0:00

ABC Listen, podcasts,

0:02

radio, news, music

0:05

and more. One

0:19

of the criticisms levelled at patriotism is

0:22

that it can create environments that are

0:24

all us against them. That

0:27

it's not about promoting inclusivity. But

0:29

it doesn't have to be that way. It

0:32

seems it's still possible to have a

0:34

type of patriotism that's about the social

0:36

good, the commonwealth. Take

0:39

this guy for instance from the group

0:41

Patriotic Millionaires. We have

0:43

several hundred members, wealthy people, mostly

0:46

here in the United States. And

0:49

basically we have figured out

0:51

that gross inequality is not

0:53

good for anybody, including the

0:55

rich people. And

0:57

it's unsustainable. And

0:59

we're very concerned that inequality

1:02

getting worse is making

1:04

our whole society unstable. And

1:07

we're trying to change policies

1:09

in our country to do

1:11

something about that and to

1:13

stop it before frankly everyone

1:15

gives up on liberal democracy.

1:18

His name is Morris Pearl and

1:20

he's a former managing director of

1:22

the giant investment company BlackRock. He

1:25

now chairs the Patriotic Millionaires and

1:27

he and his mega rich colleagues

1:30

are demanding they be taxed more.

1:33

A whole lot more. Hello

1:37

Anthony Fennell here with an episode

1:39

of Future Tense that's about rethinking

1:41

society's relationship with both wealth and

1:44

the wealthy. Now we'll come

1:46

back to Morris in a few moments. But

1:48

let's first remind ourselves just

1:50

how unequal Western societies have

1:52

become. Future

1:54

Business Jean-Etienne Jullier. Duel

2:00

between the Ceo of an organization

2:02

and dummy June. Pay in the

2:05

same organization was about twenty to

2:07

one. In the nineteen sixties, a

2:09

ratio was about twenty two one.

2:12

Know. Days it's about four hundred

2:14

to one. And they all

2:17

organizations in which to see you

2:19

makes about a thousand times in

2:21

one year. What? The median worker

2:24

in the same organization makes some of

2:26

you might recognize all attend voice from

2:28

our recent look at the perils of

2:30

managerial isn't if you haven't already heard

2:32

it, you might want to take it

2:34

out online. Now a

2:37

disparity in pay a one thousand

2:39

to one is staggering, but it's

2:41

more common than you think, and

2:43

all indications are that the wealth

2:45

gap will continue to rise. So

2:48

if we accept that financial inequality

2:50

does inside put a strain on

2:52

society and could have disastrous huge

2:54

consequences, well the question then is

2:56

how best to deal with it.

2:59

Let's start with the recognition that

3:01

money begets power, and power begets

3:04

attention. Rich people as

3:06

as some people say, influence on

3:08

lease a access to our political

3:10

leaders than do most people and

3:13

I'm going off to meetings. was

3:15

in a senior members of our

3:17

government's fairly regularly and I'm not

3:19

really any smarter than the next

3:22

guy. Somehow people listen to me

3:24

more because I'm in the top

3:26

under two hundred on the. List.

3:29

Of political donors And that's

3:31

a sad truth, sad reality.

3:33

So yes, we've been trying

3:35

to organize rich people. So.

3:37

That we can go into our

3:40

two sons' offices and tell them

3:42

look more actual businesspeople, actual investors,

3:44

actual political donors to though we

3:47

don't be like, say that part

3:49

out loud. And they listen

3:51

to us And the message to the

3:53

patriotic millionaires a came to posts is

3:55

that taxation shouldn't be seen as a

3:58

burdens. it's the means by which. Fund

4:00

genuine liberal democracy. We

4:03

are talking about changing the tax

4:05

system so that rich people pay

4:07

at least the same rates percentage

4:09

of their income in taxes as

4:11

do people at work. for living

4:13

we talking about seems in the

4:15

minimum wage to make a fire

4:17

so that minimum wage people can

4:19

afford to be no meet their

4:21

basic needs and we talk about

4:23

changing the campaign finance system. Some.

4:26

Parts United States including New York

4:28

where I live as systems for

4:30

local campaigns like for mayor and

4:32

offices like that where they collect

4:34

small donations and the campaign finance

4:36

system matches those donations six to

4:38

on or eight to one and

4:40

we talked about getting a system

4:42

like that for whole country so

4:44

that politicians running for office and

4:46

said have signed in one person

4:48

of new from thousands of dollars

4:51

they can talk to a lot

4:53

of people give them like a

4:55

hundred dollars each. And actually get

4:57

more money that way. And we

4:59

think that would result in a

5:01

much better system. When the idea

5:03

of tax reform vertically regarding the

5:05

rich is mentioned this often they

5:07

can to claim that look this

5:09

is rarely the politics of envy

5:11

given that you guys are rates

5:14

that proves that not everybody is

5:16

envious that three times can be

5:18

what he does I would yes

5:20

exactly why I can't speak for

5:22

everyone else but our group is

5:24

not and be at all. It's

5:26

more fear that people are going to

5:28

give up on the system eventually as

5:31

they see the rich getting richer and

5:33

richer and richer and they have no,

5:35

oh. Basically. All the

5:37

rich people are people who are

5:39

already rich when they were born.

5:42

And were just of our societies to

5:44

speed divide the pieces. Rich

5:46

people who owes be rich. And

5:48

people who worked for living whose children

5:50

by children will also have to work

5:53

for living. Even. at the

5:55

richest among us speak famous

5:57

entrepreneurs like mark zuckerberg or

5:59

eli Musk, there are people

6:01

who basically were able to start

6:03

companies because they were rich the

6:05

day they were born. And

6:08

that opportunity just doesn't exist for so

6:10

many. And we need to

6:12

change our system before the many just

6:14

kind of give up and say they're

6:16

not going to cooperate anymore. And

6:19

anarchy would be an improvement. The

6:21

interconnected global nature of

6:24

business in the 21st century, does

6:26

that make it more difficult to

6:29

rein in the rich? I mean, it opens

6:31

up the opportunity for them to simply move

6:33

their assets offshore, doesn't it? It

6:36

could. It's not as big a problem in the United States. Here

6:39

in the United States of America, people are

6:41

moving into our country, not moving out of

6:43

our country, because most people would rather have

6:45

their assets here in the United States than

6:47

in most other parts of the world. But

6:50

yeah, you're right. It would be

6:52

very difficult to do something like this in

6:54

France. You know, they have borders

6:56

of similar countries all over their country. You

6:59

know, that's why they tried a wealth tax plan and

7:01

it wasn't as successful as it should have been. That's

7:04

why we're also talking to

7:06

people about having a common

7:09

system. For instance, the

7:11

G20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro, a

7:13

bunch of countries have agreed to have

7:16

a minimum tax on the

7:18

very wealthy people. And

7:20

that is a starter. Is it going to pass? Probably

7:24

not. But it's a start in

7:26

the right direction. They did do something similar

7:28

for a minimum corporate tax a few years

7:30

ago. So yeah, we

7:32

do think that some kind of

7:35

coordination around the world is necessary.

7:37

That's why we have people

7:39

in the United Kingdom, Canada, and

7:41

we're talking to people like you. And

7:44

the fact that you've had that kind of

7:46

interest that shows that global support for a

7:48

proposal like this is theoretically possible. Yes. It

7:51

is possible. Do you see...

7:53

I mean, it's the issue about individuals

7:55

and corporations. Does the tax that both

7:57

pay have to be taken care of?

8:00

into account? I mean, corporations are

8:02

just groups of individuals, really. I

8:04

mean, yes, they're separate legal entities,

8:06

but I mean, they're not really

8:09

distinguishable from their owners, in my

8:11

view. So yes, I

8:13

mean, whether something is in a corporation

8:15

or a person or an artificial person

8:18

or a natural person, yes. If people

8:20

are making money, and we define making

8:22

money liberally as people are becoming more

8:25

rich than they were before, they should

8:27

pay some amount of tax on that

8:29

increase in their riches. So

8:32

many people, like, for instance, Elon Musk,

8:34

who owns Tesla and whatever they call

8:36

Twitter now, he's one of the wealthiest

8:38

people in the world, but he doesn't

8:40

pay much income tax. And

8:42

the reason is, he doesn't have any

8:45

income the way we narrowly define

8:47

income here in our country. He's

8:49

becoming richer and richer and richer by billions

8:52

of dollars a year. But

8:54

that's not considered income. He doesn't

8:56

get a paycheck. So what we

8:58

need to do, I think, is

9:01

define income more inclusively. So

9:03

if people make money by

9:05

their companies they own becoming

9:07

more valuable, that also will

9:09

count as income and be

9:11

taxable. Morris Pearl, chair of

9:13

the board of the Patriotic Millionaires, joining us

9:16

there from New York. Now,

9:20

that idea of clarifying and redefining what

9:23

is meant by income, for the purposes

9:25

of taxation, is also an

9:27

idea pushed by Dutch philosopher Ingrid

9:29

Robanes. She spent the

9:32

last decade or so working on

9:34

an approach to wealth which she

9:36

calls limitarianism. We need

9:38

to think about how we organize

9:40

society. So that is at the

9:42

political, organizational level. And there I

9:44

think we need to reduce inequalities

9:46

such that wealth concentration becomes far

9:49

less. This also entails

9:51

something like concrete measures such

9:53

as a tax regime. In addition

9:55

to that, there's also

9:57

an ethical sphere, a sphere

10:00

of what we as individuals

10:02

decide to do. So even

10:04

if society, the way we've organized

10:06

society, is not limiting inequality, we

10:09

still have moral agency

10:11

as individuals to decide what to

10:13

do with that money. So there's

10:15

the political level, which also includes

10:17

the fiscal level, but there's then

10:19

also the moral level,

10:21

the ethical level. So at

10:24

its most basic, the limitarian idea involves

10:26

saying to all members of society that

10:29

while you can aspire to wealth and

10:31

gain wealth, there should be a limit,

10:33

a limit determined by society. And

10:36

any money you make above that

10:38

determined amount, well, that excess wealth

10:40

should then be forfeited to the

10:42

state to fund society's overall needs.

10:46

In her recently released book, Limitarianism,

10:48

The Case Against Extreme Wealth, Dr.

10:51

Obaints sets that limit at

10:53

around US$10 million, but she's

10:55

quick to make the point

10:57

that that's just a ballpark

10:59

figure. It could be higher

11:01

or lower depending on each

11:03

country's unique economic circumstances. Now,

11:06

aside from that state-imposed maximum

11:09

limit, Dr. Obaints

11:11

also encourages people to voluntarily

11:13

set their own individual wealth

11:16

cap. And for the sake

11:18

of debate, she argues that in countries

11:20

with a proper functioning safety net, that

11:22

figure could be around about the US$1

11:25

million mark. So the

11:27

political limit is a trade

11:29

over balance between, on the one hand, the

11:32

number at which wealth no longer harms

11:35

society. So you can no longer

11:37

use your wealth to buy democracy

11:39

or buy politics and disproportionately harm

11:41

the ecosystems of the planet. But at

11:44

the same time, you allow for enough positive

11:47

incentives on the market so that innovators

11:49

will keep innovating. That is the balancing

11:51

you do with the political limit. The

11:54

ethical limit, it's a different thing. It's really

11:56

a question that each person should ask themselves

11:58

and they should ask themselves. When is

12:00

it enough for me? How much do I

12:02

need and what can I do in

12:05

terms of alleviating

12:07

suffering by others or contributing

12:09

to collective action problems such as

12:11

climate change or Strengthening democracy

12:13

given that I have much more than I

12:16

need So those are two different

12:18

types of reasonings and they come with a

12:20

number The reason I give those numbers

12:22

in the book and I totally accept that

12:24

they're that definitely the political

12:26

number is arbitrary and the ethical number

12:28

that I propose is really taken from

12:31

the context of the Netherlands, which is

12:33

a specific context those numbers are

12:36

definitely not like strongly Supportant

12:39

but the reasoning

12:41

is important So I would hope

12:43

that we can have debates in all society

12:46

and also international on how

12:48

much is enough I should be

12:50

at some point just say this is too much.

12:52

That's the kind of debate I'm hoping

12:54

to contribute to with the book that

12:56

I wrote So limitarianism is a philosophical

12:58

and ethical idea as much as it

13:01

is a plan for economic reform And

13:03

it's already prompting debate Maybe

13:07

the 14th finance minister Jean Baptiste

13:09

Colbert who said the art of

13:11

taxation Consists in plucking the

13:13

goose so as to get the largest amount

13:15

of feathers with the least amount of hissing

13:18

He didn't add unless it's a

13:20

big goose in which case strangle it

13:22

Robert Guest the deputy editor of The

13:24

Economist And as you can probably tell

13:26

he's not a fan Step back

13:28

a moment and ask what is the

13:31

purpose of taxation? Is it to pay

13:33

for public services like, you know hospitals

13:35

and schools and roads and help for

13:37

the people who can't help themselves Or

13:40

is it to achieve some outcome

13:42

some ratio of some people's income

13:44

to others? I'd say the important

13:46

thing about taxation is that you

13:49

want it to pay for public

13:51

services And if you fetishize

13:53

the idea of cutting the rich down

13:55

to size you're actually going to raise

13:58

less money and public

14:00

services. Why is that? Why would taxing

14:02

the rich more or putting a limit

14:04

on income, why would that lead to

14:06

less money for public services? The

14:09

idea that the rich should pay more

14:11

than other people is widely accepted, but

14:14

the idea that beyond a certain level you

14:16

should take 100% of

14:18

their income is absurd. There are

14:20

a number of countries, about five

14:22

according to a study income by

14:24

Jacob Lundberg of Uppsala University, where

14:26

you've already got to the stage

14:28

where the tax rates are so

14:30

high that they're raising less money

14:32

than they would be if they

14:34

were lower, because rich people are

14:36

either not working as much or

14:39

dodging taxes or moving their activities

14:41

to other countries. If

14:44

you had a rate or a series of policies,

14:46

as I believe Ingrid Robins advocates,

14:49

that add up to roughly speaking a

14:51

100% tax rate, then

14:53

once people have got to that

14:55

level, they have no incentive to

14:57

do any more work. This

15:00

means that you're highly productive

15:02

people. We're talking not

15:04

just plutocrats, but surgeons and engineers

15:06

would have to stop working, or

15:08

they wouldn't get to keep any

15:10

of what they produce. The

15:13

incentives for entrepreneurs are even worse, because

15:15

if you have a great idea that's

15:17

going to make other people's lives better

15:19

and they're going to pay for it,

15:21

quite often you have to borrow money

15:23

upfront in order to build a factory

15:25

to produce your bed and mouse trap.

15:28

The risk of that falls on you. If your

15:30

idea fails, you lose your house. Under

15:33

a system where there's a tight tap on

15:36

how much money you can accumulate over your

15:38

lifetime, the risk still falls

15:40

on you. If your idea doesn't

15:42

work, you lose your house. The

15:45

vast majority of the upside goes to

15:47

someone else. If it's a big project

15:49

that requires lots of capital upfront, like

15:51

say Windfarm or a chip factory, you

15:54

get to the stage where almost no private investor is

15:56

able to take that risk at all. Then

15:58

you'd end up with just government. these things.

16:01

I mean, you're basically saying that

16:04

no individual can try to build

16:06

anything big and that

16:08

has a huge dampening effect on incentives.

16:11

Yes, so I think there are at least

16:13

two responses. One is when we

16:15

still had a more capable government,

16:18

the government actually did a lot of

16:20

those risk investments. It was not a

16:22

company that put a man on the

16:24

moon, as the economist Mariana Matsukato has

16:27

shown, it was the government,

16:29

the people also, who said, okay, we

16:31

want to have a man on the

16:33

moon. And that ambition triggered a whole

16:35

lot of innovations that we're still profiting

16:38

from today. So Mariana Matsukato, who is

16:40

a professor of economics of innovation

16:42

in London, she argues for what

16:44

she calls an entrepreneurial state,

16:46

where collectively we try to,

16:49

for example, develop vaccines and

16:51

do all these things that benefit the

16:54

whole of the population. So that's

16:56

one response that there is another

16:58

entity that could make those investments. The

17:01

other is it's assumed

17:03

that the possible profits

17:05

that investors should have

17:07

access to are endless, are

17:10

limitless. But there's no evidence for

17:12

this. And if you have

17:14

a different fiscal system and you

17:16

have different regulations, then the

17:18

profits will become lower. But

17:21

they were lower in many decades in the

17:23

past. And it's not as if there was

17:25

any less innovation. So I just

17:28

wonder to what extent this

17:30

is an argument based on

17:32

evidence or whether it is

17:34

just basically an expression of

17:36

this belief in our culture

17:39

ideology, that the sky must be

17:41

the limit in order for people

17:43

to be motivated to be investors.

17:45

But everybody has different motives. So

17:47

of course, we want positive incentives.

17:49

We want people to be rewarded

17:51

for what they do. But there's

17:53

no reason in human nature why

17:55

this reward should be endless. The

17:57

reason why some motivated

18:00

by very, very large gains

18:02

is because wealth has this

18:05

role of signaling status versus

18:07

another person. So it becomes a

18:09

status issue. There is actually

18:12

an American entrepreneur and a billionaire, Nick

18:14

Hanauer, who interviewed me and he also,

18:16

he was very firm that he said

18:18

it's purely a status issue. Once you

18:20

have so much wealth, it's

18:22

really what do I have versus the other person?

18:25

But that is a never ending rat race. And

18:28

if that never ending rat race

18:30

harms society and actually deprives the

18:32

public from resources they need for

18:35

say climate adaptation or poverty relief,

18:38

then it is a rat race that is

18:40

not just I think psychologically harming the super

18:42

rich who are always looking at the other

18:44

person, but it's harming all of society.

18:47

And finally, let's go back to

18:49

multimillionaire Morris Pearl from the group

18:51

Patriotic Millionaires. What

18:54

does he think of the limitarian approach to

18:56

capping wealth? We've not

18:58

advocated 100% tax for anybody. We

19:01

have advocated 90% tax on people

19:03

above a certain level. So

19:05

we're close to agreement. I don't

19:08

think there should be an absolute maximum

19:10

on how wealthy somebody should be. Michael

19:12

Bloomberg owns a company worth nothing the

19:15

day that he founded it and is

19:17

worth tens of billions of dollars now.

19:19

That doesn't mean he's a bad person.

19:22

That means that he owns a company that

19:24

became immensely valuable. People can

19:26

become more wealthy. And I think

19:28

that's OK. It's just they

19:31

should pay a high percentage of

19:33

their income as taxes and a

19:35

higher percentage as they become more

19:37

and more wealthy. But I don't think that would go quite

19:39

to 100%. Morris

19:41

Pearl. And a final thought before

19:43

we leave this topic, picking up on Mr. Pearl's mention

19:46

of a 90% tax on the earnings

19:48

of the super wealthy. Out of

19:50

interest, what exactly would that look like? Well,

19:53

here's something to ponder. If

19:55

you impose that level of taxation on

19:58

either Amazon's Jeff Bezos or Elon

20:00

Musk for instance, at the end of

20:02

the day, well, at the end

20:04

of the day, they'd both still

20:06

be multi-multi-billionaires. Speaking

20:13

of mega-rich tech titans, our next

20:15

guest, writer and technology thinker Maria

20:17

Farrell argues their wealth

20:19

and dominance risks cruelling our

20:21

future. Too few companies

20:24

and organisations are now involved in

20:26

shaping, regulating and improving the internet

20:28

she argues. And as

20:31

a result, the internet ecosystem is sick

20:34

and needs a good rewilding. So

20:37

the reason that we describe our online

20:39

environment, the social media and the spaces

20:41

that all of us know so well

20:43

as plantations, rather than the ecosystems that

20:45

their owners sometimes refer to them

20:47

as, is really because they are

20:49

all about extraction and control.

20:52

So you don't really have any choice about the

20:54

terms of reference in Facebook. And you certainly don't

20:56

have a choice about what kind of content gets

20:59

shown to you on Instagram. That's

21:01

the control part, but there's the extraction

21:03

part, which is it's all about extracting

21:05

your data and it's all about extracting

21:08

your time, your concentration, your engagement. And

21:10

you say that in that sense, then internet

21:12

users are treated almost like battery chickens. I

21:15

think internet users are treated like battery chickens

21:17

in that they are shoved into an incredibly

21:20

confining space, not for their own interests, but

21:22

for the interests of the people who own

21:24

the space. And they're shoved

21:26

in so close and subjected to such

21:28

unnatural pressures and strains that they start

21:31

behaving in ways that are clinically

21:33

quite mad. They peck each other to

21:35

death because it's such an aggressive, unnatural,

21:38

unpleasant environment to be in. That's

21:40

why we say these online spaces are more like

21:42

battery farms than anything else. Now we

21:44

know that the online environment is extremely

21:47

concentrated, but you argue, don't you, that

21:49

we don't appreciate just how deep that

21:51

concentration runs. Yeah, the internet is

21:53

a bit of an iceberg really, because you can

21:55

see the visible bits that we can all see

21:57

the Facebooks, the Googles, the Amazon web services.

22:00

But what you not really seeing is

22:02

the a massive. Amount of concentration

22:04

of the infrastructure of below

22:06

the waterline so. When you

22:08

actually look at it, you realize

22:10

that undersea cables and protocol and

22:12

arms the pipes. No worries that

22:15

we actually used to get our

22:17

internet the advertising infrastructures that supported

22:19

the owners of the browsers. That

22:21

we use who basically only used to

22:23

browsers worldwide. Most people, they're incredibly

22:25

concentrated and controlled by really only two

22:28

companies at each level. So what you

22:30

see is not a really diverse environment,

22:32

but something that is a duopoly. so

22:35

basic, like a monopoly. but. Just with

22:37

two companies controlling everything globally. which

22:39

brings us to your call for

22:41

the revolving of the Internet. Now revolving

22:43

is an ecological term. Why employ

22:45

that time? In this context, there

22:47

are different approaches to rebuilding. But the

22:50

basic idea is that you want to

22:52

have diversity because it gives you resilience

22:54

so a flourishing. Ecosystem. It's own thoughts of

22:56

different. Kinds of behaviors, Different species, different

22:59

tactics and week. Think that's where

23:01

the Internet needs. It needs to

23:03

have different kinds of owners. Of

23:05

infrastructure but also. Different kinds of

23:07

business models for how we provide the

23:09

internet at every level. Because when you

23:11

think that realizing the internet it's basically

23:14

saying look, having to to companies at

23:16

every level be too awfully controlling everything

23:18

with none of us having any choices.

23:20

That's pretty daft. It's incredibly fragile. Number

23:22

one, if anything goes. Wrong with those companies

23:25

and sometimes it does. You're in trouble. But.

23:27

Number Two were looking at an environment

23:29

where most of the tech companies in

23:31

the world that we rely on our

23:33

American Thera headquartered in the Us and

23:35

this November we could see. A fascist

23:38

leadership coming into the Us. How

23:40

does your infrastructure look and feel

23:42

to you? If you're thinking by

23:44

the fact that it is now a bore

23:46

by the extreme or right leader in a

23:48

very specific. Country it all looks and feels

23:51

a bit different. so. That's kind of,

23:53

or we feel there's almost. There

23:55

are certain evangelical need, an existential.

23:57

Need to diversify the Internet

23:59

said. We got different choices, different possibilities,

24:01

and different logic of control and we should

24:03

remind us of that. It wasn't always like

24:06

this. So how do we get into the

24:08

situation? We. Started off with an internet that had

24:10

diversity at what we call the players and layers

24:12

so you had different owners have different levels of

24:14

the internet because it's it's really it's a bit

24:16

of let the like it a Tetris. Game. It's

24:18

got different kind of shapes of infrastructure at

24:21

each level, all the way up and down.

24:23

and we started off with loads of diversity,

24:25

threat, the sack of different services and infrastructure,

24:27

and overtime. And especially in the last

24:29

fifteen years, the companies who came out

24:31

on top in social media in. Search

24:34

the Googles, the face books, and slightly

24:36

more recently the Amazons. They started to

24:38

say look, we don't want to, just

24:41

control is hop It's that everyone can

24:43

see. We need to control all of

24:45

the infrastructure beneath. And that's because

24:47

if he wants to control the environment, going

24:50

for it for ten, twenty, a hundred years

24:52

to do that, you want to make sure

24:54

you control. Everything that determines the environment.

24:56

They've been using these once in a

24:58

lifetime. Profits that they made to to

25:00

bite out in spelled it out and.

25:02

To ensure their control last for decades if

25:05

not a century and of picking up on

25:07

that point that dominance that exists today. Is

25:10

going to cite the kindest internet? The

25:12

kind of online communications that we have

25:14

in the future? Isn't that because those

25:16

who have power are unlikely to give

25:18

it up? So. Right now the must

25:20

have concentration and control of all of the

25:22

internet. Infrastructure by a tiny number of

25:24

companies is incredibly powerful, but we do

25:26

have a chance to stop it right

25:28

now. and it's urgent. It's extremely urgent

25:30

so if we don't stop that control

25:32

be don't break them Asked. If we

25:35

don't insist that there are different competitors

25:37

at different levels and how we to

25:39

the internet, and yes, we will be

25:41

stuck with the same people in charge

25:43

for a century and it's gonna be

25:45

different century. For Humanity as we all

25:47

know, so it's really important. That we

25:49

have openness and different kinds of ways

25:51

to connect to each other, to find

25:53

information to communicate and organize. That's why

25:56

it's. Absolutely it's sort of

25:58

species. Level Urgency. That

26:00

we need to break up the consolidated

26:02

internet and make it open and free.

26:04

Rebuilding the internet is a reliable metaphor,

26:06

but isn't visit really more than that?

26:09

When we speaking about the online world,

26:11

thought power that does his metaphor has

26:13

in kind of shaping those forces. So.

26:16

That we wanting the internet metaphor is

26:18

it. It gives us a bunch of

26:20

things. First of all, it allows us

26:22

to see that these online habitats that

26:24

we are expected to do live without

26:26

quibble with a query. Without. Any

26:28

control. Are extremely bizarre,

26:31

And damaging. And it. let's see that

26:33

in any way. But I think what's

26:35

most important by this is that like

26:37

any kind of habitat that we want

26:39

to repair, restore. You have to

26:41

care about the habitat. First, you have to realize

26:43

that it's important and it's. It's important to

26:45

us individuals and it's important to collectively to

26:47

live in a place that is clean and

26:50

healthy and free. And so I

26:52

think we was in. The internet allows us

26:54

to. Feel. Differently to come together

26:56

collectively in to organize because it gives

26:59

us a sense of positivity and constructive.

27:01

This that yes okay the internet is

27:03

a complete mess, but yes also humans

27:06

know how to restore habitats. We know

27:08

how to were together. This is something

27:10

that we've already been doing and they

27:12

think it's something that people in technology

27:15

and people in government can learn from.

27:17

Ecologists. Because. He colleges don't just have

27:19

a skill set of hate Restore Habitats. They've.

27:21

Had to have emotional resilience, an

27:24

ability to organize anything that is

27:26

something that is a superpower on

27:28

it's something. We're all going to eat

27:30

and years to come and look into

27:32

the future. Entered adopting a positive outlook,

27:34

What would a rewarded internet actually look

27:37

like? So. Everyone that internet is

27:39

going to look and feel so different to

27:41

the internet we have right now for stars.

27:43

I think it's going to be a place

27:45

where on that divisible social media kind of

27:47

level, a place where we can be together,

27:49

but separate where we're not all herded into

27:51

the same maddening factory. Farms and bombarded

27:53

with this information and horrible kind

27:55

of aggression and the awful stuff

27:58

pc going on i think. This

28:00

before have you can be with family

28:02

and friends you can be with. Professional

28:04

to if you can make different choices. At

28:06

different times and different moments in the day. And

28:09

you can bring your data with you. You

28:11

can be part of different communities so you

28:13

basically can operate a lot of choice. I

28:15

think that's the main difference where it it looks

28:17

and feels differently and you're not getting bombarded and

28:19

you're not, sort of. You don't always have this

28:21

horrible niggling guilt that of the social media is

28:24

an awful space, but I can't. Do anything bad,

28:26

it on kind of stuck citing. Freedom

28:28

and choice. Or just a

28:30

darling down the day to

28:32

day unpleasantness and coercion. Is going

28:34

to make it look and feel so different to

28:36

what we have now Are will link to your

28:38

recent article on this topic on the Future Tense

28:40

website. Thank you very much for joining us. And

28:43

you Anthony. Under pretense for another

28:45

week thanks to my co produce a current

28:47

event of it's and thank you for listening

28:50

in on. Don't forget to follow us on

28:52

the I basically some app I'm at for

28:54

know until next time. She's.

28:58

You've been listening to an A B

29:00

C podcasts. Discover. More

29:02

great A B C podcasts. Live

29:04

Radio and exclusive on a

29:07

B. C Listen up.