Welcome to a wonderful evening. I am very pleased to be able to welcome you here - ladies and gentlemen, Honorable Federal Chancellor, honorable WKO President, and dear Yuval Harari. It's very nice that you're here tonight. It's an absolute pleasure to have you here today for the special occasion of the European Day for Economics, at the Chamber of Commerce. And indeed not just because we have managed to get Yuval Noah Harari, an internationally sought-after star and thought leader, to Vienna — but also because he and Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz agreed to have a conversation together on this stage, with WKO President Harald Mahrer. Europe will, as you all know, elect a new parliament in 2.5 weeks. It is presumably at a time like this, when facing European elections and the opportunity to vote, that new choices for our future will be put on the ballot. We often read and hear that Europe has to get its act together in order to face the future. It has to not only hold its own, but to also catch up with the global competition. And yet, if we are honest, we can seldom say right off the bat exactly what that means. Someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about the future, as well as the present, with which he is exceptionally well acquainted, is Yuval Noah Harari. His immediate personal past, as you probably all know, is a unique success story. In the past five years, things have really taken off for him. This historian and philosopher from Israel has become one of the best known and, it has to be said, most active commentators on what is happening in the world right now.
He is someone who, as he always emphasizes in interviews, attaches great value to explaining the connections in our world order to people. First, his book "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” appeared in English, and then also in German. Today, more than 10 million copies of the book have been sold and it has been translated into more than 60 languages. By now a second book — by which I mean second popular book — because Yuval Harari had already published a lot of other scholarly books. But with this second book, “Homo Deus”, he began to focus his persepective towards the future. Maybe that is why the CEOs from Silicon Valley, from Bill Gates to Mark Zuckerberg, who he met with only a few days ago, invited him to give public talks about the future . . . Maybe that is why they have taken him into their hearts — or maybe it is just because they want to know what the immediate future looks like to him. People who are themselves constantly inventing new technologies and applications seek the company of interpreters — those who can tell them what may happen next. And that “maybe” is what Yuval Harari always gives the most weight to. He does not say, “This will happen”, but always highlights the possibility that everything will change. That “just as I have examined the past, I can imagine that the next step will look like this.” Last year, he published his newest book, “21 Lessons for the 21st Century”, in which he focuses his attention on humankind’s technical and political needs and challenges. He travels around the world extensively. He travels to give TED talks; he attended the World Economic Forum in Davos. And now he is here. We are extremely pleased to have him in Austria and Vienna for the first time, and also that he is speaking in this setting for the first time. Mr. Harari, it is a pleasure for us to welcome you here in Vienna. The stage is yours. Thank you, all of you, for coming here. I want to talk to you today about the future of Europe, and about the future of the world as a whole, because today you cannot really separate these two. Everybody knows that the old order is in trouble, but does anybody know what the new order would look like, what new order will dominate the world? Do you know what is the new story of the world? To answer this question, let's start by briefly looking at a few of the old stories. During the 20th century, 3 big stories tried to explain the whole of human history and to offer a vision for the future of Europe and for the future of the world as a whole. These were the fascist, the communist and the liberal stories. The fascist story said that history is a struggle between different nations, and fascism envisioned a world dominated by one human group that violently subdues all the others. The communist story explained that history is not a struggle between nations but rather a struggle between classes, and communism envisioned a world in which all human groups are united by a centralized social system that ensures equality even at the price of freedom. The liberal story explained that history is a struggle not between nations and not between classes but rather a struggle between liberty and tyranny. And liberalism envisioned a world in which all humans cooperate freely and peacefully with minimum central control, even at the price of some inequality. Now, the Second World War and the Cold War, as we all know, knocked out the fascist and communist stories, and for the last few decades the world has been governed by the global, liberal order. This order is based on the understanding that all humans share some core experiences and interests, that we are all subject to the same universal values and that no human group is inherently superior to the others. Cooperation is therefore much more sensible than conflict. All humans should work together to protect our common values and to advance our common interests. That's what liberalism said. And to foster such cooperation liberalism has advised us to strengthen international laws and organizations and to ease the movement of ideas, of goods and of people, across the globe. Now, though the global liberal order has had many faults and problems it has proved superior to all the alternatives. The liberal world of the early 21st century is more prosperous, more healthy and more peaceful than ever before. For the first time in human history, you are more likely to die from obesity than from starvation. For the first time in history, you are more likely to die from old age than from plague, and you are more likely to die from an accident than from human violence. The liberal miracle can be summarized in the idea that liberalism created a world in which sugar is more dangerous than gunpowder. The average Austrian today is far more likely to die from eating too much chocolate than from being blown up by Al-Qaeda or some other organization. That's the amazing liberal miracle. If you think we should go back to some pre-liberal golden age that once existed, I would like to know the year you are thinking about. The year in which humankind was in better shape than in the early 21st century. Was it 1919 or 1219 or are you dreaming of going back even further? Nevertheless, people in Europe and in many other parts of the world are now losing faith in the liberal order. Nationalists and religious views that privilege one human group above all the others are back in fashion. Governments are increasingly restricting the flow of ideas, of goods and of people and are undermining international laws and international organizations. Walls are popping up everywhere: on the ground, in cyberspace, and especially inside the mind; the walls are beginning to rise again. If the liberal order - for whatever reason is indeed collapsing, the big question to ask is what new kind of global order might replace it? So far, those who challenge the liberal order do so mainly on the national level. They have many ideas how to advance the interests of their own country, but they don't offer a viable vision for how the world as a whole should function. For example, Russian nationalism can be a reasonable guide for managing the affairs of Russia, but Russian nationalism has no plan for the rest of humanity. Unless, of course, nationalism morphs into imperialism, and calls for one nation to violently conquer and rule the entire world. A century ago many nationalists indeed harbored such imperialist fantasies, but today's nationalists, whether in Russia, in Turkey, in Italy or in China so far don't advocate global conquest. So, what is their vision of the world? In place of violently establishing a global empire some nationalists, like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, like the Italian Lega, like the British Brexit-eers, dream about a peaceful nationalist international. They argue that all nations today actually face the same enemies. The boogiemen of globalism, multiculturalism and immigration are threatening to destroy the traditions and identities of all nations. Therefore, they say, nationalists across the world should make common cause in opposing these globalist forces. Hungarians, Italians and Brits should build walls, destroy bridges and slow down the movement of people, goods and ideas. The world will then be divided into distinct nation states, each with its own sacred identities and traditions and based on mutual respect for these differing identities all nation-states would be able to coexist peacefully. Hungary will be Hungarian, Italy will be Italian, Britain will be British and everybody will know who they are and what is their proper place in the world. This will be a world without immigration, without universal values, without multiculturalism and without a global elite, but with peaceful international relations and some trade. In a word, the nationalist international envisions the world as a network of walled but friendly fortresses. The key problem with this vision is that walled fortresses are seldom friendly. Each national fortress usually wants a bit more land, a bit more security and a bit more prosperity for itself at the expense of the neighbors. And without the help of universal values and global orgs rival fortresses cannot agree on any common rules. All previous attempts in history to divide the world into clear-cut nations have resulted in war and genocide. But, you can say, if I happen to live inside a particularly strong nation, strong fortress, like the USA, or the UK, or Germany or Russia, why should I care?
strong fortress, like the USA, or the UK, or Germany or Russia, why should I care? Some nationalists indeed adopt a more extreme isolationist position.
why should I care? Some nationalists indeed adopt a more extreme isolationist position. They don't believe in a global empire, but also they don't believe in a global network of fortresses. Instead, they deny they deny the necessity of having any global order whatsoever. Our fortress, they say, should just raise the drawbridges, and the rest of the world can go to hell. We should refuse entry to foreign people, to foreign goods and to foreign ideas, and as long as our walls are strong and the guards are loyal, who cares what happens to the foreigners? Such extreme isolationism, however, is completely divorced from economic realities. Without a global trade network, all existing national economies will collapse,
Without a global trade network, all existing national economies will collapse, including even that of North Korea. Many countries will not be able to even feed themselves without global trade. Nationalist leaders sometimes may therefore heap abuse on the global trade network, but none thinks seriously of taking their country completely out of the global network, and we just can't have a global trade network without some global order that sets the rules of the game. Even more importantly, whether people like it or not, humankind today faces 3 unprecedented common problems that make a mockery of national borders and can only be solved through global cooperation. These are nuclear war, climate change and technological disruption. You cannot build a wall against nuclear winter. You cannot build a wall against global warming. And no nation can regulate artificial intelligence and bioengineering by itself, because no government controls all the scientists and engineers in the world. Consider, for example, conducting genetic engineering experiments on humans. Every country will say: we don't want to conduct such experiments; we are the good guys! But, how do we know that our rivals are not doing it? We cannot trust them, and we cannot allow them to be ahead of us, so we must do it before they do it.
We cannot trust them, and we cannot allow them to be ahead of us, so we must do it before they do it. Or similarly, consider developing autonomous weapons systems - killer robots. Again, every country will say: this is a very dangerous technology,
Or similarly, consider developing autonomous weapons systems - killer robots. Again, every country will say: this is a very dangerous technology, and it should be regulated carefully. But we can't trust our rivals to regulate it, so we must develop it first. That will be the safe thing to do. If we allow such an AI arms race or a genetic arms race to develop, it doesn't matter who wins the arms race; the loser will be humanity. And the only thing that can prevent such destructive arms races is not building walls between countries, but rather building trust between countries - which is not impossible. If, for example, today the Germans come to the French and tell them: trust us, we aren't developing killer robots in some secret laboratory under the Bavarian Alps, the French are very likely to trust the Germans, despite the terrible history of these two countries. We need to at least try build such trust globally. We need to reach a point when the Americans and the Chinese can trust one another like the French and the Germans. Similarly, we need to create a global safety net to protect all humans against the economic shocks that AI is very likely to unleash. Automation will create immense new wealth in high-tech hubs like Silicon Valley and Eastern China. But the worst effects will be felt in developing countries whose economies depend on cheap manual labor. There will be many more jobs for software engineers in California, but fewer jobs for Mexican truck drivers and factory workers. Unless we find solutions to this crisis on a global level then entire countries might collapse, and the resulting chaos, violence and waves of immigration will destabilize the entire world. I think this is the proper perspective to look at recent developments in Europe like the crisis of the European Union and Brexit. In itself, Brexit isn't necessarily such a bad idea, but the real question is one of focus: is this what Britain and the EU should be focusing on right now? How does Brexit help prevent nuclear war? How does Brexit help to prevent climate change? How does Brexit help to regulate AI and bioengineering? Quite obviously, instead of helping, Brexit actually makes it harder to solve all of these problems. And every minute that the EU and the UK spend on Brexit is one less minute they spend on climate change or on the AI crisis. In 20 years if we have failed to prevent climate change and to regulate AI, our children will look back and ask us: why didn't you do it in time? What will we say? Sorry, kids, we were just far too busy with Brexit, so we didn't have time for these smaller issues. So, in order to survive and flourish in the 21st century, Europe and humankind as a whole need better global cooperation. And nationalism need not prove an impossible barrier for such cooperation. I know that some politicians, like Donald Trump, argue that there is an inherent contradiction between nationalism and globalism and that we should reject globalism and choose nationalism. But I think this is a fundamental mistake: there is no contradiction between nationalism and globalism. For nationalism isn't about hating foreigners. Nationalism is about taking care of your compatriots. And in the 21st century, in order to protect the safety and prosperity of your compatriots you must cooperate with foreigners. So, I think today good nationalists should also be globalists, there is no contradiction there. And globalism doesn't mean abandoning all national loyalties and traditions, and doesn't mean opening the border to unlimited immigration. There is a conspiracy theory going around also in Austria that globalists want to abolish all restrictions on immigration and to flood Europe with tens of millions of foreigners. But this is really nonsense. I know quite a few globalists, and none of them wants that. Rather, globalism actually means two far more modest and reasonable things: first of all, globalism means a commitment to some global rules. These rules don't deny the uniqueness of each nation and the loyalty that people should owe to their nation. Rather, the global rules just regulate the relations between nations. A good way to think about it, or a good model for the world is the World Football Cup. The World Cup is a competition between nations, and people often show fierce loyalty to their national team. But at the same time the World Football Cup is also an amazing display of global harmony. France cannot play football against Croatia unless the French and the Croatians first agree on the same rules for the game. A thousand years ago, in the 11th century it would have been absolutely impossible to bring people from France, Croatia, Japan and Argentina to play games together in Russia. Even if you could somehow solve the logistical problem and bring them there, they could never agree on the same rules. But today we can do that, and that's globalism in action. If you like the World Football Cup, then you're a globalist. The second principle of globalism is that sometimes it is necessary to prefer global interests over national interests. Not always, but sometimes. For example, in the World Football Cup, all national teams agree not to use forbidden drugs to enhance the performance of their athletes. Even if you can win the Cup by drugging your footballers, you shouldn't do it, because if you do it then other teams will soon copy your example and the World Football Cup will become a competition between biochemists and not between football players. So, and the sport will be ruined. As in football, so also in economics. We need to find a balance between national and global interests. Even in a globalized world, the vast majority of the taxes you pay will still go to provide healthcare and education for people in your nation. But sometimes nations will agree to slow down their economical development, or their technological development, in order to prevent catastrophic climate change and to prevent the spread of dangerous technologies. So, this isn't a call to establish some kind of global government, which is an unrealistic and dangerous vision. Rather, the goal should be to have harmony without uniformity. It's like an orchestra in which each instrument is different, but they can still all play in harmony. If all the instruments are the same, it is lifeless. If each instrument is doing its own thing in complete disregard for the others what you get is terrible noise. We need to find some kind of balanced middle path. And the EU has been so far the most successful experiment in the history of humankind in finding such a middle path and creating effective cooperation between hundreds of millions of people without imposing uniformity, without imposing a single government, a single language, or a single nationality on everybody. And I very much hope that this experiment in harmony without uniformity can set the way forward for humanity as a whole, for Europe to serve as a model for the rest of the world, and that's basically my vision for Europe, that Europe should teach the world how to cooperate peacefully, without imposing a single domineering system or government above everybody. Now, to conclude, what does all this mean in practice, in terms of the next few months, of the next year? So, I would say it means giving more weight to global problems and interests within the existing framework of nation-states. And elections are coming on, the EU elections, and later national elections. And when the next elections come along, I would advise you to ask politicians four questions when they are asking you to vote for them. You should ask them four questions: First, if you're elected, what actions will you take to lessen the risks of nuclear war? Secondly, what actions will you take to lessen the risks of climate change? What actions will you take to regulate disruptive technologies, like artificial intelligence and bioengineering? And finally, how do you see the world of 2050? What is your worst-case scenario, and what is your vision for the best case scenario? Because we need visions for the future. And if some politicians don't understand these questions or if they constantly talk about the past without being able to formulate a meaningful vision for the future, don't vote for these politicians. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harari, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Harari, for your rather optimistic but also realistic thoughts on liberal miracles, rising walls and what the Football World Cup has to do with globalism. Thank you very much again. We are probably all in agreement that a healthy economy needs three things, along with many other things to operate freely and above all, to be able to grow. To do that, there have to be policies within a democratic structure, there has to be an economy that is as free as possible, functioning in accordance with certain rules and there have to be people who enjoy flourishing in this system. This keyword — economy — brings me to our next speaker. I would like to invite our host and organizer to come onstage. Please welcome with me the President of the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, Harald Mahrer. Honorable guests and above all, dear Federal Chancellor and dear Professor Harari: It is wonderful to have you in Austria; it is wonderful to have you in Vienna. You get invited to lots of places, no doubt, and we are especially happy to have you here today. There is a reason for this. I would like to tell you a little more about that reason and to talk about the ideas, these great ideas, and 'compete' with the professor. In a few days, we will have the elections for the European Parliament. And unfortunately, we have been preoccupied for many weeks and months now with a single Euro-political subject, namely the issue of Brexit. Not such a great subject when there are so many more pressing problems that we in Europe should be collectively concerned with. Those are powerfully explored (by Harari) not just the first book, but also in the second and the third books, with some truly exciting perspectives on the future. And what we in Europe have perhaps allowed ourselves to miss in this debate is something that those of us in the economic field naturally consider very meaningful indeed. That is the question of what Europe really represents for us. Because for us, Europe is not just the economy, it is the homeland, and also the domestic market. Those of you who have an interest in the economy and in the future and in our shared existence together, know better than many others that ours is a small Austria, deals very openly with and depends very strongly on our export industry. And indeed not just on the establishments that have a high export quota, but also on all those players who benefit from us having a high export quota. We have deep connections in Europe. Fortunately, the Austrian economy is also widely connected beyond European borders and is a very export-oriented. But our home market is Europe. With all its advantages and all its disadvantages. With all of its bright sides and all its dark sides. At the political governance level, and in terms of facilitating debate, it is a highly successful project and has been, first and foremost, a peace project. But also a project of close collaboration, of international understanding, of tearing down walls that have until recently separated us. Nowadays there is a young generation, still in school, in cooperative education, colleges and universities, that doesn't know any other Europe than the one we have today, for who this current Europe is taken for granted: a free Europe for which many have bled, and that had to be staunchly fought for and accepted. And from an economic standpoint, I can imagine nothing other than this collective Europe. The question from the economic side remains: (and we have invited along the Federal Chancellor to shed light on this from the political perspective) What do we see as our essence, and what measures can we take as an economic system to enable us to commit to this Europe? As I said, we are aware of all of the advantages and disadvantages. However, faced with these major global challenges, Europe can actually play a central role that will have a great future significance — if it firmly places human beings at its center. And we are doing that in all of the debates about digitalization and technology. About economics too. We as business people cannot do anything without our employees. We do things together. Every single day. In all our businesses. Together with our customers too. We always place human beings at the heart of our products and services, and human beings must also play a central role in our major questions about the future. But not in the way this is happening in the American context — a highly unregulated, overtly individualistic form of capitalism — and certainly not in this new digital surveillance model adopted by the Chinese. I see this path, this European path as a very promising one to finding balance: perhaps equivalent in approach to an eco-social market economy. It combines different aspects of being human. But now, a few ideas to close with: From an economic perspective, if we decide to bet on human beings, it's crucial that we bet on their talents. And this means that the matter of developing our educational system should take center stage. Perhaps we need to develop a completely new perspective. It will no longer be sufficient to focus on the school system or to further develop the two- pronged cooperative model. We must look in the direction of a three-pronged education that includes the digital aspects — something that we have tried to start in-house. We already enjoyed talking about this at lunch and I was very glad to hear Professor Harari addressed this subject in his presentation. We will also have to concentrate much more on the employees that already work in our establishments, and now face these great technological changes. If we want to come together to fulfill human potential and optimize for this, then Europe could lead in a completely new direction, faster than the USA and faster, I believe, than the the Chinese, with their overtly collective approach. There is a lot of potential in this. But not as a political end in itself: rather, as a way of persisting in this global competition. Because if we succeed in unlocking talents so that many, many people in completely different work situations come to us with new ideas — we can develop these new ideas, allow new innovations to spring from them. Highly innovative products and services with which our European economy, specifically our Austrian economy, can continue to be successful on world markets. At the end of the day, the fate of our European economy hangs on this. We will only be able to succeed in this competition for innovation if we can connect the great potentials that the new technologies offer with the great passion, creativity and innovative strength of our European people. There can be no “either or”; it has to be an “and . . . as well”. And that brings me to my third and final point. I believe that with the right value orientation, with the right orientation towards European values, we have the chance not only to not lose this competition between different systems, but rather to achieve a form of harmony and cooperation as well — that wonderful picture of the perfect orchestra — despite our differences and diversity. By betting on the right basic values. And in an eco-social market economy — it is a challenging task to find the right balance between economic and individual freedom at one corner of the triangle, social responsibility at another corner, and ecological responsibility at the third corner of the triangle. That will be a mighty struggle between many different interests out there. But I believe that finding this balance is worth it. And that this is a value that is worth fighting for. Whether as a European
economy or as an Austrian economy, we are very
much a leader, albeit a small one, because we are a dominant, very developed part of the European economy, and so we support it and
develop this model. And the environmental question has often been discredited. There is doubt cast over whether it really is such a great threat. And I believe that maintaining a balance
between economic and social freedom and solving
the environmental question has invaluable potential — for Austria
as well as for entire world markets. By doing this, we will be best placed to succeed, and this holds great appeal. So why not develop Austria into a European beacon of success. Many of the companies whose representatives sit in this audience today, have already achieved this, and have had great success in the world markets, where we are often leaders in the field of technology.
In many niche fields, we are the world export champion or the European export champion. On behalf of
the entire Austrian economy, let me express my gratitude for your commitment. And let me express my encouragement and support for us trying to spread this value model throughout Europe. I believe that this will greatly and significantly contribute to turning Europe as a whole into a shining success. Let's assign talented people to this task, and let them develop ideas that can generate innovation, but at the same time ensure
that we do not lose sight of the value base. I think that it is worth it for Europe to fight for this. The economy will
do its part. Thank you. Thank you, Mr President. I am personally attending to the task
of combining the great potential afforded by new technologies with the passion of Europeans. Now, after these two exciting presentations, I would like to invite the Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz
to take the stage, and I'd like to reiterate how glad we are that he could
make time for us today, and that he can now provide a political perspective on the current topic.
Thank you very much. Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen, Mr. Harald Mahrer, thank you for the invitation, and I would like to thank you, on behalf of all your guests, for the opportunity to meet with Professor Harari and listen to him. Dear Professor, it is a great honor
for us that you are in Austria today, and thank you for accepting the invitation from Harald Mahrer. It is always a pleasure not just to participate in discussions in which you are a participant, but also to listen to you
and to have the privilege to speak with you as well. I had a speech prepared on European policy and the issues we are currently concerned with at the European level. However, after you mentioned at the end of your presentation that
every politician who wants to be elected must be able to answer four questions,
I thought — and I'm not usually this kind of guy — we have the elections on in three weeks, so I said to myself: "Okay, maybe it's the wrong time to
just brush it aside and to ignore it". I took some good notes and will try to provide a few answers
to demonstrate that we can answer the four questions well,
more or less. This is not insignificant
so close to an election. Joking aside, I'd to share some thoughts
on the four points with you very briefly, especially on the
fourth point, namely our outlook for 2050,
what will happen by 2050, or where the journey should take us. I will touch more briefly on the first three points that you raised. What can be done
to avoid a nuclear conflict? I think that, speaking as a small and
not particularly militarily strong Austria, we can only say that we will cooperate at the international level,
preferably at the level of the UN. I think that's the only way
to bring states closer together and to avoid tensions that
still exist and at some point could cause armed conflicts. What can you do to fight
climate change? I believe that what concerns us in Austria
and the contribution we can make are, of course, manageable due to the size
of our country, but it is still an issue that must be addressed. Here I envisage two things: on the one hand, we must do our homework, and this especially concerns the reduction
of CO2 emissions in transport, because we are in the worst position here
in comparison with all other areas. This is the area in which there is
the greatest need for us to become active. And beyond that, I would say
that we can make a big contribution internationally with our very well-developed
renewable energy technologies. It's nice to see that there are many
Austrian companies that sell their technologies around the world to help other states to get better at how they use renewable energy. As far as artificial intelligence is concerned: I think the big goal has to be, before we talk too much about regulation,
not to totally lose touch. When I compare the sums of money that are invested in Europe with those that are invested in
China, for example, then I can honestly say that at the moment
the biggest fear is not the question of how to regulate artificial intelligence,
but how to avoid totally losing touch with it. Regulation itself, in my opinion,
is something that has to be done at the European level. We always promote granting subsidies for competencies at the European level, whereas these questions should be addressed at home in the member states and regions, if at all possible. But there are also areas
where cooperation is necessary. I think artificial intelligence is an area
that not only we, but also many other countries, are far too small
to pursue on our own — both in terms of research and regulation. And now, perhaps, the most exciting
point that I wanted to address: the outlook for 2050. How can the world develop?
And I have to say that, till a few years ago, I would have probably said in response to your theory concerning the three paths of fascism, communism and the
liberal democratic state, that the game has been quite clearly decided in free Western society. The time for communism and fascism is over. The liberal democratic state has prevailed across the entire Western world, and it is on the road to achieving success in the rest of the world. There may be areas where
we achieve success faster and others where it will take longer. However,
the path is clear. And there is only one winner. My view on this matter
has changed a little bit. Although, I still think that if there are ideas of expropriation circulating in Germany as well as other fascist messages elsewhere, then all of these messages still
seem like absurdities from a past time that has been put behind us.
But my eyes have opened a little bit in recent years with regards to the dynamic development of other parts of the world.
I think the big advantage of the liberal democratic state,
of the democracy of our states in Western Europe of the last 70 to 80 years, since the Second World War, was always that this democratic process
of the liberal democratic state was always closely associated with economic
success. That means: every single citizen
of our countries understood that the system not only offers freedom,
but has also generated a more or less continuous
rise in prosperity. This progress improved the outlook
for every single person's life, for every family. Achieving progress for the generations we raise always worked. And I think that we have now
encountered a big challenge: that maybe we will no longer continue to get ahead together, hand-in-hand. In our own society in Austria, as well as in Europe, we see more and more studies that say that perhaps our generation is not next in the line of succession; that we will not maintain the level of prosperity of the previous generation. The result is even more dramatic at the international level: A week ago I was at the Belt and Road Forum in China,
where representatives of different world states were invited to participate. China has become very, very self-confident,
and it wants to flex its muscles. Vice President Schenz was there, and that's where he formulated the unspoken claim that China's system and order is in fact closely tied to
the economic advancement and prosperity of our system in the Western world.
And I think that the big challenge right now, is formulating this message, so that we can say it to countries like Ukraine, the west Balkan countries and
the African states: Decide in favor of our system.
Fight against corruption. Establish a proper democracy,
a functioning liberal democratic state. And understand that adoption of this form of government is closely linked to receiving support from us and enjoying economic growth.
At the same time though, another, completely different narrative and idea is being promoted. This other idea is that a non-truly-democratic country, that is strong and run strictly, perhaps with some limited freedoms — can be just as economically successful
or perhaps even more successful. And on that note, I would like to conclude my thesis, this short excursion. I believe that the best thing that can happen to us, with regard to the outlook for 2050 is that, as the Western world,
as the European Union, we succeed by succeeding economically. Because we will encounter massive challenges in our own society. We will not be able to credibly
promote our system and core values if this system and these core values are not also associated with a certain modest level of prosperity. And it will be extremely hard to promote
our model and our democracy, our constitutional state and our core values
to the rest of the world, if our model is not always closely linked to strong economic performance and success. I think that if we lose
our competitiveness as the European Union, it will get darker and gloomier for our core values, democracy,
rule of law and everything that we in Austria and Europe, thank goodness,
hold so sacred. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I would like to ask you to stay up here, because I would like to ask Harald Mahrer and Mr. Harari to the stage, and I would like you to take the outermost seat. Yes, as was previously announced, it is an honor for us that the three will continue the discussion, and speak about the future and the European model. Have fun. Thank you, Mr. Chancellor and
Professor Harari. We have decided that we will mix comments in German and English. The first question will be, and the Chancellor has already started to touch on this: Do we underestimate the level of Chinese development? Could it be that the pace of development is so intense in China, especially against the backdrop
of artificial intelligence and the lack of regulation there,
that they will just overtake us? What is your opinion about that? You have a microphone. Oh, I can use this. OK. So, I think two things are happening at the same time: I think people, especially in Europe but also in the United States on the one hand underestimate the immense development that is happening in China in fields like artificial intelligence and other fields. Many of them still have the impression that OK, they learned how to manufacture cheap goods, and that they are also increasingly copying more advanced technology from the West, but it's mostly copying and following. And this is no longer the case, certainly not in fields like the internet economy and AI;
And this is no longer the case, certainly not in fields like the internet economy and AI; in many ways they are ahead in some areas and they are forging a different path, which in many cases could be an even better path, technologically. So, this should be taken into account on the one hand. On the other hand I think there is too much fear at present of this development, and as I said just in my talk, the worst outcome for humanity as a whole is to enter an arms race mentality that it's now the West vs. China, winner takes all. Because given the nature of the technologies we are talking about, as I said, no matter who wins this race, humanity will lose. It will mean that it will be impossible to regulate these extremely dangerous technologies, whether AI or whether it's genetic engineering, because each side will say: we are not willing to restrict ourselves and we can't trust the other side on that. So, that's the worst outcome. So, I think we need to combine on the one hand to appreciate the pioneering and innovative work that is happening in China, they are not just copying the West anymore, and on the other hand to try to be, at least give a chance to creating a more cooperative Order and not to rush immediately into this arms race mentality that oh, no, they're ahead of us, we must drop everything and somehow get ahead of them. We are currently working very well together
in terms of steering the country towards the path of innovative development. But now I will address your comment from the Silk Road Forum: you compared the sums of European investment in artificial intelligence with the Chinese level of investment. Must we now go ring the Pummerin [large bells in St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna] a little louder to get the attention of our European partners? So, I think, to begin with, we can be proud of many current successes. Austria is number two in the world in the fields of investment, research and development. We are now the first country in the European Union to have built a nationwide 5G network. I think that we are doing a lot
of good things, but yes, I am totally with you. I support what you have said. I think that as far as the negotiations on the new financial framework
within the European Union are concerned, another significant sharpening of the pen on the entire scope of research and development around artificial intelligence would be highly beneficial for all of us. And that's certainly realistic at this point. I am under the impression that there is awareness that we, as the European Union, are at risk of falling behind. Moreover, I believe, there are still
opportunities to foster innovation by imposing fewer regulations. Many nations in the world have had excellent experiences when they established certain unregulated
zones in which companies or especially fledgling enterprises can develop and reach their potential a bit faster than they would if they were under our stringent (and in some cases excessive) regulations. There, I believe, there is room for improvement. I became aware of this during the Belt and Road Forum, which is why I attempted to describe
the incredible speed in China and this incredible dimension.
They are building conference centers that are as gigantic as entire cities here. If the intention is to create metropolises
that provide homes for millions, the central decision is made and a few years later everything is done and completely ready. While companies are principally under the influence of the Communist Party, it is obvious that it makes sense that an enterprise like Alibaba to evolve and become
a worldwide leader, and that is permitted. That's why I think that the speed that is currently evident in other places is very impressive compared to what
is happening here. We touched on this in our preliminary conversation. And you said that whenever you are
over there, you always have to work so hard
because everyone works so hard, and that the yearning to be successful
is omnipresent. I sense this too. We, in some cases, have this very intense attitude compared to a very different
approach in other parts of the world. For me, this definitely gives rise to some concerns. You could tighten a few screws in Europe. After the talk, we both were under the impression that you actually think that the European model is very attractive. As a third model, besides the
American and the Chinese models. Now you have the Chancellor who
does have some influence in Europe... And we are striving to move some things
forward to some extent on the economic front. What advice would you give us if we asked,
which screws we should tighten? After all, you have an excellent
global overview. Which screws should we tighten in Europe
to ensure the success of the European
model? I think Europe should avoid just copying the Americans or copying the Chinese, and find its own way. So, for example with regulation it should be done very carefully, but regulation is also an opportunity. Europe has much more strict privacy regulations than either the US or China and from one perspective this is a huge handicap for the development of European corporations and European technology in fields like AI, which is built on amassing massive amounts of data. But you can also look at it as an opportunity to exploit a niche which is underexploited by the Americans and by the Chinese, which is to create technologies - again, AI, internet-based and so forth, which are much more in line with the human desire for privacy, and developing products which are different from the, if you want efficiency, OK, then take this Chinese product, but if you want privacy, then the European products are the gold standard in this. And in many situations, and for many people, this could be the winning strategy. If you just say, OK, let's copy the Chinese, it’s very unlikely that Europe can just copy the Chinese, because the conditions are completely different; Chinese standards of living are far, far lower than in Europe. Chinese history is very different; the Chinese have this terrible national trauma of being left behind in the Industrial Revolution, and then being conquered and exploited terribly for more than a century by the industrial powers. And a lot of their drive now to forge ahead is driven by this national trauma, that they want, that they're not willing to be left behind again. And it will be very difficult to create this sense of extreme urgency in Europe. So, I think that Europeans should find a different way of how to do it - again, if the Chinese, and also the Americans, are developing these very powerful tools of surveillance in China it could be more government surveillance, in America they now talk about surveillance capitalism, you're being surveilled all the time by these huge corporations like Amazon or Facebook or Google. So, it will be very hard to compete with the Americans on that; Europe can do the other thing of: let's develop AI tools that protect you against the surveillance of the corporations or of the government. There is a huge market for products, for an AI sidekick; just like you have an antivirus on your computer that defends your computer against attacks by malware, you need an antivirus for the mind, now, to defend your attention from being abused, to defend your privacy from being infiltrated - there is a huge market there which is currently hardly, there is much less competition. And that is someplace where Europe can forge ahead. To give another example: a lot of the new tools that are being developed in California and in Eastern China, the thinking behind them is: how do we enable the corporation or the government to monitor the individuals better, to gather information on them and to influence them and to control them. But there is a huge market for the opposite kind of technology: how can citizens and individuals monitor the government, for example to prevent corruption? So, once you mention that, in a lot of countries around the world government officials say no-no-no, monitoring is very good for the citizens, but we don't want to be watched all the time! But there is a huge market and a huge opportunity there to develop new kinds of AI. The main thinking should be that every technology can be used in many different ways, to create, say, a totalitarian regime or to create a very free society, and both because of the importance of these values of freedom and democracy and rule of law and privacy for Europe, but also because Europe is coming from behind, it will be very difficult for Europe to beat the Chinese at the Chinese game, or to beat the Americans at the American game. So, I think there is enough room there for the Europeans to develop their own game which I think will benefit the whole of humankind, because if humanity is heading towards a clash of titans, China vs. the United States in the AI arms race, this is terrible news for everybody. And if the Europeans can be a third party and can kind of tone down this arms race, this will be a benefit for all of humanity. Even if at this time the framework
is highly business-focused, given the exact background of what
Professor Harari just said, You said Europe should be better
and stronger. I think businesses are also interested.
How do we get a commitment? In other words, which initiatives can we
politically launch from Austria to make Europe better and
stronger? Well, I think that it would be delusional
to believe that we on the European level have the strength to simply
push through what we think would be right. However,
I believe we can at least claim a right to influence changes and enter into the conversation with others. My concern is that many people are a little too comfortable with the status quo or too
scared to enter into a debate, because they think we might
somehow lose control. The British have left now, so let's avoid lengthy conversations before others get similar ideas. And I think that this is a relatively
dangerous development because, if you look back at the European Union over the last few years, and I am making this statement as a deeply pro-European
advocate — if we are honest with each other, we have actually arrived at a point where we have to say: "Well, it's working
for some reason". Some of our council meetings end
with us up late at night, after the discussion is over, standing around and marveling at the fact that it once again worked out. It is as if we have arrived at a point that gives us an opportunity to
develop a positive perspective. And, I think this should make us think.
I now consider the elections a truly great opportunity — not only
because of the European Parliament, but also because the elections will
result in the formation of a new commission, a certain generational change, new people. And, I think this will principally be a team that will start from scratch. It will approach things from a fundamentally different point of view than a team where everyone is ready to quit, and some may be wondering what they'll do once they retire, and others
may think about the possibility of finding an appealing job once they are no longer members of the commission. So there'll be movement towards a different approach, and that alone will do us good. I think that beyond this, it will also be necessary to make changes to the policies.
Principally, we have created a crazy amount of regulation. We have actually made it trendy to create a new European agency for every crisis
or challenge. In most cases, this leads to even more regulation. And in those cases where substantial regulation is truly necessary, we somehow avert it or have in place
policies that do not result in clear consequences. Those who do not respect
the rule of law and democracy within the European Union must anticipate prosecution pursuant to an Article 7 proceeding. That sounds awfully dramatic. However,
there will never actually be any consequences, because all member states would have to agree to resulting consequences. It's a similar situation with budget policies. We have clear Maastricht criteria in
place for violations, but there's leeway with their interpretation and with how the Commission chooses to handle cases. Ultimately, this means that if the country is large enough — say Italy, France — no sanctions will be imposed. Instead, statements such as "well,
that's how the French roll," are made. In the long run, I think this will cause problems. In particular because it has a horrible impact on behavior. This obviously doesn't deter many people from emulating such behaviors. Instead, it creates this attitude of "well, if
it's not a problem for the French, it can't be a problem for us.
And some may think at that moment "well, this is the Article 7 proceeding, which
will not result in anything of consequence. If it doesn't bring Hungary, Poland and others
to their knees, it won't be so devastating for us either. One central issue may be — we talked about it briefly at lunch, and for a large number of entrepreneurs,
business operators and especially those in charge here — the absolutely essential question is
how education will progress. And, for the two of us, it has been a major
concern for many years that we continue to advance the development of the system.
You said that the focus cannot just be on the schools, but also must have a strong impact on businesses. Change within the unions is absolutely necessary.
They must move away from the safeguarding of jobs in favor of mobility, to make sure new
jobs become available. Consequently, the focus must be on the individual. The individual who must have a job. Can you
talk more about that? I think it's extremely interesting for
everyone. Yeah, I mean, the technological revolutions, and especially the automation revolution that has to do with AI, will create a far more fluid and flexible job market than anything we've seen before. A lot of jobs and even entire professions will be automated and disappear. New jobs will appear, old jobs will change it's very difficult to predict exactly which jobs will disappear but it's very likely that say by 2040 or 2050 many of the things that people do today will be done by computers and robots, and people will do different things. Now, the kind of apocalyptic scenario that there are no jobs left for humans, this is not going to happen, certainly not within a timeframe of say, 20, 30 years. The real problem will be one of retraining and adapting and adjusting, as old jobs disappear and new jobs emerge the question is: can you retrain the workforce fast enough? And this demands both learning new skills, and also psychological adjustments to basically reinvent yourself, to adopt a new professional identity. And maybe you can do it when you're 30 and again when you're 40, but will you do it again when you're 50 and 60 and 70 and again, because of medical advances, life expectancy could increase quite substantially. So, we are looking at this combination of people living longer but with a much more volatile job market and economy. So, the old idea of having a job for life or a profession for life - this is going to be completely untenable. So, from the viewpoint of say, even the trade unions the traditional strategy, that we need to protect the jobs and we need to protect the benefits of particular jobs this is going to be less and less relevant and actually very dangerous. Instead, there should be a switch to: we need to protect the workers, the people, there is no way to keep these jobs, because the economy has moved on, the technology has moved on, but we need to retrain the people, support them while they are in transition, and also support them psychologically against the shocks involved, and also some people, especially as they get older might find it almost impossible to continue this constant process of reinvention and adaptation, and we might have on our hands a larger and larger class of people who are not unemployed but unemployable, they just gave up, it's too much for them and we need to take it into account when planning our social systems. So, this is something that businesses can play a role in, but the crucial role should be that of the government to step in, and just as in the 19th and 20th century governments in Europe built a mass education system for youngsters we now need to build a lifelong education system which is a task that really only governments can fulfil, and also to build a social safety net to protect individuals during the difficult transition periods. And the key idea is that the AI revolution will not be this single watershed event, we have the big AI revolution in 2030, lots of jobs disappear, new jobs emerge you have a few rough years of readjusting and by 2040 everything has settled down to a new economic - no, it won't be like that. You'll have a big shock in 2030, an even bigger shock in 2040 an even bigger shock in 2050, because AI is nowhere near its full potential. It will continue to increase in competence, and as it increases in competence it will push humans out of some jobs, it will completely change other jobs, and again it's not always the most, it's not obvious where it will hit first. Like, if you compare say doctors and nurses, so some people imagine, well, nurses, they are lower down the rank than doctors, they will be hit first, but no, actually doctors, many of them basically just process information, they take in information about the patient and ask some questions, they do some tests, then they process the information, and then out comes data, information about prescriptions or treatments. This is the easiest thing to automate. And nurses in contrast, she has, or he has, many more diverse skills, he or she need motor skills, they need good social skills, to give an injection to a crying boy or to change bandages to a patient in severe pain - you need a lot of skill - we are going to have AI doctors long before we have AI nurses. So it's going to be very hectic and complicated and I don't think there is any way that the private sector is going to handle it by itself. The governments will have to step in and create these safety nets. If you could swap roles with the Chancellor
for just one day... Switching tasks... Let's together imagine, say you could, for one single day, being a member of the European Council, yeah? What will you tell them? The other colleagues? So many different things, I mean you speak specifically about the job market or generally in life? In life, what will you tell them? In life...oh. You know, it's an impossible advice, but they need more free time to think and meditate and... (laughing and clapping) When you started talking I was a bit wondering how good Angela Merkel and all the others react in listening to you, but I think they could take that. There are such huge challenges ahead and people really need time to read and to think and to kind of digest these things. And one of my main fears when I meet political leaders or business leaders their life are so busy and hectic that they don't really have the time to digest and think deeply about these issues. Somebody, I read that - I think it was Henry Kissinger or somebody explained that - you basically live off the cultural and intellectual capital capital that you accumulated before you started the job. And once you're on the job..... Not so good for a 32 year old, huh? Yes, so I think it's very difficult and again, I know it's an impossible advice, because all the time there is this crisis or that crisis in the country or international level, but, you know, we have all this amazing technology now at our disposal — and this is true not just of leaders, it's true of everybody, of the average person, and, you know, technology is being upgraded all the time, but the fear is that it is downgrading the humans. And among other — maybe the worst thing, it's just — you know, we should be living with so much free time on our hands, given all the amazing technology we now have at our disposal we don't have to go to the well and take out the water and you know, all these things, we have all these machines doing it for us, but for some reason we don't have the time. Things are just becoming more and more hectic, and you have these tremendous technological machines created in Silicon Valley and Eastern China above all, these are the two places that are creating these machines, that specialize in hijacking and even abusing human attention. Human attention is now really the #1 asset in the world, everybody is competing for human attention. I think it was the CEO of Netflix, maybe I got it wrong, but I think that he was asked: who is the biggest competitor of Netflix? And they expected that he will say like: Hulu, HBO or something. And he said: sleep (laughing). And Netflix is winning the fight against sleep. And I think that's very dangerous. Mr Chancellor, one closing remark. Answering such a question is very difficult. So on Thursday, i.e. the day after tomorrow, I have a European Council meeting. Even if you will not be there, I will pass on the message... So I think, to make a concluding remark.... I can only speak for myself, but it is incredibly beneficial for me to share ideas with people like you. To that end, I believe, regardless of the topic, a key takeaway is that it's just great to have conversations like this one. And I think I should thank you, Harald,
for creating such formats time and again. I believe that this is good for us here
in Austria, but it's also just as great on the European level. To that end, I hope that we will be able to continue a positive exchange, and that we will have other occasions to
enjoy the honor of welcoming you. Until then I will strive to meet the challenge of working less, so that I have more time to reflect and think about things and ensure that sleep doesn't beat Netflix. My thanks to all three of you. I think I
speak for everyone here when I say that the sleep Mr. Harari enjoys will inspire not only Sebastian Kurz, to follow suit, but Harald Mahrer too. Because as you may know, or perhaps only those who were captivated by reading the latest book will know, Mr. Harari dedicates two hours a day
to meditation and actually practices the advice
he shared with us. However, I would now like to ask,
in conclusion, the person who came up with the idea for this event and created the program for this evening - Harald Mahrer: What will you take away from this gathering? Well, first and foremost, I think that the tip
the Professor gave us — to take our time — is connected to his mission to get us to read all of his books. The other thing I'm taking away is the deep conviction that, upon listening to the Chancellor and the professor we have wonderful conditions here in Europe — that'll enable us not to fall behind if we just do things properly. And that is entirely up to us. And that instantly puts me in a positive mood as I leave this place tonight. It's an
entrepreneurial conviction to do things our own way. And if all us entrepreneurs,
along with our employees, do our own positive thing - in harmony.
This was the image of the orchestra playing in harmony. With the
perfect conductor. Nothing can go wrong if we make this the case. And if we have that, we'll also make our European dream, which is an excellent dream, come true. In this spirit, I thank you, dear Chancellor, dear Professor Harari for coming today, and I express my gratitude to all of you. We will now escort the professor outside, and wish him lots of luck in Hamburg tomorrow, and later on in Budapest. Thank you so much for coming. Many thanks to all three of you, once again.
Thank you very much. And also lots of thanks to the audience for joining us and listening.
We wish you a nice evening. You will now have a chance to enjoy some refreshments and a relaxing conclusion of this event. Thank you very much and see you soon.
