open to new ideas and new thoughts.

Diversity of thought is very important to me. Whoever says something, pay attention. A Trump may say something to you, a CEO may say something idiot, but a Trump may say something interesting. So try to assess the quality of what is said to you and not who says it.

To me, that's very important. And also stop blaming others and use your brain to design solutions. And on back people, when what you see is potentially a positive outcome and you may make a mistake, it may lead nowhere, but actually a hundred percent of things that works, you know, they were ⁓ among many other solutions that didn't work. So it's very important to continue, even if the efficiency is not there, the great solutions were among many that didn't work.

And trial by error is very important. really. be more experimental in your approach. Raise the peer pressure.

All these things to me is very important. And then we can be more optimistic. If we put up no test for experimentation, if you look where the Beatles produced Sgt. Pepper, it's because the audience was looking for experimentation and they could become number one with an album that no one had heard.

It was extremely challenging. Why can't we do that today? speaker-0: Well, I'll give you a quick answer. My opinion is everything is being social media right now is they want conflict.

want polarization. want to divide people, division. They want to just have opposing opinions. Let's take a simple example.

Let's say you're a Trump supporter or a Trump hater. Yeah. If you go on Google and you type in Trump, it'll give you some ⁓ links. If you go on YouTube, it'll give you links to good videos and bad videos.

So if you start watching videos that don't like Trump, that bash Trump, that talk bad of Trump, the algorithm is going to give you more and more of that. If you are a Trump supporter and you think, well, Trump is doing good, he's great, then you'll see more and more videos of that. So we are getting blinded and influenced by social media. Now the worst part.

I find about AI is that now whatever we watch, we don't even know if it's real because the AI tech has become so good that it can create anything. It can take voices, faces, backgrounds and create so realistic footage, video broadcasts that you believe it's real. So I think the biggest challenge going forward for human beings is we're not going to believe what we see on TV, on social media, on YouTube because it might be fake. And so it is becoming a big, problem.

So I think we're going to go back to the roots in the sense that you're only going to believe when you see somebody standing in front of you saying something. And that's going to be a big problem. How can you prove, you know, that what has been said is true? So now if you look at BBC or CNN, they have fact checkers.

So they can look at a video and realize if it's been made or if it's fake or so on and so on. But for the average person, when you go on social media, you don't have none of that. You don't have the fact-checking nothing. And if you look recently, and it's another big problem, more than 60 % of AI of content is AI-generated.

So the human element is disappearing. So that alone is a scary thing. So how are you going to be able to do that, what you're saying about the enabler of the reason? I'm sorry, it's not an easy word.

How are you going to be able to do that if the platform that you are going to present it is... The bias is doctored, is augmented, it's affected by AI. speaker-1: I think what you're talking about is we need to reinvent intelligence or the concept what we perceive as being intelligent for different questions. The first one is before AI arrived, the way we created our identity as humans was we were the most intelligent thing on earth.

Either we were told by God told us that we were here and we were dominating the planet because we are the chosen ones or even with the enlightenment we were superior because we could think, we could design things, we could all these things. So we have been in our mind thinking we are the, that's how we define ourselves. We are the intelligent ones on the planet. And that's being challenged by something we created.

So we need to go through a new identity and probably a different way of understanding intelligence. And this intelligence, as I pointed earlier, should include not only your interest, it's to be self-determined first. Increase your self-determination, so in a way, more individualistic, but at the same time, not at the expense of others. Include the others in your approach.

That's the way people who can do that are true ⁓ super humans to me. That's what they, and that's what we need to change. And also in terms of what you were talking about, what is true, what is not true, maybe change the definition of intelligence from being witty, someone who quick away react to something to The definition would be that intelligence is the ability to delay the time of judgements. You let more parameters getting in and then you say, sorry, I still don't have enough.

I still don't have enough. I need more information. And then you say, okay, I think I'm have a balanced view. You can have a more balanced view about something rather than epidemically reacting to an information you're giving straight away.

Is that really what intelligence is about? Is that speed or is that depth? speaker-0: Well, I'm sure you would say it's deaf. speaker-1: Yeah.

It's a bit like you're saying, asking people, what is the most powerful, the engine of a Ferrari or the engine of a truck? And it's as if people say the Ferrari because the Ferrari goes faster. Wrong answer. The truck has a bigger engine.

speaker-0: That's a good analogy there, Cedric. Absolutely true. But the Ferrari's a nice car if you wouldn't disagree with me now, would you? speaker-1: Yes, of course.

speaker-0: The thing that I want to say is that when you talk about the thinking part, we covered that with what you said before, but we always come back to the problem of critical thinking. It's kind of been chipped away piece by piece from us on a daily basis. Even if you look at books and all that, I find the creativity is kind of evaporating in all this. You are writing a book now and we are grateful for you allowing us to do a little bit of the premiere.

We would like to have a little sneak preview on your book. So in your book, what is your approach to it and what is the outcome? What would be the, if somebody reads your book, what would be the key takeaways of your book? speaker-1: Well, the key takeaway is what I'm offering here is just another angle to look at the world.

And it's a bit like you look at a town and you may be in town all the time and you think you know your town and someone comes on the top of a hill that's nearby the town and show you your town from this angle. Doesn't mean it's the only way to look at your town, but it's an interesting way at taking distance and looking at. So really what I want is people to take the time, breathe it. and see, and they may disagree, which is great, but at least hopefully it will give them a bit of distance toward what they're doing today and using different parts of their brain to assess what I'm talking about, not about why I'm reading this book to make more money.

Well, you might, you might not. Can you give it a bit more time to that approach? Maybe it will make you happier, maybe in a different way. Can we reinvent the word richness from only making more money?

richness has been a rich individual, man need actually less money to feel rich. So all these things are ready to me what I would like people benefit and also to blame less each other finding country because what we tend to do is to find the country and say, okay, well, we found the country, we're going to punish or pose problem to the driver is the country. Okay, well, the automobilist, okay, let's blame these people. And is that really what government should be about?

Is it really about leadership should be about or should it be about inspiring people? Personally, I've got children and I told them, when I punish you or ban something, I consider that failed to show you the right way. So why if it's like that for children, now we don't, you know, are, thanks God we don't punish children the same way we used to do. Why are we doing that for society today?

Why if it's not working for children, it should work for adults? While children react very positively to inspiration, to showing the roots, why don't we do the same thing? The problem is, as we don't have the right vision, we don't know where to go. And we don't have, therefore we start to blame each other.

I see that every day when I work with my clients, as soon as you don't have a vision and things don't progress, fingers are pointed at this, at this or that. As soon as there is a north star, you align people, everybody roll up their sleeves and start to work together. That's what I would like to see. speaker-0: I fully agree with you because I'm an author as well as you know, and I have two lovely youngsters which are doing good and they are working on their careers.

The question that I ask myself is what kind of future are we going to give our younger generations? And that's a big, big, big challenge and not anybody really has been able to answer to me. And from an author point of view, I can tell you right now that a lot of people read the classical novels. you know, like the Harry Potter and stuff like that, to kind of, I would say, go into a different world, ⁓ live in a different world, think in a different world, maybe escapism.

Some people like to read the books that promise you, you know. to make a million in 30 days, or you only have to work four hours per week, you know, and they go for that, which is also nonsense. But now the trend lately is that a lot of people are going for inspiring books, inspiring novels. They're going for spiritualism.

A lot of people have picked up religion again. They start reading the Bible. They start looking at positive development books. They are looking at self-motivating books.

They are looking also at books that inspire them, that give them motivation, confidence. And also you see books that are designed for people that want to learn about humans and about how humans can survive in this tech-dominated society. And you also see a lot of books that people bring out that are just positive psychology. That's the word that they them, psychology.

So your view is something that I think a lot of people share. They just don't know how to go about it. So what would be your suggestion for people? that are thinking in your direction, how can they bring about change in their work, in their family, and in their community?

speaker-1: is looking for, I mean, the key word is vision and alignments. How you find vision and alignment, something that if you bring to the table, of course the problem is, if I'm telling people, hey, we have a problem here, but don't worry, this is not you, it's someone else. And we're going to blame these people and we're going to feel much better about it. It is a very easy and seductive solution.

Very easy. We're going to blame some, everybody can listen to that. And then you get passionate. It's very easy to be hooked up on that.

Now, if you say, look, it's going to take a bit more work because it involves you. We're all responsible and we need to rethink together. Of course, the outcome is more uncertain, but actually the outcome is more positive because the other outcome is certain, but in a negative way. We know that banning, restricting never works.

I've struggled and always ask people find me an example where banning and restricting us war. Tribition, we had to stop it. Institution, we closed the brothels. Institutes were a danger in the street.

War on drugs, it doesn't work. We need to find proper solutions and align with that. But we need people to encourage people to come up with solutions. Often when I say that, say, ⁓ Cedric, stop talking about solution.

You're talking about solution because you are denying the true cause of the problem. You need to feel guilty about it. We need to remove this guilt. Guilt is not useful.

speaker-0: It's not useful at all. And like you said, restricting people is not working. There's a lovely expression that I have heard. We need to move away from legislation to education.

And the education needs to happen in the formative years of young people. So at school, that's why it's very important to have a good education system and also good teachers, which sometimes can be problematic because unfortunately the good teachers, they go for the golden jobs at private schools. It might not be available for less at public schools, although there are a lot of good public schools. Of course, it all depends which country, which area you live in and so on and so on and so on.

But I do believe, and I think we share that vision, that education, manners, principles, values and integrity starts at home. The moral values, what is right and wrong, politeness, kindness, respect, dignity, that starts at home. Because once kids are going to school, they get influenced by all the negativity that is there. And you can say whatever you want, you can bring your kids to the best school.

There's no denying the fact that they're going to mingle with certain people that might not be on the same, aligned with the same thoughts or feelings or values. And they also are exposed to bad actors. There's some kids that are really not good intentional. There is a nice expression again, one.

bad apple will spoil the baskets and it happens a lot in schools. So how can you change that once you get out of school? Because once you get out of school, you do not have a teacher, you don't have anything, you have to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. And if you've been properly educated, then it becomes the second nature for you to behave like that, to be polite, to be a thing.

But if you have not been raised with that mindset and that behavior, you might not do that in real life. And that's the problem that no government can change. So if people have grown up learning from a government that you can get away with everything, and then if you get punished, you get punished hard, it doesn't work. And you've seen that in many countries where too much punishment is no good and too little punishment is also no good.

People cannot get away with things. And I see that specifically here in the UK, people that are stealing phones, they don't catch them, nothing happens to them. But people, if they... don't pay the bus fare, they can get a criminal record.

So it's like very disparate, it's very opposite what's being done. But the problem is it lies at the root cause of society. If society is like that and your environment and surroundings are like that, you have a higher tendency to become like that. So how can you change that?

speaker-1: totally agree with you and the weight of peer pressure and social determination, especially with social media, is extremely high and difficult for young generation. And that's why they could be more rebellious in a way. They could be much more rebelling against the system, which is such disparity between ultra rich and poor people. And they don't seem to be, yeah, they're unhappy about it, but there's no big question like in the counter movements in like in the 60s, 70s.

⁓ that seems to struggle to gel these movements or even to be creative. If you think about what's happened during the industrial revolution, the art and craft movement came as an opposition. Where is such a movement today? That's why I think we need people with different vision, different views and be able to develop that.

But yes, they need to find their values as well. It's good you've been given values, but question. Actually question of your value is part of your value system. You are things you like from your parents, things you don't like from your parents.

You need to perfect what you've been given. Just not take it as it is, no rejecting totally. It's your job to do point by point. I think that's good.

And try to, and you work it out. It's it's work on yourself. It's introspection. It hurts.

than hurting yourself physically, hurt yourself mentally with terrible ideas for yourself. Okay. You are white guy. What does that mean?

Is it, why is it bad or why is it good? Is it bad? Is it good? How you can rethink of yourself?

Does it matter? You know, ⁓ I'm also a victim of what people reflect on me. It's my choice to take it or not to take it to say, a minute. Yes, you might think I'm white, but am I white as you think I am?

I'm also an Armenian. What does that say about me? I'm also a victim then. Well, do I want to be a victim or do I want to be known for something else than being a victim?

That's all this questioning we need to. Can I find an identity that is not based on negative values like being a victim or left behind by society? And you might be and don't disagree with that. That's the case.

But is that the thing you should be focusing on or focusing your own true added value of what you're going to do? know, like Kennedy said before thinking what you can do for your country, what your country can do for you, what can you do for your country is really much about addressing things like speaker-0: can you do for your community? What can you do for your family? Exactly.

You don't even have to go for the whole country story. speaker-1: To go from one code to another one, which is fundamental to me, the best way to change, as Aristotle said that, is not to fight the old, is to build the new. speaker-0: Yeah, well, you know, people are resistant to change and, you know, life is walking a little tightrope, okay? So my opinion is I think most people are hedonistic and they avoid pain and seek pleasure.

That's what I believe in general. And so as much as we want to follow the rules and, you know, conform, the conforming part is difficult. And that's why you have this flower power eras where people just say, no, I'm not going to conform anymore. I'm not going to follow the example set by my parents.

I'm going to do my own thing. So where do you keep the balance? So you want people to do that what makes them happy, but you also want them to be productive in society. And sometimes that balance is very, very tricky.

Like how can you do that? you cannot sit there and party all day long and then go to work and then be a doctor. know what mean? Somewhere there's a fine line that you need to keep a balance on.

So that becomes problematic in society. And like you say, like, don't, you know, lot of people have the tendency to blame the whole world and everybody else. They don't look at themselves in introspective and say, well, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm the one that's not doing right.

So that's why I always believe that if you want to change the world, start with yourself. speaker-1: So you see, you used the word balance. And I think when I compare the ETC theory with other things, is the focus on balance rather than one thing or another. You know, you got the left brain versus right brain.

the question is how you balance that. One key concept is perfectibility and to oppose that to perfection. Perfection is an ideal, is God. God is perfect.

You believe in it or don't believe in it is something that represents perfection and that's a trap. Communism, so they would have created the perfect society. Perfection is dead. Is static.

Life is not static. So it's only about perfectibility. You can never forget about this perfect point because the perfect point is fascism. There's only one perfect point.

So if I think I've got it, that means, and you say something different, you have to be wrong. So if now it's about perfectibility, you have a path, have a path. I would like to understand your path because you might unlike my path. Now, why do you don't need perfection?

If I'm sitting in front of a piano and never played before, it's going to be dreadful. But after months to months, I start to play the piano. I'm going to get better. Is there a final goal, a final point where I say, okay, that's it?

No, it's never. So therefore you can perfect yourself without actually perfection at the end. So I strongly propose to reject perfection and perfectibility means you always using your creative and your thinker and your enabler forces in order to perfect yourself. That's why you can balance by trying to perfect yourself using all these resources that you're given and are typically human.

speaker-0: Yeah, I found this concept actually jumped the gun on this because I was going to ask you that next, but I find the concept of perfection perfectability very, very self-explanatory and it makes all sense in the world because I'm from the opinion that this is not such a thing as perfectionism. We all are fallible. We have our good sides, our bad sides. We have our strong sides, our weak sides, and we need to find a balance between all of that.

so perfectability is like you say, you don't strive for perfection, but you strive for perfectability where you do the best to your ability. speaker-1: Yeah, make mistakes, see how you can improve things. And sometimes let's not forget that the biggest innovations come from mistakes. Paul McCartney was saying that often is that was wrong, but hey, can we keep it because that's what makes the idea interesting.

And that's what AI, if I want to link back to AI is going to be a problem. how AI is going to learn from the mistakes. it's- That's a good point. A good song is a song that is usually a mistake somewhere.

And someone stopped and said, you know what? The mistake is more important than the thing we wanted to do in the first place. that. That's experimentation.

speaker-0: That's exactly true. as you know, in AI, the biggest problem is common sense. It has a problem with common sense. Things that for us look obvious as human beings, because we look at it from a different perspective.

We look at it from our experience. And because of experience, we have a certain mindset. And when we see something, we think, well, this is good or not. Whereas AI is just computational.

It's just input, output. It's number zero one. It's an algorithm. And it's a rigid system where it doesn't have flexibility.

And like you say, in the beginning, AI, this is one of the big challenges that we have. If you would ask AI, how can we make our planet better and avoid climate change and destruction and poverty and war and everything negative? The first thing that AI would say is get rid of all humans. Because we are the ones that creating all of that.

We are creating the wars, the problems, the pollution, the poverty, all of it is human made. And it's not enough that we pollute our own planet, we have been polluting space. We have debris circulating around our planet, you know. It's a crazy thing.

And that's the problem that we have. Yeah, go ahead. speaker-1: Let me give you another example based on the book, the world enablerization, which I made up, doesn't exist. Now I explain it to you and hopefully you understand it and you might even use it with people who from old to large that becomes a new convention between us.

We use this word and we understand what we mean. That's an economy. How would AI create such a new world that we would all understand? So we're going to limit our way of thinking by not being able to create new worlds as new tools.

speaker-0: I would speaker-1: to explain ourselves because we're going to use the tools unless he picks up the word from someone else. But that means AI is not creating the world. We still have to create the new worlds and still continue. So we cannot delegate 100 % to AI.

We need to create the new worlds, the new sociology, the new world. And AI, yes, can maybe be used to spread those thoughts to bring them with other things. But we need still to use human brain to create a new concept. speaker-0: Well, as you know, the generative AI platforms like Shared GPT, they have a lag between what they have been trained on, the models that they've been trained on.

So with every reiteration, with every improvement, they get to new data that they mix in there. And probably now they have probably filters to filter out the bad data and unstructured data that they don't need and they try to get better. But basically it's training itself on all the information and all data and in the velocity of change that we're in, because if I can sum up AI, it's the velocity of change that is very concerning because people are not made to work at light speed or water speed or, you know, we used to think in terms of hours, months, days, years, something like that.

So the change is going so fast that the models that are trained six months ago are not going to be as effective as models that are trained on the data that's available now. And then you come to the point that you say, it's like, how are going to feed in the new information, the right information, the information that we want to get? Because it might be biased. It might be gen AI and the people, the big tech that is behind it.

Yeah, they put their own algorithms, their own biases in there, their own preferences, you know, and now they're even thinking about selling us advertising, which is crazy because basically speaker-1: of forcing. speaker-0: It would analyze what we're asking and then post us with, or bombard us with adverts about what we have. So if you start talking about, you know, you have back pain, you will see medical medication being presented to you for your back pain. The funniest part is I saw one time a presentation on TEDx and I love TEDx, I watch it a lot.

And it was this one lady, she is an expert in AI and she was saying that like, you know, if you go on generative AI, you start typing in or Google search or whatever, you type in that you're looking for boots to wear, but you don't buy anything, the boots start following you around on the internet. So you also get on Google search advertisement for boots, you get it, ⁓ you know, and that's what they're going to do with AI. So it's crazy. What we need is to filter in the human factor and not the commercial factor.

And how do we do that? speaker-1: Well, I think people misunderstand what advertising would have an enabler view what advertising should be. To me, advertising is not about selling. It's to create long-term margins and how you do that.

Advertising is not to tell you, go buy my product. Advertising is to tell, to establish in your brain, this product is worth that much. So you may target people who can't buy it. It doesn't matter.

But that would determine this price, the gap between your price. and your cost. if you push sell, sell, sell, sell, you make no margin, that's no point. I'd rather sell less.

You know, do you prefer to sell 1000 units and make, you know, a hundred thousand pound or to sell a hundred thousand and win my thousand profit? You know, it's, it's, it's, it's really the question. So to me is how you build the image and use advertising in a creative way to, to show people rather than. Hey, I'm going to spot on you each time you go there.

I'm going to know who you are going there and make the link there and sell that to somebody and basically become like a policeman following you everywhere. Is that really how you're going to generate value and make people dream about your product? Or is that an unabler version of it? A nightmarish unabler version of it.

Now, you bring people who buy Harley Davidson, don't buy a motorbike. They buy a Harley. speaker-0: experience. speaker-1: They buy a Harley Davidson.

So you could argue that Harley Davidson has a monopoly on Harley Davidson. That's the power of branding because they manage to associate that with something that makes those people want to buy a dream. And that's what AI cannot do. We need to have this story, this legend, this myth, very important to create margin.

But of course, you're not going to look at that through a spreadsheet of enablers. It's not going to appear any in the line of business. That's the, quantify that. long term.

When I was actually an analyst for Wall Street investors, I would be talking to retailers like Tesco and other people and I would be covering Coca Cola. I'd say, how much discount did Coca Cola give to you? I'd say, Cedric, you didn't see the massive advertising campaign they did? And I'd say, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, we couldn't ask them on the top to give us discount. They done their job. So you can see the correlation between giving a discount to attract people by the price or building an image for advertising, there is an arbitrage there. And I think people tend to do the technique that's spend quick because if I give a discount, I may calculate that straight away that many people would buy because it's below certain price and I'm going to increase my sales and my profit, but you damage your brand and you damage the gap between your sales, your cost and your price.

But if you do the advertising, you increase the gap. it's really rethinking all of that. It's not only philosophy, this is really economical. That's what I'm trying to say there.

You you can, you don't have to oppose philosophy and economics. You can make it work together. And that's what an ETC mindset should be about is to balance those things. speaker-0: The thing is that how long has this been going on?

We have been sold advertising. We have been promoted with products, products that we need and some products, more products that we don't need. Basically they haven't learned from that. Basically a human being wants to decide on their own.

So this is an expression people like to buy but don't want to be sold to. So that's the concept why you're talking about Harley Davidson. don't need an advertisement to go buy a Harley Davidson. If somebody likes the image that comes with Harley Davidson, they'll go buy out that Harley Davidson, regardless of price, discount or whatever, they'll buy because it just fits their image, their behavior, their means of life.

And that's the problem with AI. AI is removing the human concept out of just about everything. The human aspect is being deleted, if you can put it that way. So now that AI is out of the bottle, out of the genie bottle and we can't put it in, how do you envision that we get humanity back in the forefront of everything that we're doing in society?

speaker-1: As I said earlier, I'm not an optimistic. can see the trend and where we're going and I can't say the way. speaker-0: philosopher so you can give us some tips and ⁓ speaker-1: That's why I'm writing the book and I want people through the book to start to realize and think differently about AI, think differently about the world. To me, AI is at the end of the day is like anything.

It's a tool. A knife can be used to have a lovely dinner between friends and 100 % of dinners with knives around are ready. It's nothing to do with a knife. And of course, 100 % of stabbings in the street are also.

the knife. So one solution is to ban the knife, but I don't think that's the solution. So the more is to again, is to educate people and make them understand what AI should be for. What is the purpose of AI?

What do we want to do with it? What we don't want to do with it and try to, to boycott the things that they don't agree with. Companies, don't think they're using AI in a nice way or in a positive way that is, you know, is AI used in companies who are lazy and can't find a better way to develop. than cutting costs and getting rid of people and replacing them by machines?

Or is it about something to say, hey, we got AI, we can do something totally new, very interesting that we couldn't do before, and we're going to be the pioneer in this area? And that can be a way to help with medicine, can be helped to many, many positive things. And investors, would say, I know you are one, should also be using their their power of investing as a voting way to encourage the positive, not shying away from it, saying, AI is dangerous, let's not invest in it. No, AI is dangerous, let's not let the bad people or the people who want to misuse it dominate the planet.

Let's actually invest in the thing we believe in, even as a crowdfunding. Maybe do that, do crowdfunding. Look at the companies, look at their purpose, talk to them. and say, you know, maybe about 10 pounds, 100 pounds, 1000 pounds, whatever you got.

That's also a way to vote. That may change even more than the government regulation. You influence by putting a little bit of money, other than going maybe to protest in the streets and do whatever, you know, take the train to go to London protest and come back, spend this money on a company you're supported in and you believe in, take a bit of the time. and you would feel much better for it because you would be feeling part of something.

And by the way, if this company succeeds, we also have a little equity in it and you'll make some money. Again, you see money and good actions are not the opposite. We need to reconcile and have the mindset we need to use. speaker-0: Well, I heard that actually yesterday in one of those TED Talks, they say people should vote with their money.

And you see now lately what happened with the Pentagon, Anthropic, and the Chad GPT, the US government trying to squeeze them in the corner. And a lot of people have left Chad GPT and go to Anthropic. So people are voting, and I think it's going to be even more and more. For example, Amazon is planning to...

robot designs, everything, know, the logistics, the distribution, the delivery of their parcels and get rid of the humans. So a lot of people are just not going to buy anymore from big companies. And the latest thing that I hear a lot on YouTube and all these presentations and podcasts, people are talking about start focusing on ground roots. Go back to your community, buy local, employ local people, spend your money locally.

Don't spend it on big companies and things that you don't need. So you see this sort of underground movement that's happening because people are not happy with what's going on. If you leave out humanity and all of this, where do we come and play? And as you know, the economy is a circular thing.

So if people get unemployed, they get thrown out, displaced by AI, they don't make income, what are they gonna do? they're going to go live off the government, they're going to get benefits. Who's going to pay for that? The government needs to raise taxes to be able to pay that.

And if you don't have money, you are not going to spend money. So economy is the basic premise. If you want growth, you need to have productivity and you need to have consumer spending. It goes hand in hand.

People make money, they spend money, they buy things, they go on holidays and so on and so on. And it keeps the whole world circling and it keeps the money going around in circles. But when you start having AI and they're talking about unemployment, we are now at 5 % in the UK and other places a lot worse. But for me, the worst part that I have a hard time dealing with is they have this thing called peeps, which are pupils that are not employed or not studying.

And they have reached now over 1 million people. So that's 1 million youngsters. that don't have a perspective, they don't have a future, you know, they come out of university or are indebted to the mags and they don't have any kind of job prospects or career prospects. It's horrible.

So that's the thing that we have to deal with. And that's the thing that you are saying, which is correct. We should invest our time and our money and our efforts and support on companies that are supporting us as humans. That's the whole thing.

We need to look at how can we bring about change. voting with our wallet and with our efforts instead of going to complain and hoping that the government will change. No, it's not going to change. The businesses will go ahead because all they care about is return on investment and they look at what the investors are going to get.

And there's nothing wrong. There's nothing wrong with investing, but you cannot take the human factor out of all of this. And that's the point that I think your book is going to be a very interesting read. And I'm looking forward to read about the...

concept, one of my favorite, as you said, is the perfectionist perfectibility. So if somebody tells me something, I'm going say, listen, I'm not perfect, but I'm seeking perfectibility. Ask Cedric, you know? So I find that a very interesting concept.

What takeaways do you want to give our audience about the conversation that we had so far? Well, to me, speaker-1: The key word is really reconciliation and use your brain, your intelligence to reconcile. Divergent information, different opinion, use your creativity and your thinker mindset to say, why am I against that? How can I make the best out of it?

How can I turn that into a positive? Where can I find a synergy? How can I, this person has a different opinion, different interests. How can I reconcile theirs with mine?

That's where you need, rather than blaming, that's one really important thing. I mean, we talked a little bit and you said maybe it's another thing we can talk about. Entrepreneurship with AI, which will require a lot of thinking and creativity rather than just being an employee. And the benefit of that is also that with AI, you can reach scalability that only was possible to large businesses.

So that's a positive, you know, again, use. your creativity, your thinking rather than being beaten as a way to be positive and take advantage of that. Using your creative and thinker mindset to turn risk and threat into opportunities. Really, that's what people should be encouraged to do.

⁓ think that the key takeaways, but that could be another topic in itself, entrepreneurship, how it brings money, it brings tax, how it brings integration, so many good things that we would change society. Any which challenge we don't say, don't fight the big businesses. Bring the small businesses to challenge them and make them do the change they should do or they're going to disappear. That's the way a true liberal economy is working, is encourage small entrepreneurship, people with new ideas, young people from different backgrounds to do things that challenge the way we do things.

We don't need to ban that much. speaker-0: Well, I couldn't agree with you any further. I've been in the startup scene for the past 12 years. I calculate, right?

I believe that the ones that are going to bring about change are the ones that are entrepreneurial. Startups is one of them, but you could also do other things. The main thing is. to be able to do that.

And like you said, things have become a lot easier because of AI. can do things that you couldn't afford before, but you can start on a very low budget and sets up something and then get started. And with that in mind, I would say that we need to reschedule another podcast to talk about entrepreneurship and very important lifelong learning and also youth empowerment, because I believe we need to give our children a better future than what we have. And that's something that we need to discuss.

further in better detail and also provide real life examples of what youngsters can do to know that when they finish their studies, they have a future in their lives, that they can build a career and do what we did when we were in their age. So I want to thank you for your time and for the sneak preview on your book. Thank you for joining us on the ⁓ podcast. For the audience out there, if you have any questions, please.

Feel free to send it to us. And if you like the podcast, give us a thumbs up, share it on your social media, and we'll keep you posted on the next podcast with Cedric. Cedric, thank you very much and goodbye for now. Bye bye.

Thank you. speaker-1: Thank much, Jerry, for all your very interesting and pertinent questions. was a passionate conversation. Thank you so much.

speaker-0: You're welcome. Thank you. Bye bye.