0:02

This episode is brought to you by Shopify.

0:05

That's the sound of switching your business to

0:07

Shopify, the global commerce platform that

0:09

supercharges your selling. Harness the best

0:12

converting checkout and same intuitive features,

0:14

trusted apps, and powerful analytics used

0:16

by the world's leading brands. Stop

0:18

leaving sales on the table. Discover

0:20

why millions trust Shopify to build,

0:22

grow, and run their business. Sign

0:24

up today for your $1 per

0:27

month trial period at shopify.com/

0:29

tech23. pessimists,

2:01

nor is it about the political oscillations

2:03

that consume the papers every day. This

2:06

is a vital question to answer, one

2:08

that drives behaviours, our own, that of

2:10

our businesses, our societies and our governments.

2:13

So, to talk us through the

2:15

dynamics and to answer the question of will

2:17

the future be abundant, we have two Peters.

2:19

Let's get into it and meet our debaters.

2:22

Arguing yes, the future will be abundant,

2:25

Peter Diamandis, an

2:27

executive chairman of XPRIZE Foundation, an

2:30

author of Abundance, The Future is

2:32

Better Than You Think, and The

2:34

Future is Faster Than You Think.

2:37

Welcome, Peter. My pleasure, Zinnia. Good to

2:39

be here. And arguing no to the

2:41

question, will the future be abundant, is

2:43

geopolitical strategist and author of The End

2:45

of the World is Just the Beginning.

2:48

Peter Zahan. Welcome, Peter. Great

2:50

to be here. Now, because we have two Peters

2:52

debating with us today, I'm going to

2:54

be referring to each of you as Peter D

2:56

and Peter Z to try and minimise

2:58

some confusion. Before we get started,

3:00

I just want to take a quick

3:02

sense of what motivates you

3:05

both to make this argument. So,

3:07

I'm going to ask you each to take 30 seconds and

3:09

tell us why you're here today. Peter D,

3:12

what are the stakes for you in this argument? An

3:15

individual's mindset is probably the single most

3:17

important tool they have to solving problems

3:19

in creating a better world. And our

3:22

inherent mindset that we evolved over 100,000 years

3:26

is one of fear and

3:28

scarcity. But that doesn't put you

3:30

in a very good position to solve problems. And

3:33

so my mission here is to

3:35

give people a clear understanding of

3:37

why the future is extraordinarily abundant

3:40

and why they're more empowered than

3:42

ever before to create that future.

3:44

Phenomenal. It's about mindset. And Peter

3:47

Z, the same question for you. Why

3:49

did you show up? We've been living

3:51

through one of the most atypical periods in

3:53

human history, and a lot of us have

3:55

drawn linear forecasts as to where that takes

3:57

us. We're entering a period of extreme change.

6:00

hitting 75. Global

6:03

child mortality has precipitously dropped

6:05

from 43% in the 1800s down to under 4% today.

6:11

Maternal mortality rates, women dying in

6:13

pregnancy over the last 20 years

6:15

alone has dropped 34%.

6:19

Cancer deaths have reduced

6:21

by a third over the

6:23

last 20 years. You

6:25

may not believe this, but even democracy has

6:28

blossomed over the last century. In

6:30

1900, about 1% of individual countries

6:35

had universal voting rights. Today,

6:37

it's 96%. Extreme poverty has plummeted from

6:40

95% extreme poverty

6:45

in the world down to under

6:48

10% today. Literacy rights have skyrocketed.

6:50

Mobile phone uses, we have some

6:53

8 billion mobile phones.

6:55

The poorest on the planet now

6:57

have most advanced technology for communications

6:59

and access to knowledge. We

7:02

have 5 billion internet-connected individuals.

7:04

Access to electricity has

7:06

exploded. We

7:08

have water safety. We

7:11

have more access to food. The

7:14

question is, why is this happening?

7:17

Why are we seeing this

7:19

incredible abundance and access that

7:21

people have? It's

7:23

not that we humans have gotten smarter,

7:25

we don't have better forms of government

7:27

or better politicians. It

7:29

is the technology. Technology is

7:32

a resource-liberating force. It

7:35

transforms scarcity into abundance over

7:37

and over again. We used to go

7:39

kill whales to get whale oil to

7:41

light our nights. Then we

7:44

ravaged mountainsides. Then we drilled

7:46

kilometers under the ground to get access to

7:48

oil. Now, we have 8,000

7:50

times more energy hitting the surface of

7:53

the earth and the sun than we consume as a species in

7:55

a year. Energy

7:57

will become squanderable abundance.

8:00

Right, and that tips water and

8:02

that tips health. And so all

8:05

of these things are increasing abundance.

8:08

I have zero

8:11

question now to be, and

8:13

by the way, anybody who wants access

8:15

to this data, if you go to

8:17

diamandis.com backslash data, I have 50 charts

8:20

showing over the last decades

8:23

and century, this increasing access

8:25

to abundance. It's

8:28

not about creating a world of luxury for

8:30

everybody. It's about creating a world of possibility

8:32

for everybody. Peter, thank you so much.

8:35

And now let's hear from Peter Z. You're

8:38

answering no to the question, will the future

8:40

be abundant? Tell us why. Peter

8:42

D is absolutely correct. The world over the

8:44

last 75, 80 years has gotten better and

8:47

better and better and better, but it's important

8:49

to understand why we've been able to go

8:51

down this technological path. We've had

8:53

three things going on. First of

8:55

all, we had globalization. At the

8:57

end of World War II, the Americans found

9:00

themselves facing off against Stalin on the plains

9:02

of Europe. And it was a war we

9:04

knew we could not win. We

9:06

knew we needed tens of millions of people

9:08

to stand not behind us or with us,

9:10

but in front of us to serve as

9:13

cannon fodder. And that meant bribing

9:15

them. And our bribe was globalization. We

9:18

used our Navy to open the seas

9:20

so that anyone could go anywhere and

9:22

interface with any partner and access any

9:24

commodity in any product and sell into

9:26

any market. If in exchange you would

9:28

join us against the Soviets and it

9:31

worked. And it generated the

9:33

greatest prosperity and security the world has ever

9:35

seen. But the Cold War ended in

9:37

92. And ever

9:39

since then, the United States in a

9:41

series of ever more nationalist political contests

9:44

has elected the guy who wants to

9:46

do away with it faster. And

9:48

the biggest difference between Trump and Biden

9:50

when it comes to international economics is

9:53

that Biden was able to hire a grammar checker.

9:56

The road hasn't changed. And this is

9:58

a very strongly bipartisan. issue and

10:00

we're moving away from the generations

10:03

of security and economic growth

10:05

that gave us the ability to go down

10:07

this technological path. Then

10:09

there's demographics. Pre-Stalin,

10:12

we all lived on farms where kids were free

10:14

labor, so you'd have as many of them as

10:16

you could put up with plus one because that's

10:19

how you found out it was too many. But

10:22

then Stalin brought us globalization and

10:24

industrialization and urbanization and all the new industrial

10:26

jobs were in town. So we moved in

10:28

to take them. Well, in

10:31

town kids aren't free labor, they're just a

10:33

source of migraines. So you just fast forward

10:35

30 years to the 70s to the 90s

10:37

and we entered this weird period where

10:39

we had huge numbers of young workers and

10:42

huge amounts of consumption because of it but

10:44

not a lot of kids that we had to spend money on. It

10:47

was, demographically speaking, a moment in time. You

10:50

fast forward another 20 years to the 2000s

10:52

and the 2010s and we now have lots

10:54

of mature workers who are over 40 but

10:56

not yet retired. People were

10:58

at the height of their income but

11:01

their expenses were under control. So we

11:03

saw a huge tax base, huge infrastructure

11:05

spending, lots of production, lots of investment

11:07

which generated among other things the

11:09

tech boom that brought us the world we're in now.

11:12

But this too is only a moment

11:14

in time. And

11:16

in the 2020s, we're now

11:18

aging out. Whether

11:20

it's Spain or Italy or Germany or

11:23

Japan or Korea or Taiwan or China

11:25

or Thailand, this is the end of

11:27

the road because that bulge now hits

11:29

mass retirement and we have to come

11:32

up with something that works without investment

11:34

or consumption or production. And

11:36

we're not going to get that first part right on

11:38

our first try. And

11:40

then finally, there's China. China

11:42

is a country that exists because of

11:45

globalization and demographic change. It's utterly dependent

11:47

upon globalization for access to raw materials

11:49

and access to markets.

11:52

But it's also the fastest urbanizing

11:54

country in history which means it's

11:56

the fastest aging population in history.

12:00

so quickly and so far that consumption-led

12:02

growth or cost-competitive production has already faded

12:04

into memory. Their birth

12:06

rates fell by more in the last six

12:08

years than it did among European Jews during

12:10

the Holocaust. So even repopulation

12:13

is now statistically impossible, and China

12:15

will cease to exist as a

12:17

unified, industrialized political economy within 10

12:20

years. Major

12:22

shifts in economic models take at least a

12:25

couple of decades, and they are messy. The

12:28

shift from imperialism to globalization, for example,

12:30

took the better part of five decades

12:32

and gave us two world wars and

12:34

the Great Depression. So

12:36

no, abundance is not the

12:38

word that I would use to describe the

12:40

future. We've passed that already.

12:43

OK, thank you both very much. We

12:45

know where both of you stand and why

12:47

you stand there. So let's

12:49

take a quick break, and we'll dive

12:52

into the discussion on the question, will

12:54

the future be abundant? After this. This

13:00

episode is brought to you by Kia's

13:02

first three-row all-electric SUV, the Kia EV9,

13:05

with available all-wheel drive and seating for

13:07

up to seven adults, with a zero

13:09

to 60 speed that thrills you one

13:11

minute, and available reclining lounge seats that

13:13

unwind you the next. Visit

13:16

kia.com slash EV9 to learn more. Ask

13:18

your Kia dealer for availability, no system no

13:20

matter how advanced. It can compensate for all

13:23

driver error and or driving conditions. Always drive

13:25

safely. Welcome

13:34

back to Open to Debate. We're

13:36

debating the question, will the future be

13:38

abundant? My name is Zania Wicket, and

13:41

I run Wicket Advisory, a business that

13:43

works to bring new perspectives to your

13:45

thinking, helping you make better decisions. And

13:48

I'm the guest moderator for today's debate. We

13:51

just heard opening statements from

13:53

ex-Prize founder Kuta Diamandis and

13:56

geopolitical strategist Peter Zahan, and I

13:58

want to come summarize. Those briefly

14:00

Pete A D you argued yes

14:02

to the question of will The.

14:05

Future be abandoned. Your sensible

14:07

points were that exponential technology

14:09

changes are making stance things

14:12

more abundant. As an incredible

14:14

was you have no is

14:16

the fact that we're living

14:19

in a frightening time and

14:21

the world is changing at

14:24

an accelerated rate. But you

14:26

gave us some statistics that's

14:28

emphasize your optimism. You talked

14:31

about the doubling of global

14:33

life expectancy over forty. Years

14:35

the are loving by suge

14:38

factor of child mortality and

14:40

maternal mortality the a blossoming

14:43

of democracy and you asked

14:45

the question was is happening

14:47

Ah and your answer was

14:50

technology is a resource. Liberating

14:52

force And that energy will

14:55

be a squander. Oh bull.

14:57

abundance. Arguing know to the

14:59

question was p dizzy and Ptc

15:01

you have knowledge the site that

15:03

the world has gotten better but

15:05

you thought it was important to

15:07

understand why it had gotten better

15:10

over the last century is said

15:12

and you said there were three

15:14

reasons for that. The

15:16

first was globalization. The second reason

15:18

the you put for why things

15:20

have gotten better. odd demographics are

15:23

you described moments in time where

15:25

there was abundance of people as

15:27

in the last twenty years but

15:30

you talked about as we move

15:32

into the twenty twenties. You've got

15:34

a population bulbs it is hitting

15:37

mass retirements and then the third

15:39

reason you laid out was a

15:41

lamb China. You'd describe China as

15:44

a country that will. Cease to

15:46

exist in it as a

15:48

unified industrialized economy. in

15:51

the next decade you talked about

15:53

those three factors globalization demographics and

15:55

china being on a positive trajectory

15:57

and now hitting a negative So

16:01

let me pick up and ask you both

16:03

a few questions. The first question, and this

16:05

is for both of you, abundant for whom?

16:08

How do imbalances and inequities factor

16:10

into your thinking? Does it

16:12

matter where you sit? What nationality, what

16:15

country, what ethnic or socioeconomic group? And

16:17

maybe I'll start with you, Peter D.

16:20

It matters in the beginning, but it

16:22

doesn't at the end, right? In the

16:24

beginning when the first mobile phones cost

16:26

a million dollars in New

16:28

York, Manhattan for the Wall Street traders,

16:31

and they worked very poorly. Now

16:33

they're $40 handsets and they're available

16:35

to billions of people and they

16:37

work incredibly well. And not

16:39

only do they work incredibly well on this

16:41

handset, which every child on

16:43

the planet has

16:46

access to comes the world's

16:48

information, two-way video conferencing for

16:50

free libraries, a book, entertainment, knowledge,

16:52

information that were never available to

16:54

the heads of nations 20 years

16:57

ago are now available to the poor. There

16:59

are 8 billion handsets on the planet. So

17:02

what we see is

17:04

technology is a democratizing

17:06

and demonetizing force. And

17:11

so things do begin when they work poorly.

17:13

They're available to the richest who take the

17:15

risk. And

17:17

eventually they rapidly demonetize and democratize

17:19

and are accessible to everyone. We're

17:22

seeing this on communications. We're

17:25

seeing this on energy. And

17:27

so I believe that this

17:30

is a force and

17:32

it's a non-stoppable force and it is

17:34

what is causing increasing abundance. A lot

17:36

of people have described technologies

17:39

like AI as things

17:41

that increase inequality.

17:43

What's your argument to people who say

17:45

that actually these technologies are increasing inequality

17:47

rather than decreasing? And then I'll come

17:50

to you, Peter Z. When you digitize

17:52

anything in the early days of its

17:54

growth, it's deceptive. 30

17:56

doublings later, it's a billion-fold bigger and

17:58

it's disruptive. dematerializing, demonetizing,

18:01

democratizing. We've seen this over

18:03

and over again across every

18:06

technology. AI is going

18:08

to be ultimately the best educating system

18:10

and the best healthcare system will

18:12

be available to the poorest child and the

18:15

wealthiest child delivered by AI

18:17

platforms. Okay, thank you. Peter Z,

18:20

the question, abundant for whom? Geographic factors

18:22

and demographic factors are not the

18:24

same everywhere. Some countries are aging

18:26

faster than others, others have better

18:28

borders and better economic geography. And

18:30

as a rule, gross oversimplification, the

18:32

Western hemisphere looks pretty good with

18:35

the United States being one of the youngest

18:37

demographies in the world as well as Mexico.

18:39

That buys us a lot of time to

18:41

figure out the details. But when it comes

18:43

to technology at its core, the

18:46

demographic structure is everything. Developing

18:49

new technologies requires

18:51

a huge number of people in their 20s

18:53

and their 30s who are social, who are

18:55

integrated, who can work as a team and

18:58

can imagine the future and then

19:00

figure out how to operationalize it and then figure

19:02

out how to mass manufacture it. The

19:04

problem with this process is that

19:07

every step up until mass manufacture

19:09

generates no income. And

19:11

that means you have to have a huge

19:13

amount of capital to push this whole process

19:15

forward. Now in the 2000s and the 2010s, we

19:17

had exactly

19:19

that world. We had the millennials,

19:22

which were many, and

19:24

we had the boomers who were nearing retirement

19:26

but had not yet retired. So they had

19:28

their life accumulation of savings which pushed down

19:30

capital costs for everybody. That's one of the

19:32

reasons why growth these last 25 years has

19:34

been so robust. Lots of young smart people,

19:36

lots of money for them to do things

19:39

with. Well, that's over.

19:41

As of December of last year, half of

19:44

the world's baby boomers had already retired and

19:46

they've liquidated their savings. And so we've seen

19:48

capital costs triple. They're going to triple again

19:50

in the next few years. The oldest millennial,

19:52

sorry millennials, turns 45 next year. They're no

19:56

longer the young buck and the next generation down

19:58

is small and to be perfectly blunt kind

20:01

of antisocial. So the environment

20:03

that has allowed us to push

20:05

the technological envelopes so far, so

20:07

fast, so consistently, it's already behind

20:09

us. And we're already seeing

20:11

those adjustments throughout the tech space

20:14

with layoffs, with shutdowns, with focusing

20:16

more on manufacturing now, rather than

20:18

idea generation, because we're realizing we're

20:20

losing China at the same time.

20:23

So the risk here isn't

20:26

that we're not gonna push the envelope

20:28

forward. I'd say that's almost impossible. The

20:30

risk here is we're gonna lose too much of where we

20:32

have and we back slide a little bit. And

20:34

we're gonna find out the answer to that question

20:37

in just the next five years about whether or

20:39

not we can retool fast enough.

20:42

North America basically needs to double the size

20:44

of the industrial plant. And if we fail

20:46

that, then we lose a lot

20:48

of what we already have. I can

20:51

see that Peter D disagrees. So

20:53

Peter D back to you for a quick- I vehemently disagree.

20:56

Yeah, so this is so wrong in

20:58

my opinion. What's

21:01

happening is we have more

21:04

individuals, more empowered

21:06

with technology than ever before.

21:08

We've created an interconnected globe

21:10

where people have gigabit bandwidth anywhere

21:12

on the planet. They now have

21:14

the ability to use AI to

21:17

code at a speed like never

21:19

before. The cost is demonetizing of

21:21

the ability to innovate and create,

21:23

right? It used to be that it would cost you

21:25

$100 million to sequence a

21:27

genome. It's now down to 200 bucks. Your

21:30

ability to code used to require a

21:33

massive amount of education. Now you can

21:35

code just by explaining

21:38

through natural language what you

21:40

want. So the speed of

21:42

innovation is exploding onto the

21:44

theme. And the number of

21:46

individuals who've got access to

21:48

this technology is greater than

21:50

any time ever in human

21:52

history. And entrepreneurs that used to

21:54

require 50 or 100, 200

21:57

people to create a company are now creating a company.

22:00

No memory of high as a

22:02

resource. with two or three people. Who.

22:05

I think we're seeing a cambrian

22:07

explosion or innovation. I am by

22:09

no means a decrease and it's

22:11

gonna be accelerating. Tell. Me:

22:14

What? News since the future looks

22:16

like in say twenty sixty and

22:18

maybe take an American A standard

22:20

American. What do you think? lies

22:23

looks like. I think we're going to

22:25

make it over the hump. I think we're

22:27

to succeed in Dublin, the size of the

22:29

industrial plants and I think we're going to

22:31

make it through to when the millennials kids

22:33

enter the market and rebalance or demographics. here.

22:35

I don't think it's gonna take your twenties,

22:37

is getting twenty forty will be plenty of

22:39

time, and we will have a system where

22:41

we are largely immune to international shocks. We

22:43

have local workers serving local markets, using local

22:45

resources and getting there is going to be

22:47

the fastest economic growth in the history of

22:49

Canada, Mexico, in the United States. That a

22:51

good story. It's a great story is a

22:53

story. Of growth. But. I wouldn't

22:55

cold abundant. it will be driven by

22:57

a breakdown of the old system. And

23:00

subpoenas the Twenty first. He looks good,

23:02

is much more localized but is an

23:04

ugly way to get their P. Diddy.

23:07

So I'm and ninety degree with Peters. yeah

23:09

know a lot of that are and I

23:12

do to Twenty Forty I'd hard to predict

23:14

the on Twenty Four to honestly we're going

23:16

to be in the next twenty years we're

23:18

going to be adding healthy decades on to

23:21

the human lifespan and this one of areas

23:23

that on focused on the up fingers crossed

23:25

and are about to launch a massive X

23:28

prize in that area. but we're going to

23:30

add Twenty Healthy Years I A d a

23:32

study done out of Harvard. One School of

23:34

Business in Oxford said that for every. Healthy

23:37

year you add. to

23:39

the lifespan of humanity is worth

23:42

thirty trillion dollars the global right

23:44

so we have more people living

23:46

longer healthier lives on it's a

23:49

positive on both sides of the

23:51

equation more empowered than ever before

23:53

we're going to see a i

23:56

have the most disruptive and most

23:58

reinvented or impact There are going

24:00

to be two kinds of companies at the end of

24:02

this decade, those fully utilizing AI and those out of

24:04

business. It's going to be that black and white. I

24:07

want to move on to climate. And

24:10

P2D, I want to turn to you

24:12

first and say, aren't we using the

24:14

Earth's resources? Will

24:16

there ever be a tipping point at

24:18

which we can't multiply them or become

24:20

sufficiently efficient or productive to deliver more

24:23

with less? Is science going to

24:25

allow this? This idea

24:27

that we are scarcity bound again

24:29

is built into our old brain

24:31

that evolved for hundreds of thousands

24:33

of years. We're living again in

24:36

a world where technology liberates resources.

24:38

So again, we used to kill

24:40

whales to get whale oil, right?

24:43

Now we're on the verge of fusion,

24:46

which will give us near infinite energy. We still

24:48

have an oil economy, and we will for the

24:50

next 20 or 30 years. It's

24:52

not an issue about that. But

24:54

we're going to be increasing the

24:56

amount of resources available to us.

24:58

We fight over water. There's 97.5% of

25:00

the water on the planet is

25:02

salt. 2% is ice, and we

25:04

fight over a half a percent of the water on Japan. But

25:08

there's an abundance-minded way of thinking about it. There's

25:10

plenty of water. We live on a water planet.

25:12

It's just not a usable form. That's

25:15

where technology comes in to capture

25:17

trillions of tons of water out of the atmosphere.

25:20

We call it rain or

25:22

desalinate water out of the oceans. What

25:25

other resources do we consider scarce?

25:27

Because I can show you the

25:29

technologies that can make it abundant.

25:32

I'll just say for climate real

25:34

quick, our ability to bring

25:36

the Earth back into balance

25:39

is something fundamentally critical. And

25:41

I think I would rather be fighting that battle

25:43

today with the tech we have versus 20 or

25:45

30 years ago. My concern

25:48

is that we don't have the tools to deal with

25:50

it yet. I think a best example I

25:52

can give you is what it takes to put up a solar

25:54

panel. Aluminum is the

25:56

most energy intensive of the primary industries

25:58

that we have. steel and fertilizer

26:01

and the rest. Taking

26:03

raw silicon and turning it into

26:05

a finished silicon panel requires seven

26:07

times the energy that it takes

26:09

to make the same

26:11

volume of aluminum. And

26:14

we're probably going to lose most of

26:16

our capacity to produce polysilicon at scale

26:18

when the Chinese break down. So

26:21

the issue here is ultimately out of time

26:24

frames, how long does it

26:26

take to build the industrial plant? How long

26:28

does it take to apply the technology? And

26:31

the issue that Peter D. and I have

26:33

always struggled with is whether or

26:35

not we've already passed the point of no

26:37

return on these technologies and we no longer

26:39

need the old system to push it forward

26:41

or whether we do need time to move

26:44

it forward. And I think the best example

26:46

I can give you there of where we

26:48

haven't crossed the Rubicon yet is AI. AI

26:50

chips are all three nanometer or smaller. They

26:52

all come from the same city in Taiwan, but

26:55

that makes it sound a lot simpler than it

26:57

is. There are 9,000 companies

26:59

that are involved in the manufacturing system

27:01

to allow those fabrication plants to work

27:03

and over half of them only produce

27:05

one product for one customer and they

27:07

have no competition anywhere else in the

27:09

world. So if you peel out any

27:11

small section of the global system that's

27:13

technologically oriented like say Germany, which is

27:15

in a severe demographic collapse

27:18

right now, we lose the ability to

27:20

make those chips at all or

27:22

certainly at scale. Now

27:25

we can rebuild that ecosystem, but

27:27

it takes time. So everything that

27:29

Peter D said about productivity, I

27:31

agree. The question is whether that's

27:33

this decade, the next decade

27:35

or the decade after. I'm going to

27:38

go back. We've got so much to cover in

27:40

so little time. So I'm going to ask quite

27:42

snappy responses if I can get from you.

27:45

I want to go back to you Peter

27:47

D. There's a war in Ukraine. We've got

27:49

a growing conflict in the Middle East. Peter

27:51

Z's already brought up China and his view

27:53

that China is my

27:55

language, not yours, Peter Z, but effectively

27:57

in decline and over the next decade.

28:00

We have a vulnerable Taiwan. I

28:02

haven't even talked about Iran and Russia. Are

28:05

we on the verge of a great powers war?

28:09

How does this conflict

28:12

affect your assessment? There's no

28:14

question that there's lots of reasons

28:17

to be scared, concerned, frightful, and

28:19

so forth. What I

28:22

draw confidence from is

28:25

history as well as a projected future.

28:28

If you ask anybody, would

28:31

you rather live in the year 1900 or the year 2023? If

28:35

you truly understand what life was like in 1900, where

28:38

you were working 80-hour work weeks, your

28:40

12-year-old kids were in the factories, you

28:42

were dead by 40 from tuberculosis, you'd

28:46

have to answer, I'd rather live today. The

28:50

world has gotten extraordinarily better by almost every

28:52

measure, not every measure, but by almost every

28:55

measure over the last 123 years. Over

28:59

that 123 years, we've also seen World

29:01

War I, World War II, the Spanish

29:03

Flu, the Vietnam War, 150 million

29:06

people die needlessly in those

29:08

conflicts, and yet the

29:10

world has gotten extraordinarily better.

29:14

This is not a straight

29:16

and linear path. It's got ups and

29:18

downs, ups and downs, but what I

29:21

truly believe is, yes, we're going to

29:23

have these problems and we're going

29:25

to overcome them. The number

29:27

one way to allow people to

29:29

become more peaceful is

29:32

to give them access to prosperity.

29:35

Peter Z, I want to talk to you about population

29:37

because that's one of the big issues that you've put

29:39

on the table. Thomas

29:42

Malthus back in 1798 predicted

29:45

that population growth would outstrip food

29:47

production. Since then, numerous

29:50

other scientists and experts have

29:52

said similarly, including most notably

29:54

Paul Ehrlich and his wife in the population bomb

29:56

in the late 60s. They've

29:59

all been wrong. Why is this

30:01

moment different? Industrialization.

30:04

Industrialization plus technology introduced us to this

30:06

very simple concept called synthetic fertilizer, and

30:08

it was applied at scale. And we

30:10

were able to put it on geographies

30:12

that without it could not grow food,

30:15

things like the Brazilian Serato, for example.

30:17

And that effectively increased the

30:20

amount of land that we could cultivate by a

30:22

factor of three. And that's what's kept us all

30:24

alive. As long as

30:26

there is no disruption to

30:29

the synthetic fertilizer supply chain,

30:31

we're good. China's

30:33

where the single largest source of phosphate

30:35

comes from, Belarus and Russia, the single largest

30:37

source of potash and nitrogen is

30:40

a natural gas derivative, and we're going to lose access

30:42

to a lot of that from the Russian space in

30:44

the Middle East as well. So we're going to have

30:46

to hack the genome of plants

30:49

in order to grow more food with

30:51

less fertilizer, and it is a race

30:53

against time, whether we can figure out

30:55

a way to improve yields on the

30:57

genetic side faster than we lose

30:59

the ability to produce it on

31:01

the synthetic fertilizer side. And I do

31:03

not have enough confidence to tell you

31:05

how we're going to come down on

31:07

that race. So time

31:10

is a big issue here.

31:12

Peter Dee, in your 2012

31:14

book, Abundance, you quote Matt

31:16

Ridley that, and I love

31:18

this, save time is the

31:20

best definition of prosperity. You

31:22

give a whole host of examples of how

31:24

time has been saved. You've done that today as well. But

31:27

many would argue today that time

31:29

is an increasingly rare commodity. Expectations

31:31

of what we achieve in any

31:34

moment has multiplied many times over.

31:36

So what do you say to

31:38

the argument that actually time is

31:40

shrinking, in fact? Every

31:42

human on the planet has one thing in

31:44

common, 24 hours in a day, seven days

31:46

in a week, and how you use that

31:49

kind of thing that differentiates wealth capabilities. And

31:52

Google saved us from going to the

31:54

libraries. ChatGPT is now giving us increased.

31:56

So yes, we are resetting our

31:59

expected performance. per unit time and

32:01

it's exploding onto the world, right? And

32:04

so our ability to solve problems, to

32:06

create new products, to create

32:09

additional prosperity is

32:11

increasing at an exponential

32:13

rate because of these technologies.

32:17

Okay, we're going to have to wrap

32:19

up our discussions. When we come back, we'll bring

32:21

in some more voices to further the conversation around

32:23

this question, will the future be abundant? We'll

32:25

be right back. Join

32:28

me 48 hours correspondent Erin

32:31

Moriarty on my podcast, My

32:33

Life of Crime, as I

32:35

take on true crime investigations

32:37

like no other. This

32:39

season, I'm looking into the

32:41

labyrinth of crime and secrets

32:43

within families. I'm cutting straight

32:45

to the evidence and talking

32:47

to the people directly involved,

32:49

including investigators and the families

32:51

of victims. Listen to My

32:53

Life of Crime with Erin Moriarty,

32:56

wherever you get your podcast.

33:00

Welcome back to Open to Debate. I'm

33:02

Zania Wicket, an Executive

33:04

Coach, Moderator and Speaker. I'm

33:07

joined by ex-Prize founder Peter

33:09

Diamandis and geopolitical strategist Peter

33:11

Zihan, who have been debating the

33:14

question, will the future be abundant? We're going

33:16

to bring some other voices in, some

33:18

members of the audience. Up first,

33:20

we have Alexa Michal of Fortune

33:23

Magazine. Alexa, welcome. What's your question

33:25

for the debaters? Peter D, I'll

33:27

start with you. You mentioned that

33:29

advances in technology and

33:32

research has really expanded, not just

33:34

lifespan, but health span, and we're going to

33:37

have these 20 extra years. So

33:39

I kind of want to talk about what

33:41

those years are really going to look like

33:43

and what it's going to sort of mean

33:45

to age in this country, given that this

33:47

is sort of uncharted territory, especially that I

33:49

think people would argue that people are also

33:51

aging into poverty. People are dealing with caregiving

33:53

duties. And so what's that going to look

33:55

like? It's a challenge, Alexa, because

33:57

people are probably not saving enough. money

34:00

for those extra years. The

34:02

reality is people retire because of

34:04

one of three reasons. Either they're

34:07

in pain, either low on

34:09

energy, or they're forced to retire.

34:12

But what happens at 65 or 70,

34:14

if at the top of your game, we've

34:16

got all the energy, all the capabilities, everything

34:18

you've ever had and more, I

34:20

think it's going to be a boom

34:23

for global GDP if we allow people

34:25

to continue working. I

34:27

think we're going to enter a new period of

34:29

life where you're starting your next startup, you're getting

34:31

your next university degree, you're exploring

34:34

the world even more. We shut down

34:37

people's earning capacity at 65. Why? What

34:39

if they don't have to? I think

34:41

it's a huge economic window of opportunity

34:43

that is coming. Peter, if you want

34:45

to respond quickly, go ahead. We obviously

34:47

have to change the political incentives right

34:49

now. And that requires reform of a

34:51

lot of programs that encourage people to

34:53

stop even before 65. And from

34:55

a medical point of view, the technology to watch

34:57

is biologics. Because if we can figure

34:59

out a way to make people productive

35:02

without the mental degradation, that obviously moves

35:04

the metrics in a lot of this.

35:06

Because if you can do that, we

35:08

get an extra group of people, roughly

35:10

70 million in the United States,

35:12

who can be part of whatever the future solution

35:14

and struggles are, as opposed to being part of

35:16

the problem. And that is one of the very

35:18

few technologies that I'm watching very, very closely, because

35:20

it looks like it's right at the cuff. And

35:23

we might be able to tip that into usefulness

35:25

within the next 24 months. And that's very profound.

35:27

Pushing hard. Please, please, please continue. Thanks so

35:29

much, Alexa. Next, I

35:31

want to invite Diane Francis to

35:34

our stage. Diane is from the

35:36

National Post. Diane, what question do

35:38

you have for the debaters? Well,

35:40

I think this is a marvelous

35:43

debate. I really enjoyed it. Here's

35:45

my question. Human nature, malevolent usage,

35:47

lack of regulation, anti-regulation, ignorance, and

35:50

algorithms in the form of very

35:52

dangerous religions and theologies. Tech

35:54

can't solve that, in fact, could be and

35:57

is being utilized to a bigger

35:59

world. I'd like to see him

36:01

to comment on that as well. I'll

36:04

jump in. And you're absolutely right. There's no

36:06

question that we're going to see a malevolent

36:08

use of AI. And it's

36:10

my biggest concern over the next one

36:12

to five years. I think we're going to see

36:14

the election be patient zero in

36:17

this situation. I think on

36:19

the flip side, what's going on is

36:21

what I would call loss of privacy

36:23

is going to be a countervailing force.

36:25

It's going to be hard to hide

36:28

things more than ever before. So

36:31

it's going to be a white hat, black hat race

36:34

in terms of AI being used to help

36:36

determine malevolent AI's usage.

36:40

And one question to ask everybody listening

36:42

is, do you believe that human nature

36:44

is ultimately good or bad? I believe

36:46

it is ultimately good. And

36:49

I believe that an entrepreneur, and this

36:51

is my mission is to inspire and

36:53

guide entrepreneurs to create a hopeful, compelling,

36:55

and abundant future for humanity. That's

36:57

my massive transformative purpose. I say it every

36:59

morning. It drives all of my organizations

37:02

and my companies. Entrepreneurs

37:04

are individuals who find problems and

37:06

fix problems. And

37:09

so the world's largest problems are the

37:11

world's biggest business opportunities. So when you

37:13

see a problem, it's an entrepreneurial opportunity.

37:15

And I think we have more positive

37:18

minds than entrepreneurs trying to find and

37:20

slay and solve problems at any time

37:22

ever in human history. Peter Z,

37:24

I think that question was also framed at you,

37:26

wasn't it, Diane? Sure. Let

37:29

me give you the bad and then the good. First,

37:31

the bad. We've got two major powers, the Russians and

37:33

the Chinese, who are going to vanish from the world

37:35

over the course of the next generation or two. The

37:37

question is whether it happens fast or slow. And

37:39

when countries feel they're in a corner and they

37:41

have nothing to lose, the chances of them doing

37:43

something that they normally wouldn't consider, of course, rises

37:45

very high. But let me

37:48

give you two examples of why I don't

37:50

think that their decline is going to be

37:52

catastrophic for the rest of us. In

37:54

the case of China, they don't

37:56

command the top technology. They import

37:58

all the services. time they import all the

38:01

chips that are necessary for them to access

38:03

AI at scale. And we're

38:05

already in the early stages of the

38:07

Biden administration and whoever follows Biden probably

38:09

working to build a wall in that

38:11

space. The Russians, back

38:14

in 1987, when the KGB

38:16

realized that the end was nigh, and

38:18

remember back in the late 80s, the

38:20

KGB controlled the Politburo. They

38:23

basically had a meeting where they decided whether or

38:25

not they wanted to spread nuclear weapons around the

38:27

world and salt the earth to destroy whatever the

38:29

West might do next. And they decided the answer

38:32

was no. Even in

38:34

the darkest hour for a lot

38:36

of these countries, the desire to

38:39

end the human condition just doesn't

38:41

exist. That doesn't mean

38:43

they day quietly. That doesn't mean there aren't

38:45

problems. And we are still cleaning up

38:47

the mess from the Soviet disintegration. But

38:50

it does mean there are limits. I

38:53

am far more concerned about powerful

38:56

individuals that maybe don't have restrictions on

38:58

their actions than I am about powerful

39:00

countries that are getting desperate. And

39:02

that's a different sort of problem. Peter Dee, I think

39:05

you've just come up with a great suggestion

39:07

of another debate, which is, are people inherently

39:09

good or bad? Great

39:11

question, Diane. Do you have a follow-up? I

39:14

just, I think that putting the hands of

39:16

increasingly powerful tech into people that may not

39:18

be good is something that I don't see

39:20

talked enough about. I just wondered, you know,

39:23

how optimistic are you, Peter, because you're

39:25

my optimist. There are going to be challenges

39:27

and issues in the near term. It's

39:30

the one to five year period that I'm

39:32

concerned about navigating that and allowing

39:35

humanity to adjust to it. It

39:39

is transformative change. And I think we humans

39:41

do not like change. We like waking up

39:43

in the morning and knowing that the world

39:45

was the same as it was when we

39:47

went to sleep, no matter what condition we're

39:49

in. And we are in an

39:51

accelerating period of change. And

39:53

it is creating more abundance, which is the topic

39:55

here. I think you can be a little bit

39:57

more optimistic, Ms. Francis. bit

40:00

more time than I think most people think. If we have

40:02

a problem with the chip production, which I think we're going

40:04

to, that buys us a few more years right there. And

40:06

the fact that we're already having these discussions, I mean, think

40:09

about everything that is going on in the American Congress right

40:11

now, what a mess it is. They

40:13

still found a time over the last

40:15

several weeks to have an open session

40:17

about the ethics of artificial intelligence. So

40:20

unlike previous technological revolutions where we come

40:22

very late to the game, we're discussing

40:24

this one as it unfolds. It doesn't

40:26

mean we're going to get it right

40:28

on the first try, but we're at

40:30

least not going into it blind. Thank you so

40:33

much, Diane, for your questions. Let's bring

40:35

on Andy Wang. Andy is the host

40:37

of the podcast called Inspired Money. Andy,

40:39

welcome. Go ahead with your question. Thank

40:42

you, Xenia. From an investor's perspective, there

40:44

are always growth opportunities. And at the

40:46

same time, other areas that are contracting.

40:49

I'd like to hear from both Peter D and Peter

40:51

Z. Given your

40:54

respective outlooks, what areas

40:56

might be beneficiaries of major trends over

40:58

the next couple of decades? Are

41:00

there companies, sectors, or geographic

41:02

regions where investors should

41:05

look for opportunities? So Andy,

41:08

I'm investing my money, my venture

41:10

funds money, my time in

41:13

two areas, health span, health care,

41:15

biotech. I think there's

41:18

people would give an extraordinary amount of

41:20

their wealth to add 20 plus

41:23

healthy years and AI. I think those

41:25

are the two largest markets on the

41:27

planet. And they're going to

41:29

transform every single thing that we have

41:31

and we do. What's

41:34

on the downside? Any

41:36

company that is not an exponential

41:38

organization that is born more than

41:40

30 years ago are

41:44

going to be out competed, out thought, and

41:46

actually massively disrupted what's coming down the pipe.

41:49

I think we need to focus on the

41:51

scarcity in order to have the opportunity to

41:54

turn it into abundance. So number one, we

41:56

need to diversify the semiconductor supply chain for

41:58

the best chips. Right now, We

42:00

are incredibly fragile in that and anything

42:02

breaks anywhere and the whole thing stops

42:05

Building that will take years, but it's certainly

42:07

within our technical capacity to do it and

42:09

the benefits I agree with Peter B are

42:11

so outsized. It's totally worth our time second

42:15

if Agriculture goes the way I'm

42:17

sharing we need a drastic increase in

42:19

production The two ways to

42:21

do that ironically are both related to AI One

42:24

is automating farming to a degree so

42:27

that each individual plant gets individual attention

42:29

that requires AI on the tractor In

42:31

order to put pesticides fertilizers water whatever it happens

42:33

to be on a plant by plant basis I

42:36

call it digital gardening and

42:38

the other aspect is hacking the genome

42:40

of absolutely everything We've

42:42

been moving in that direction for 30 years Ten

42:45

years ago corn plants were 13 feet

42:47

tall now They're closer to five but

42:50

they generate three times as many kernels

42:52

as the old system did We

42:54

need more of that because if we

42:56

can't provide broadcast agriculture for a place

42:58

like Brazil Then places like

43:00

Illinois need to at least double input to

43:03

prevent a billion people from starving This

43:06

can probably all be done in less than a

43:08

decade, but you know chop chop. I agree 100%

43:10

with you Peter You

43:13

know it is we're seeing incredible We're

43:15

seeing a new species of rice that

43:17

are able to have multiple crops per

43:19

planting and for those who are concerned

43:21

about GMO listen GMO has never killed

43:23

anybody but I can guarantee you it

43:25

saved hundreds of millions of lives. I'm

43:27

less interested in rice Soy,

43:30

I think is the one that's going to be

43:32

the real game-changer because it's a protein plant instead

43:34

of a starch plant We also have vertical farming

43:37

and cultivated meats coming online the idea that we

43:39

have to eat food the way It's always been

43:41

produced in the way to grow an entire cow

43:43

to get access to meat is going to be

43:45

seemed as insane in the future Why not just

43:48

grow the protein that you need to make a

43:50

good burger that that's a full topic for a

43:52

whole nother debate. I agree Thanks

43:55

so much Andy really grateful for your

43:57

question. I've got a question for the two of

44:00

you if I may, which is what's

44:02

the one argument, and maybe we'll start

44:04

with Peter Z, what's the

44:06

one argument from your colleague

44:09

that you agree or disagree

44:12

most with and why? Well, you

44:14

know, we actually don't disagree on what technology

44:16

can do. We don't disagree really on what

44:18

the pace of technology can achieve. Our big

44:20

disagreement is whether the system we're in today

44:23

is sustainable in the near-term future or not,

44:25

or if we have to go through a

44:27

bit of a drop before we start back

44:29

up. I would argue that demographics

44:31

very clearly means that we're going to have to

44:33

take a breather here. I

44:35

don't see a way around that. I don't

44:37

see how manufacturing supply chains that allow technology

44:40

to apply at scale can continue this decade

44:42

without a massive reorganization. But

44:44

on the rest of this, I'm with him. And

44:48

I have to say, I agree with much of

44:50

what Peter Z has said here. The

44:52

only thing I would say is

44:54

it's a linear extrapolation to believe

44:56

that re-engineering the supply chain will

44:58

take as long as it has,

45:01

because we've got capabilities

45:03

coming from AI that are going

45:06

to help us much more rapidly

45:08

re-engineer. We have even talked

45:10

about quantum technologies coming down the pike

45:12

that are going to be impacting material

45:14

science and biology in an extraordinary fashion.

45:18

I think if we were

45:20

going to try and re-replicate the old

45:22

school system we've developed over the industrial

45:24

military complex of the last century, yeah,

45:26

it will take many, many decades. But

45:29

I think we have shortcuts to

45:32

be had based upon technology.

45:34

Having said that, yes,

45:36

there are supply chain issues. We saw

45:38

that during COVID, which can be put

45:41

us in a precarious situation. Let

45:43

me give you an example to show you the promise and the peril. Textiles.

45:47

Very unsexy technology was the root of

45:49

industrialization over a century ago. The

45:52

model has always been the same. Up until the

45:54

90s in the United States, it was women and

45:56

Appalachia with snowing machines. Well, then we got

45:58

NAFTA, and the model moved to the United States. Mexico where

46:00

the women with the sewing machines were cheaper. And

46:02

then we had the WTO where it moved to

46:04

India and China where the women with the sewing

46:06

machines were cheaper. Then we had COVID

46:08

and suddenly we didn't have clothes. So

46:11

some enterprise invokes in North Carolina built

46:13

some facilities that are two acres under

46:15

one roof that take raw cotton, clean

46:17

it, turn it into thread and then

46:20

yarn and then cloth and then clothes.

46:22

And the end product is

46:24

cheaper than what you get out of Bangladesh

46:26

per unit. And these places have a staff

46:28

of two. We had no

46:30

idea we could do that until we

46:33

were pushed and we found out we

46:35

had to. We're going to find things

46:37

like that as we re-industrialize, but

46:40

we're not going to know what they are

46:42

until they happen. You're making the exact point

46:44

I want to make. A company variant 3D

46:46

that's here in Malibu is 3D printing clothing

46:48

at an extraordinary rate and not lights out

46:50

scenario. And I think this

46:52

is what entrepreneurs do. They demonetize

46:54

and democratize. And I think anybody

46:57

listening to this, you know, there are

46:59

massive opportunities to get ahead of the

47:01

curve. Now's the time to bring it

47:03

home with closing remarks. I'm

47:05

going to go to you, Peter D. First. You

47:07

have the floor. Leave us with

47:10

a reason to believe that yes, is

47:12

the answer to the question, will the

47:14

future be abundant? Okay. I

47:17

built an AI model called

47:19

Peter Vaught and I'm going

47:21

to ask Peter Vaught to go ahead and

47:23

respond to Peter Zion. Peter Vaught, would you?

47:27

Peter Zion's assertion that we are returning

47:29

to a world resembling pre-World War II

47:31

is overly pessimistic. The

47:34

world today is vastly different

47:36

with exponential technologies driving progress.

47:39

Let's focus on leveraging these capabilities to

47:41

create a future that surpasses any

47:43

previous era. I understand Peter's

47:45

concerns about a pricier and slower world,

47:48

but I see this as a temporary transition.

47:51

I believe in the potential of technology

47:53

to solve global challenges. History

47:55

shows that advancements have consistently improved

47:57

our lives. Let's dive into a.

47:59

a few concrete examples. One,

48:02

energy. We're witnessing a

48:05

global shift towards renewable energy

48:07

sources like solar and wind

48:09

with costs plummeting and installations

48:12

surging worldwide. Two, transportation. Electric

48:14

vehicles are gaining traction with

48:17

major automakers investing heavily. Additionally,

48:20

we're seeing advancements in autonomous

48:22

vehicles, hyperloop technology

48:24

and even flying taxis.

48:26

Three, education. Online

48:29

learning platforms are democratizing education,

48:32

allowing people worldwide to access

48:34

high quality educational resources. Virtual

48:36

reality and augmented reality are transforming

48:39

the learning experience. These

48:41

examples illustrate how innovation and technology

48:43

are reshaping various sectors, creating opportunities

48:46

for positive change and a brighter

48:48

future. So that's, you

48:50

can access pinterbot.ai, which

48:53

you can ask questions about, about

48:56

it to train on my books and my blogs. I

48:59

believe in data driven optimism and the

49:01

data has been consistent up into the

49:03

right for the past century

49:06

and technology, which has made that

49:08

transition is not slowing down. It's

49:11

accelerating. Is there danger out there? Of

49:14

course. Do I believe

49:16

in entrepreneurs and individuals to find

49:18

and solve problems more

49:20

than ever before? And I think they're the only

49:22

ones who do. So is

49:24

the world becoming more abundant? It

49:29

is becoming abundant in terms of access to

49:31

all the fundamentals. Thank you, Peter. Thank

49:34

you, Peter Bott. Now

49:36

Peter Z, you have the final word.

49:38

You're a bottle, please. Tell us why

49:41

you answer no to the question, will

49:43

the future be abundant? We don't have

49:45

the redundancy yet. We don't have the

49:47

resiliency yet. And if things go with

49:50

demographics in China and pre-globalization the way

49:52

I'm anticipating, we don't have

49:54

that in finance or industrial materials

49:57

or manufacturing or above all

49:59

agriculture. And until we do,

50:02

people are going to get left behind at scale.

50:06

Hopefully, over the next 20 years, we can

50:08

work out the kinks of this transition and

50:10

not lose a lot of what we've achieved

50:12

in the last century. But if

50:14

you look back on the two millennia of

50:17

history before 1900, that suggests that unlocking

50:22

that potential is a lot more difficult than it

50:24

seems to us at the moment we're in now.

50:27

Thank you so much. And that concludes

50:29

our debate. I'd like to thank our

50:31

debaters, Peter and Peter and Peter Bott.

50:34

Thank you for both showing up and

50:36

for approaching this debate with an open

50:38

mind. We appreciate your bringing thoughtful disagreement

50:40

to the table and your

50:43

being open to debate. Thank

50:45

you to our guests, Alexa, Michal,

50:47

Diane Francis and Andy Wang for

50:50

contributing your probing questions. And

50:52

thank you, the audience, for tuning

50:54

in to this episode of Open to

50:57

Debate. As a nonprofit, our work to

50:59

combat extreme polarization through civil and respectful

51:01

debate is generously funded by listeners like

51:03

you, the Rosencrantz Foundation

51:06

and supporters of Open to Debate. Open

51:08

to Debate is also made possible by

51:10

a generous grant from the Laura and

51:12

Gary Lauder Venture Philanthropy Fund. Robert

51:14

Rosencrantz is our chairman. Claire Connor

51:16

is CEO. Liam Matau

51:19

is our chief content officer.

51:21

Alexis Pankrazi and Marlette Sandoval

51:23

are our editorial producers. And

51:25

Gabriela Mayer is our editorial

51:27

and research manager. Andrew

51:30

Lipson is head of production. Max

51:32

Fulton is our production coordinator. And

51:34

Damon Whittemore is our engineer. Gabrielle

51:37

Yanucheli is our social media and

51:39

digital platforms coordinator. Raven Baker is

51:42

events and operations manager. And Rachel

51:44

Kemp is our chief assistant. Our

51:47

theme music is by Alex Piment.

51:49

And I'm your host, Zania Wicket.

51:52

We'll see you next time. Bye.

52:01

When you download the Kroger app, you

52:03

have easy access to savings every day.

52:05

Get the most out of weekly sales

52:07

and receive personalized coupons to save on

52:09

your favorite items, all while earning one

52:11

fuel point for every dollar spent. Kroger

52:13

makes it easy to save while you

52:15

shop, whether it's in-store or online, so

52:17

you get the most value out of

52:19

every trip, every time. Download the Kroger

52:21

app now to save big on your

52:23

next purchase. Kroger. Fresh for everyone. Must

52:26

have a digital account to redeem offers.

52:28

Restrictions may apply. See site for details.