Connecting the Dots

Thanks for having me, Xerxes. My name is Frank Sonder. On my website I have a TL;DR, "too long, didn't read", a description of what I'm doing, because it's challenging for me all the time as well.

It says something like: I'm a speaker, I'm speaking about future-relevant topics. I'm hosting other people on stage; I know who should be up there and how to get the best out of these great minds. I'm creating concepts; I know how to connect dots and how to impress people with a certain concept. And then I'm writing: from rants to ghostwriting, wherever I can put what I'm usually talking about into text, or, like here, into a podcast.

So that is maybe the easiest, shortest description of what I'm doing right now.

A good question, because it assumes that I know what I'm doing. So thank you for that.

Why I'm doing what I do: I think for me it's always the quest for the new, let's say. I was always interested in the future. And even when I did different things in between, it was always about understanding the future, which of course also means that I forgot, and forget, a lot of things about the past so easily. If you focus forward, you forget things. But what interests me about the past is connecting the lines between history and future, because there's almost nothing, I would say right now nothing, which doesn't have a reference in history.

So I like to connect these things, and I would say on two levels. The one level is the most urgent topics, the ones that are pressing right now. In the past it was something like blockchain or artificial intelligence; the attention curve went down a bit over the last three or four years. Right now, of course, during the Corona crisis, it's all related to virtual experience. I've been into that topic for quite a long time and was always interested in trying things out, testing virtual reality and all that stuff, even 10, 15 years ago. Fortunately, I had a company where we were allowed to buy all that stuff and test it and try it out. And right now, with virtual experience, I'm of course happy that people get used to it, because before it was really difficult to get people engaged in digital things substantially, I would say. So on this level it's more or less precise: right now I'm consulting clients on how to deal with virtual events, conferences and so on.

But on the other level, what interests me and drives me even more is to think about the impact on our society. Because everything we see right now, and in the last decade more or less, will of course change society much, much more than it has so far. So far we're digitalizing everything, which is just a matter of media, but it will fundamentally change the way we do things. Hopefully, I would say. This impact on society interests me, and I'm talking about it most of the time on stage.

But I would add another method I'm using to find out whether what I'm doing is right. I have three kids, between eight and 24, and I imagine them asking me in 10 years, or even now: so what did you do when the Wall came down? What did you do during the financial crisis? What did you think, which people did you talk to, and what did you do during the Corona crisis? Did it change anything in the things you do?

I don't want to say: actually, I was working at Volkswagen as a brand manager, we tried to sell old combustion engines to people and were waiting for support from the government. Or I don't want to answer something like: I was a marketing manager for a product that took half a year or a year to develop and market, and then it disappeared from the market two months after the launch.

So I would like to give a different answer. Without overestimating my impact, I at least think about it, write about it, go on stage and try to help people understand, because I deal with how to understand and translate the impact of technology on society. And at least I helped a little bit and did meaningful things. So this is my method of deciding whether what I'm doing is good for me, for my inner circle and for my wellbeing, or not.

Yeah. This question sounds a bit nostalgic. Looking back, I would say there was at least one huge turning point, which was the fall of the Wall 30 years ago, because I was born in East Germany. You can imagine that my life would have been completely different if this country still existed and we didn't have the reunification and so on. It opened up tons of opportunities for me, which I always tried to take. And I like to remember that special event 30 years ago, not only because it played an important role in my life.

But then the other turning points came more or less little by little, one by one. Not that one huge turning point where, when you write the book of your life later on, you say: okay, that was the turning point. Rather, little turning points.

I founded the company in 2005. Since 1999 I had been working on this topic of interactive furniture, interactive solutions, long before we knew about the iPhone and touch screens and all that stuff. And when we closed that company two years ago, we really simply closed it. I can tell you later on why. Which was good. But it was not a huge cut, from being an entrepreneur to being a speaker and so on, because all the time I was continuously speaking and engaged with these topics. So for me, not so many things changed or turned in a completely different direction.

I see the last 20, 25 years more or less as one good continuation, getting the things I'm interested in and doing more and more precise. It's getting clearer and clearer what I'm good at, what I'm not so good at, or things I'm good at but don't like to do. I'm good at Excel sheets, but if I don't have to, I don't like to do them.

And there have been many, many remarkable points in my career that I like to look back on. For instance, in 2012: a friend of mine had been running a conference for five years already, and we thought about who we would like to have on stage. We couldn't think of anybody we would like to have on stage as a keynote speaker to open the conference. And then on holiday I came up with the idea: why not Julian Assange? We said: yeah, that sounds like a crazy idea, and [it seems] far out of reach to get him. And in the end, we managed to get him as a keynote speaker. He was already at the Ecuadorian embassy in London at that time.

So we got him, and this taught me that you can achieve whatever you want. You can get in contact with people wherever they are, however far away they might be from you, and however impossible it seems to reach something: you can get it. It's a simple learning, more or less, but these are the points I like the most. And fortunately there have been many of these kinds of remarkable steps in between, which led me here, to talk to you today.

Yeah. Let me maybe first add something to how you introduced the question. I think I have a general view on topics. I'm not so much into the single topics, like blockchain, AI and all that stuff. I see my role in really connecting the dots and bringing people together. As it always came up, also in research projects I did some 15 years ago, funded by the European Commission and so on, I got the role of a translator: translating from one language, if you want, to the other language.

If you have somebody who's really into AI, they talk in a way that nobody understands, let's say. On the other hand, my first contact with blockchain, for instance, was for the music industry. We were talking about music and blockchain at the Most Wanted: Music conference in 2017. So I can understand what musicians do and what their pain points are, and I can understand a bit what all the fuss about blockchain is. I try to bring that together and teach both sides how to talk to each other, and where the potential is. That is my position, more or less, as a translator. And in these research projects I mentioned, I had the experience that a lot of people came to me and said: okay, we listened to the doctors and professors, but can you explain it to us again? Because it's too complicated. So I try to make it as simple as possible.

So that, maybe, as an introduction to answering your question about the current situation. On the one hand, when we were thinking about the future, also at the different conferences and in my speeches, it was always somehow dystopian, because most people said: okay, people are not able to change that much. Back then, before Corona, we said: okay, we need some alien attack, more or less, to unite people behind a great mission. But there is no alien coming, there's no alien challenging us. This time, the alien more or less is within us, which is kind of creepy, but this is the alien attack. So we need to unite, without borders, without any kind of distinction, just as people, as humanity, to change something.

And of course, right now the situation is twofold. You could be very pessimistic, and people also tend to be pessimistic about the economic impact, the current situation in the US, for instance, and so on and so on. And this also comes from the fact that we didn't come from a really good position even before Corona. A lot of people right now say: okay, we want to get back to normal. Some say new normal, but let's say a lot of people in every industry want to go back. And then I ask: okay, why back? Because that wasn't good. We already had tremendous problems with our democracies; I don't have to mention any names, you know what I'm talking about. We had problems with our economy. We have problems with the climate, we have the climate crisis. So we are coming out of a really bad situation, more or less.

There was a guy here in Berlin who wrote an article about shopping malls, but you can replace them with any other topic, more or less. His thesis: shopping malls and shopping high streets and so on are Corona patients with preexisting conditions. You can apply that to many things. Right now, the failure that was there anyway becomes obvious. You see much, much better right now what's going wrong.

For instance, if you look at a high street in any city, and they say: okay, all the shops might close. Then I say: yeah, of course. And hopefully. Well, not all the shops, of course; I'm happy with everybody doing their business. But you see that our cities right now are only built for shopping. People come to Berlin just for shopping. They go back with a lot of shopping bags, and with suitcases they even buy here. They come here for shopping: not for the culture, not for the people, not for understanding and experiencing, but for shopping. And if you look at the big cities, or at any city, it's meant for shopping, and that's wrong. Of course, if we see our high streets in the future with empty shops, then we have a structural problem. And if we can solve it right now, that would be interesting.

Just to mention one example, to focus on that and say: okay, what is important to integrate into a city? Third places, places for communities where people can meet: that would be important. I don't mind if one shop or the other disappears. But I would like to think about how to replace them with meaningful things. And there are many such things, the so-called third places, where people may meet and have a social life. That's just one aspect, and you can apply it to many other aspects.

So to answer your question: right now we are in a situation where we can become conscious of that. At least 10 weeks after this all started, or is it even 12, I don't know, people are still busy with doing. I just say doing: they just want to work. I see people who are even busier than before. And what I ask is: honestly, are you really busy? You could calm down, just step back. Because you're trying to be busy, because you can't deal with the fact that you might not be busy, that you have nothing to do. It doesn't make sense to have another meeting and talk for another two hours about a certain topic. So step back. One of my speeches before Corona was more or less called "Shut up and listen": or do nothing, just step back from this madness we were in before, and talk about the changes later on.

I really hope things are changing, because, as I said already, our society, our political system and our economy aren't in the best shape. We can't continue that way anyway. And then of course we shouldn't try to go back to the normal things as much as possible, but rethink how meaningful they were.

If you want to talk about a broad vision, then we can refer to postcapitalism. Niko Paech, one of the authors on this topic, said we have to make huge reductions in everything we are doing. He says: okay, we in Germany, I think, consume [far more]. And to fight climate change, we have to reduce it to 2.5 tons. Not by, but to 2.5 tons. So this is a huge reduction. Right now we've maybe come a bit closer to that, but it means we have to change our complete lifestyle. And people are not able, not willing to change. They are lazy. But right now they have to.

As I said, there is the pessimistic side of that story, but I'm rather on the optimistic side. Because I think there is no other chance than to look forward in an optimistic way. If I stay on the pessimistic side, I don't have to do anything. If I'm pessimistic, I can choose to do whatever, because I can't change it anyway, and everything is already lost anyway. So there is no alternative but to be positive, to embrace change, to take it and think about it.

And this is one topic we have right now, and this, in combination with climate change, is a huge driver. If we get rid of all this laziness and all this fear of change, if we can teach people: okay, come on, go on. We didn't go to a restaurant for some time, so it's okay. The restaurants open again. I'm serious about the business conditions they are in, but we must also consider the fact that it's not killing anyone here, at least not in central Europe or in most of the Western world. We are in a good situation. We have to deal with it, and we are able to deal with it.

So we can be kind of relaxed and bring out good examples. There are so many creative examples out there, for the event industry, for instance, which I really like, where I say: okay, there are people who are not crying. They already cried, but now they are stepping forward and coming up with really bright ideas.

I think we have a climate crisis anyway. We forgot about it for now, but that crisis we already have. And of course, in many ways, Corona is a crisis as well, on many different levels: on a personal level, people feel a crisis situation, but also economically, financially, politically.

And there's one big difference between this crisis and the last crisis we had, the financial crisis in 2008. In 2008, the financial crisis was actually hard to understand. We all know a bit about it, but financial things are hard to understand, by the way on purpose: they make it hard to understand, so nobody can follow. But this crisis is easy to understand. It's an obviously clear thing. I'm not talking about the details, but it's easy to understand: there's a virus that gets transmitted, and we have to fight it. We have to flatten the curve and all these things. The financial crisis was so far away, and therefore all the financial institutions managed to get out of it, blaming the government or other institutions for it. But right now we have a crisis which is affecting everybody, and it's not so hard to understand.

So yes, there is a crisis, but you know the saying that crisis is also the translation for change. And we obviously need that because, as I already said, people, humanity, are lazy. They try to stick to what they have. They don't want to share. Even though we are living in a sharing economy: who actually wants to share, to give me his car to drive and so on?

But we have to see that the whole situation, for the climate and also for the Corona crisis, is [worse] for the Global South. They are in a worse situation. And we can't continue that way, because the world is global, as we can see right now as well: globally connected. Actually, nobody can blame anyone else. We all eat meat, we all have these kinds of issues, so everybody can change something.

And we have to get rid of what somebody called, in another book, the imperial lifestyle. We have an imperial lifestyle. In the past, it was not transparent. We didn't know about the working conditions in Chinese factories. We didn't know about the kids who try to get some money out of the electronic waste we send to them; we were happy about our new smartphone. But right now, everybody who's more or less awake has to see that these conditions apply to people: where our products come from and where our waste is going, where kids in Africa make their toxic living out of the waste we are sending them. We can't hide there. This is the moment where we can step up, as humanity, as humans, and say: okay, that shouldn't work anymore, and we have to get it back somehow, and not rely on the politicians so much.

And even for that, there are solutions that would make it possible for humans to get rid of these tremendously powerful institutions in between, the middlemen, as you know from this discussion about blockchain. We have the ability right now to get rid of these middlemen who use their power to manipulate. And it's not just their fault; they do what they are supposed to do, like a bank, like a government and so on. But we are not making use of this technology in the best way possible. There's always a hype: people buy Bitcoin, and then it's just the same thing in a different shape.

But we have to see that we are very powerful. We as humans can be very powerful, but then we have to move our ass. And of course I don't take myself out of this discussion; I'm in it as well. As I already said, we are all lazy, I would say.

For centuries we have been discussing the image of humans: is a human good or bad? I believe humans are good, not bad. They only become bad when there is something in between the two of them. If there are two persons, one-to-one, peer-to-peer, then there's a good chance that they behave in a good way. As soon as somebody becomes part of a larger group, and other interests come in, or a third party is doing their job, then people become bad. But inside of us, at least I believe, and it's a long discussion since the 15th century, humans are good. We forgot about that because we went shopping. We are busy buying new stuff we don't need. So that's one of the crucial points we have to get back into our heads.

But all the institutions right now, let's say, are not the ones who tell us: okay, you have the power. If I'm an institution, it's not like I say: okay, you don't need me, do it on your own. And of course it's a systematic error, more or less, that we have in our institutional system. It's a system error we have to change. And we can change it, but we have to get out of this lazy shopping behavior. If we succeed with that, then there's a bright future, and then we can deal with this crisis, with the climate crisis and with every crisis to come.

Yeah, I already made some notes in my head about what I want to mention. First of all, looking back from 50 years in the future, we would probably see the end of what we know as capitalism, which, by the way, is just a couple of hundred years old. Of course we don't know anything other than this kind of system, but the economic system, and even the political system, is quite new. A couple of hundred years, 200 years, is not a long time. So if you look 50 years into the future, that's already a quarter of the time period of what we now consider irreplaceable. We can't think about anything else, but we have to think about many different things.

When I started dealing with the topic of AI, some five years ago, in my TEDx talk, I said, and it's still true, even more true: we are in a, let's say, not so good situation, as I already mentioned. Economically, we are seeing the boundaries of development. Climate change is the loudest wake-up call to say: okay, something is going wrong. We have a physically limited planet; we can't exhaust everything even much, much more. This is very obvious, more or less.

And if you think about possible solutions: we have problems in all these different areas, and looking around, there are not so many solutions. One of these solutions is technology. One of the solutions we have to fight climate change, poverty, inequality and all these things is, for instance, artificial intelligence. It can help us with that. A lot of people say: okay, that's going too far, artificial intelligence will wipe us out, and so on and so on. I would say no, because what should the intention be? Why should a machine do that in the first place? It's a great and tremendously good opportunity, and probably almost the only opportunity we have to meet the challenges of our time. Not only artificial intelligence, but also blockchain and IoT and all these technology trends out there, which are a lot. They are amplifying each other; they are amplifying themselves. They have exponential growth, so there's a tremendous development going on, and we can't stop it anyway. And even if that is a theoretical question, we shouldn't stop it, because it might help us. It might save us.

But this technology is in the hands of people we can't control. They control us. We can't control how artificial intelligence and all these other technologies are dealt with. Of course, if there is a company which is reliable, doing things in the right way, with a great mission and vision: fine. But this might change.

In that case, I like to refer back to an article your sister wrote, I would say five years ago, [about] the constitution. I was reading it at that time. It's on Medium, for whoever wants to read it. And she wrote a very obvious thing I had never thought about before. She said: okay, the basis of our constitution, the founding moment of our constitution as it is today, is the three powers: executive, legislative and judicative. I don't know if that's English, but you know what I'm talking about: police, government and courts, and... what do I call it?

Justice. And she wrote, which is completely right, that there is one big powerful party missing at the table, which is extremely powerful today, probably the most powerful party in our society today: private corporations. Private property didn't exist [in this way] at that time, in the 15th century, I think. But now they really exist. We know how powerful Facebook, Google and all these companies are. And the technology we are talking about is in the hands of these people. If they are good, that's fine. But if they change their mind, we can't control it.

For instance, right now we have a lot of discussion about the use of a tracking app for the coronavirus. I don't know how it is in Austria, but in Germany it was supposed to be launched in April. Now, maybe in the next couple of days, the government will present an app which is supposed to track people and in that way reduce the spread of the virus. And there are a lot of concerns about big data, privacy and all these topics.

So now we have to face a situation where we didn't deal with these topics beforehand: the impact and ethics of artificial intelligence, the way data are collected, and so on and so on. Right now, we could use a lot of technologies and technological advances to help us fight the virus, but we are stepping back because we are afraid of using them because of data security, privacy and all these issues. Now we are paying the price for not dealing with that topic before.

Nobody knows about the ethics of AI. We know there is a problem, like game theory: who should be killed when a car is driving autonomously on the street? And we didn't deal with that question. If I say we, I mean we as a society. Of course, companies like Tesla are trying to deal with that question, but it's the company. We didn't elect the guys working there. Even if they are nice guys, you never know what happens in the future. So we have to deal with these institutions and somehow get the controls back.

And luckily, in Germany, for instance, we have the much-discussed GDPR, on data security and privacy and so on. So of course government is able to do things like that. And right now it's also good to see that government, not everywhere in the world, but in Germany, for instance... I got a quite different image of politicians in the meantime, from the way they reacted to this crisis, to this situation. I'm really happy with how they behave, and how they, at least to some extent, get the position back and are not in this kind of argument all the time. They are reacting in a really competent, knowledgeable way, which I like a lot. The parties more or less disappear; nobody cares where they are from. At least for one part of society, I would say, you see politicians who try to react in a calm way and be positive.

And that is also [important] in terms of power: who has the power to change future circumstances. It's really an important thing. We have to deal with that question. And now we pay the price, to say it again, for not dealing with that question before, because we were busy shopping, shopping and watching casting shows on TV. Keeping people busy with these kinds of silly things, even though we don't need anything anymore. We forgot to think about really fundamental questions, which guide us into a better future with the help of technology, but controlled by us, by us as a society, and the way we see it.

Yeah, that would probably fill another session, but maybe just briefly: the future of work is of course very important, because the meaning of life today is work, I would say. In the past, the meaning of life was to survive, to just be. But now, if you talk to people at a party, for instance, the first question you get asked is: okay, what are you doing? So that's the meaning of life, the way it is. We can't change that.

But of course, now that algorithms, AI and all these technological advances are changing the work we are doing, or taking it over... On the one hand, I would say: fine, less work could be a good thing. But of course, for most people it isn't, because they are afraid of machines taking over their jobs, because they lost track of what they really, really want, as Frithjof Bergmann once said.

He also had the notion that in the future we should maybe work one third of our time. The second third, we should [use to] produce our own food sustainably and so on. And the third, more or less, should be what we really, really want. And mostly, when I ask the question that way, nobody has an answer. It's really hard to answer the question: what do we want, if nobody forces you to start at the office at nine o'clock in the morning and finish at five, and in between, well, not now, but in between, commute to your job and back? So it's a really serious, important question we have to deal with, maybe coming back to a situation where the meaning of life is something else again, not work.

And we have to deal with that question as well, because these disappearing jobs will happen. It has already happened. We replace them with so-called bullshit jobs: a lot of jobs nobody needs and nobody wants to do, but of course we try to hide that a bit. So this is one really urgent topic as well, to deal with that question, even though a lot of jobs will also disappear.

And then of course we come to the unconditional basic income, a situation we somehow even got in this crisis, because the German government paid a lot of money unconditionally to people, and also in other countries. So that's part of that game, and everybody's afraid of it, but we shouldn't be. We should just try it and test it and see how it works. So that's a hugely important topic, and we have to address it, because work is the meaning of our life today, but not in the future.

What we have to change for sure is our very own position in that game. When I'm giving a speech and challenge a lot of things and the ways people thought before, at the end they always ask the question: okay, what shall I do? What are you asking me to do? What should I challenge? And I say: do whatever you want, but do something. If you can't sell your car because you need it, then fine, do something else.

People should get the confidence back that the things they are doing matter. Buy less crap, buy healthy food, don't drive too much by car, don't fly on every single holiday you take in the future, when it's possible again. But do something. And the reaction to that is always silence, because then you don't have an excuse anymore. [You] say: yeah, I could do things, actually. I could think of three things I can change from tomorrow on. And it's easily done, and the Corona crisis has shown us how easily it can be done. We reduced so much; we got rid of so many things we never thought about before. This crisis should show us that this is possible, and that we are the ones who are able to change the situation.

That is my main message. Because of course, on the other hand, you can use your role as a voter, every four years or in between, to change things. But of course this is a hard, hard way to go, because over the last centuries we developed so much institutional power that it's hard to break right now. It's hard to break at all.

But what we can do is raise our voice. Or, even better, not raise our voice, don't say anything, just do it. Don't write so much about it: okay, you changed, you are now vegetarian. Just be it, without saying it. Just do these things, not publicly, because then it's just another marketing story, even if it's your own marketing story. Just change it. Try to be a better person, try to be more responsible, like people are doing right now as well: helping neighbors, becoming aware of the people and the circumstances around you. And if everybody just focuses a bit more on the people around them and on their own way of living, then we have a possible better future.

And what I like about that: there are many other things one can challenge or change, but this you can do immediately. You don't need a lot of things. I'm a running coach as well, and I say: of course, guys, running is the easiest thing to do. You don't have so many excuses. You just need some shoes and then you run. You don't have these kinds of excuses: I need a better bike, or I need better whatever. Just run, just do it. And we forgot about these very simple, easiest things.

And maybe another notion that I've had in mind for quite some years. You probably know Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine. In a nutshell, the story is, and I say it in a very simple way, sorry for that: the bad people always have a plan A, B, C; the good people never have any plan. So if something happens, like a shock, like an earthquake, or like the Corona crisis, or like the financial crisis, or like a war, whatsoever: the bad people, let's keep it that way, not to go too much into the details, these people have a plan, in politics and economics. They go to the drawer with plan A, B, C and take one out. And while all the other people are still shocked, emotionally, as persons, as humans, they roll out what they have in mind as fast as possible. The Shock Doctrine is exactly about that. I think the book is quite old already.

So since then I say: okay, we should have a plan too. We, the nice and open and borderless part of the world, should have a plan. But we don't have a plan. So we are shocked right now, and during that shock we are not even able to roll out that plan, a good plan of course, because we are shocked. So in that way, of course, the other side always wins, let's say. It's not a fight, it's not a war, but it's good to have plans and to make plans.

For instance, right now, to think about what I call, in my speeches, the green deal, and not only I, other people as well. To say: okay, right now, please, let's not save the old dirty industries. As you can imagine, in an automobile nation like Germany we had a lot of discussions about that. Right now, at least, it looks like the German government will not give money to the old car industry, only [to] electric cars, maybe. I hope that will not change, because they're asking for money. And they always say: okay, a lot of people will get laid off because of that. So they have a lot of pressure they can apply.

But Naomi Klein also says in a recent article: let's not save the old dirty industries, but invest in new ones. So if certain industries are now destroyed or go bankrupt or whatsoever, please, let's try to build new ones, cleaner ones, in every field more or less. And not, as always, just feed the financial institutions with money, feed the automobile or any other very powerful industry with money, so that people buy more cars. We don't need more cars.

So that is also something we have to break: this kind of continuation of how it was before. Like I said, before it wasn't that good. So maybe take what was good, but then put it on another level. Because right now, that's probably the chance of our lifetime, to put it on the level where we would like to have it.

That's a bold question, of course. I thought about eternal life anyway, so maybe that never happens. Maybe not living forever, but living much longer than we live today. That is, by the way, an interesting question, asking people how long they would like to live. I do it from time to time, and it's amazing what people answer. You probably wouldn't think so, but a lot of people don't want to live longer, even if they are having a happy life. And I always say: okay, at least 120 would be good, right? Eternal might not make sense, it gets boring, but 120 years would be good.

Yeah, that's a very interesting question. First of all, I have to say: I have my kids. That's what life is for. So this would of course be the most important thing for me to consider when it's going to end: to say, okay, I have my lucky kids, hopefully in good health and in a better world, of course. And then, of course, around this small corner, we come to the point that the world should be a better place at that time. And I wouldn't go so far as to say that I have an impact on that. I could have, I might have, but on a very small scale.

Yeah, that reminds me of a reference to me as a running coach. I'm running marathons, many already. I started, I don't know, 20 years ago, and I think I brought many people to run marathons as well. And it's probably not because I'm such a great marathon runner. I'm a good runner, but I think I brought people there because they were not afraid of doing it. Maybe, to put it simply, they see me and say: that's a normal guy. If he can run 42 kilometers, or 26 miles, I can do it too. So I'm not scaring people, whether it's about running a marathon or dealing with technology. They say: if he says it that way, first of all I understand it, and I can deal with it.

For instance, I always give an explanation of blockchain. I offer three different ways. And I say: what I want is that you are able to follow or lead a discussion at a party. When somebody is talking about blockchain, that you have a small idea of what it is. Or if somebody asks you what a blockchain is, I give you something at hand with which you can explain it in a very simple way.

And talking about the impact I would like to have, referring to your question: it is that I can teach or support people in dealing with all of these challenges. Be it running a marathon, be it dealing with technology, being able to judge whether something is right or wrong in ethical ways, and using technology. I think that's the best role I can play, in this position as a translator: understanding many different sides, connecting the dots, and trying to explain it in a simple way. I hate people who live off making things more complicated when explaining, all this buzzwording and so on. As soon as [it's in] a headline, you have to get rid of these words, and explain it in a really simple way.

So there's probably some educational spirit within me, and my kids know that when they ask me a question, they sometimes get a lecture in response. So they already know: okay, it's getting a bit longer. But I guess they like it. And it's easy and interesting, for instance, if you have to explain it to kids. No matter if it's about racism, or about economic impact, you would wonder how much you can talk to eight- or 12-year-old boys about these kinds of topics, or even AI. So: explain it in a simple way.

And yeah, I would be happy if this were said at my funeral, or something like that. That people said: okay, he was a nice guy. He showed that many things are possible, and understandable. So that would maybe be the best reply to your question.

Okay. You too. Bye bye.