Speaker A We come from a tradition of the two leaders of concern for society. Of course, bill upon the psychology of the individual built up our understanding of organizations universal principles, but also a fit to society and the implications of these internal systems with societal systems. So there is that in our tradition, and as in BIOS, those who know the history will know that the original people worked with a very large focus, with the Public Health Service in England and with many social systems, with the church, with many nonprofits. Our field is founded in social responsibilities and ethics, of living together with trust. It's also natural as we age, as I age, I can say when I first became a professional, I worked at level three in team building. I moved up to learning the plan functions. I moved into working with organizations at level five and slowly got some opportunities above that. And I know as all of us mature, our focus of interest, we become interested in the societal legislative frameworks, values it's, that are the water in which we, our family and our organization swim. And so I think for this keynote for the conference, Julian, it's a very important message about the human evolution of individuals, groups and society. And I think it's a very fitting way to end our formal program. So Julian has been has described to me that this is his heartfelt work at this time of his life and he wanted to share it, and we certainly wanted to offer him that opportunity.
Speaker B Please welcome. Thank you very much, Ken. I know we've all been here a bit too long, too many days, or if you want to take personal breaks and leave the room, goff and that sort of stuff, absolutely. Please do so, because I wouldn't be offended at all. What we're going to talk about today what I'm going to talk about today is really a work in progress. It's a personal journey. In a way. It's a bit of an indulgence. Thank you for the indulgence of listening to this stuff. It's for me, it's a beginning, not an end. It's what I think I suspect I'll be working on for my next 20 years. And as Ken said, it's my hard work. But when I talk it through, some of the stuff I talk about actually may be quite confronting. I hope it's very interesting. Being interesting, it might be very confronting. It also may be quite offensive to some people. It is meant to be confronting. It's certainly not meant to be offensive, but there it is. It's a piece of work that we're talking about. The title. There Personal Growth, Happiness and Avoiding Extinction. Wow. You look at that, you go, what's this to have to but I'm actually quite serious at trying to pursue this. And it starts with personal growth. The personal happiness and the avoiding extinction then shifts into, after the speech, institutional forms of helpers to avoid extinction. So it's a dialogue around the individual and taking that dialogue around the individual into society at the same time. So it's an interrelationship between the individual society. And you'll hear a lot of jarks in here, a lot of other people in here. I basically am a synthesizer. I read lots of stuff that synthesizes and then I've synthesized a lot of edits working here. So what we'll do is first go into an introduction and then I'll give you an idea of the structure of the presentation and we'll move on through that structure. I'm going to actually sort of let's just read this. Each of you should have two handouts. One is this evolution handout, and the other one is the Eritrea impact. We're not going to go through Eritrea at all. Eritrea I wrote about ten years ago when I was working in Eritrea, and there's numbers of me updating in it. But it actually is the beginning of the bridge from some of this work into a much more institutional form there. So anyway, what we've got here is an ambitious goal of unraveling the nature versus nurture debate. And my aim is to get a more explicit understanding of human behaviors so we can address these institutional problems, but also our own personal problems of happiness. We've got environmental degradation, we've got global inequity. We have basically last night, over a billion people went to sleep starving. Basically, we've got extremist conflicts, not cultural intercivilization conflict, but at least extremist conflicts. And these things seem to be intractable. When things are intractable, my view is that our thinking isn't right. We're actually not thinking properly. How can it be that a billion people go to bed every single night starving, and yet we just have massive capability to produce any physical resources that we want? It's typically the issue that the way we construct reality, the way we're thinking about the world, has to be wrong. This has to be wrong. And it's one of these points, Alex points. It's a level shift. If we don't have a level shift, the way we're thinking, this will continue and will actually threaten the species, I suspect. So the core argument is that we have two things that are driving our behavior. That first stop point, we've got DNA derived behaviors, and I see those as both positive and negative and call those predispositions. And then we have the strengths and weaknesses of a large abstracting futuring, problem solving brain. Those two things, I think, come together, and I'm going to argue that you can see how they come together through history and how our species has evolved, and you can see the interaction of DNA behavioral driven patterns of behavior with our large future abstraction. Brain progress is basically when we're able to create institutions that draw out our positive predispositions and manage our negative predispositions. So the example in there is, and I'm going to argue this quite strongly, is that we have a DNA predisposition hierarchy. Hierarchy on the positive front, says it's real good at getting work done, especially if you've got an abstracting brain. But if it ends up in domination of one person over another, it's not so good. So the concept of hierarchy is both positive and negative. Our progress in hierarchy has been to allow, quote, alpha trims to bust their butts and work to the benefit of others whilst managing the negative side. So we create division of powers, we separate powers, we constrain by law the power of corporations, and we churn leadership, basically, so you don't get leadership put in place. So that's the underlying concept of what I see as progress. Stagnation occurs. And I'm using a new word here called felt truth, which you'll hear a lot when a felt truth say like God kings. God Kings was certainly felt to be true and the King was a god, and that was all related. You have a series of felt truths, which is like shifting through levels, each level different felt truths. And what they do is they fuel progress as you shift your levels, god kings fuel progress. If you're in a leaderless state, a warring leaderless state, and you can come up with the idea of God kings, it's a bloody good idea. It actually stops the continuous warfare between st barons. However, these felt truths, they block progress, because what the felt truth is, it establishes the privilege of the Alphas, and the Alphas will want to maintain the felt truths that maintain their privileges. So you have to have revolution, basically. You have to execute the felt truth and move forward in some way. Regression occurs usually in times of fearfulness, and I think our fearfulness quotient has gone up astronomically in the last three years. As an outsider of the state passing through the States, having lived in the States for a full decade, it's a different country altogether. There is just a sense of fearfulness and that is the most dangerous thing one can have because it forces you and it regresses you back into negative DNA predispositions. We have in the United States a president that is actually drawing upon our fearfulness and pushing us towards the very things that are negative in our nature. Very, very dangerous. These regressions occur when you're fearful. It may be resource constraints and you'll be able to sample that later or things like the present problems or whatever. Last up point is real challenge. So this is all about self knowledge. Self knowledge is really, really challenging because it demands we identify and honor our dark side, admit that we actually have a dark side, that we have a predisposition to evil, and in a fair degree of detail, we have a predisposition to evil demands. We understand how our brain works, how this large, abstracting, problem solving brain actually works and integrates with the dark side. How it's wired for fearfulness it wouldn't be wired any other way. How the hell do we survive if we're not wired for fearfulness? No living species would survive if it wasn't wired for fearfulness. And it will overrule lots of other behaviors as soon as it's triggered. Bang, slaps into fearfulness and it's also wired for love. We're a species. I'm not quite sure how to deal with this work in progress, but we're a species born incomplete. Baby lasts no time at all if it was on its own. Baby turtle is born complete. Baby turtle born miles from its mother, scrabbles out of the sand and makes a beeline for the ocean and says, I got to get to the ocean real quick or the seagulls are going to get it's a miniature version of its parents. And it needs no love. It needs no nurturing. We need love. We need nurturing. We can't survive without that. So that's built into our DNA as well. So we have DNA that predisposes the fearfulness. We wouldn't survive if we wouldn't. But another survival thing that we have as human beings is loving as well. What I think we have then is that the large abstracting brain allows us to create these felt truths that we hold with survival bigger. And the felt truths can range from what brand of clothes you wear identifies you as somebody that's a reasonable human being. It sounds stupid. I changed my socks this morning from white to green because white socks uses a bit of down market or whatever. That was a felt truth that my survival instincts. Change your socks, Julian. You're under threat. They might not like you. And it goes down to that level of detail, our survival instinct to go down to they go right from communism, from castle to capitalism right down to my wife hates me when I plant get a bit of fruit on the end of a chopstick because her felt truth is that is a really bad menace. And her brain triggers amygdala triggers and I'm not a very nice human being. So we've got to understand our felt truths. We've got to understand how we hold them with survival vigor, how we misappropriate survival vigor. To some felt truths that flat ain't true. They're just felt truths. They're abstractions. But yet we hold them with survival vigor. But if they're abstractions they can be changed. That's the good news. So this presentation is a really hopeful presentation. It says we have choice. And the bottom choice is we have a choice as are our behaviors colored by fearfulness or are our behaviors going to be colored by love? That's the fundamental choice you're faced with. Do you let yourself and your behaviors, both as an individual and both in an institutional setting be colored by the ideas of fearfulness or the ideas of love? And that's what this is all about. Okay, what I'm going to flip through some slides because I want to get, I think, to page eight just to give you the structure of the presentation is the structure of presentation. The previous pages, pages two through two through seven actually give you some little blurb on both but we're pretty time constrained. It's seven chapters. First chapter, we've just been through the introduction. First chapter is about survival. Expanding on that, how survival is so important for us, whether you're an amoeba and if it didn't, we wouldn't be here then saying, okay, taking that as the prime building block of behavior, I want to understand about human beings and their survival. And I'm going to use a device here, which is I had an editor look at this, and she was so confronted by the idea of looking at chimpanzees as a model for human behavior, she spat a dummy and wouldn't work with me. So I know already that it's a confronting idea. But in order to understand DNA behavior I've said, let's look at chimps. Chimps don't learn a lot. They don't have an abstracting future in brain. So most of their behavior is DNA driven. It ain't driven by enculturation. A little bit is driven by enculturation. We'll talk about that. Chimps have seven primary social behaviors that will go through those. Each is very smart Darwinian. It promotes survival. Each of them, just as I described in hierarchy, can be seen positively and negatively. The positive is drawn out by situations with basically excess resources in the case of chimpanzees and negative predisposition drawn out by a lack of resources. So I start off with those are the chimpanzee behaviors. My basic thesis is that those behaviors are embedded in our DNA. I somehow have to prove that to you guys. I prove it down in chapter six, down here to my own satisfaction. Chapter six is that you look at all religions and the religions can be exactly tracked back to those seven behaviors and all religions are structured to draw out the positive and manage the negative. Whatever religion you look at, we will look at that in chapter six. If you then drop down to democracy. Democracy is an institution structured again to draw out and give expression to the positive and to manage the negative. So the proof of the chimp DNA argument is in. Well, if you see these institutions both in religious forms and democratic forms that track exactly across to these chimpanzee behavior patterns, then hey, there's something going on here. There's something that is real here. That's my view anyway. In chapter two I said, okay, we aren't chimpanzees. We're chimpanzees with a great big brain. And what are the similarities of our brains to chimpanzee and what are our differences? What are the similarities of brain structure in a physical sense? What are the similarities in terms and differences in terms of abilities? So you find that the chimp brain in structure and abilities has a lot of similarities to our brain in terms of how things happen. They have a lot of differences too. So chapter four, which is really my consulting Terms of the Money page, is where you draw these two things together and you say, what's the interaction between our DNA predispositions and our large abstracting future problem solving brain? How do they interact with each other to produce strengths and weaknesses? And we'll see there are basically five strengths and five weaknesses. And I believe you can see those strengths and weaknesses in our society interacting all the time. Chapter five, which you may skip because we're pretty pushed with time, is a summary and then developing the ideas more into some hypotheses about institutional form rather than individual form because the earlier chapters one through three are basically about individual behavior. Chapter six is Historical Testing, which says, let's go through these major eras and see what's happened to the felt truths in those areas and see whether there's any alignment between the hypothesis that progress is the drawing out of our positive predispositions and the managing of our negative predispositions. And do we see this happening or don't we see it happening? And then last but not least, which is actually a very short chapter, chapter seven, which is, where the hell are we going to go? And this, as I say, the work in progress for me, I'm just stumbling my way forward, decided a bit further ahead than I am on this stuff and saying, well, where am I going to go with this? What am I doing with this personally? And then institutionally on that. So that's the framework we're dealing with. So if we go basically the first chapter, we're going to look at what I call three plus one survival problems. The plus one is love. Three is very pure fear. Going to talk about problem solving very quickly and just mention that survival behavior is manifested in many, many different ways, in legions of ways. Then down to that, we basically got three plus one survival behaviors. You got three things you got to do whatever you are. You've got to obtain food in some sort. Some sort of energy source has got to be advised. You've got to avoid being somebody else's food, avoid predators, and you got to reproduce and probably reproduce differentially in order to improve your particular species through some sort of delving in preferential mutation. The last one is if you're born incomplete, which is this axis on the bottom there. If you're born very complete, you don't need any love, you don't need any attachment. You just hugger off into the seat, off you go. If you're born incomplete, you need love. You need attachment in some way and that obviously is a fearful thing as well. The fear of not being loved is quite real. So love has not only being loved or having food, all these have both pleasant sides to them and difficult sides to them. So that box down the bottom is that survival problem solving. So here we're back to Jake's right problem solving, survival. Problem solving is the ultimate cause of all behaviour. Furthermore, understanding how humans as getting animals solved problems is critical to understanding our behavior. So the two basic thoughts there just a little bit on that. If you're a horse and your food doesn't run away from you because it's on the ground, the way that you behave is going to be very different. However, if you're trying to avoid predators of the horse, you are really concerned because you're just food on a stick basically sitting out on the grasslands. So how you behave as a horse to meet these conditions is quite different from how a human being is going to behave. Okay, so horses, anybody's been around horses? The basic rule of horses is they're frightened they will shy and skip at anything. Furthermore, their physiological design says don't get in this space here because they can't see you in this space, which makes them even more skittish. So the manifestation of behavior is a relationship to how you ended up biologically, a physical form ended up biologically and where your food sources are and all that sort of stuff. So the manifestation of this page can come in all kinds of different forms and we have to deal with our form. Next bit is just about problem solving, which this is radio related to work is everybody solves problems or all living creatures solve problems. You can see this on the net if you want. You can actually pull up a movie of them. Amoeba. Had a feed, put an amoeba in a petri dish. They'll move preferentially to food. They'll surround him without touching it because they don't want it to bow. Roth they'll absorb the food source. They'll recognize when the food source is absorbed and they'll communicate that other amoeba form a sign to go off in search. Well, that actually happens. You observe that. Now an anthropocorphic view of that is what I call the implications is this single cell life form somehow seems to be able recognize entities. It can determine their quality. Do I want to eat it? Don't I want to eat it? It can determine which to eat first. So it's actually dealing with probability in some ways. It recognizes the absence of food. It focuses off when there isn't any there. It somehow communicates to its mates and then it decides to cooperate and off it goes. Now how the hell that happens, who knows? We've got some friends that are actually trying to figure out how it does happen. But I want to draw out a point that all life forms are problem solvers. That's what they do. So horses solve problems, leaders solve problems, humans solve problems. So understanding the process of problem solving, which is what Elliot helped us so much on, is integral to understanding the questions that we're dealing with there. So that's chapter one. We're now going to get into chimpanzees and their behavior. So we're going to move really there's a linkage. So the arrow is saying we're going to really talk about how chimpanzees have managed to survive and solve their problem of survival and they do it in very specific chimp ways. We're going to quickly talk about their good starting point that they exhibit high seven high level social behaviors but they're all Darwinian smart. They're both negative and positive from an anthropic viewpoint and the behaviors from an interactive whole. So negative behaviors in times of fear, positive in harmony and excess resources. In the case of shrimp and work through that shrimps are our nearest relative. We put out around about four to 5 million years ago. Their DNA is about 98.5% of ours. 1.5% makes a lot of difference but they're pretty close to us. They have similar brain structure to us, not the same size and they're also very sociable. Chimps don't learn a lot. They learn a little but not much. And what they do learn they learn in concrete present real time learning not abstract conceptual learning. So what you see in chimps is what you get DNA connection on the whole last point true scientific proof of what I'm talking about can't be done and I don't think it will ever be done. It's simply does this make sense to you and does it make sense to you in terms of your own personal experience and experiencing what goes on around you? Seven behaviors and this isn't very good. Primary behaviour is fearfulness shrimps. If you read James Hall's work and the Japanese work and some Dutch work and some work here chimps are constantly fearful. They're on the watch all the time for things that may hurt them. There's a high level of sexual activity an intensive hierarchy of coercion male dominated obviously. One thing too here for the ladies in the audience this is horribly male. This presentation because males are nastier than females is my basic test and we're more hierarchical, we're more driven in hierarchy, more likely to be dominant than females. So that actually ends up with the bias of the presentation. That's where I got there. They have coercive domination, mission competitive hierarchies. They have test attack, small group reciprocal operations, truth affinity, negative stereotyping in fearful situations and real time real world observational learning. Now we're going to keep coming back to page 16 as a core idea and saying okay are we seeing these seven things pop up in our own behaviors? Are we seeing these seven things pop up in institutional design? What you guys are doing in rect organization largely a whole chunk of what you're doing is stopping coercive domination, submissive behaviors taking place in organizations. That's what you're doing. That's what it's about. Now that's because without those structures we're not very pleasant people. That's the truth. We have a predisposition to domination and strange enough we have a predisposition to subsubmission as well but we'll go on that. So we'll keep coming back to that page. I hope you're sort of flipping through the pages at the same time. We're going quite quickly. If you actually look at how Darwinian smart they are and I'll just go to the circle points. Fearfulness is good darwinian practice. If you don't identify and respond quickly and remember perceived threats, you ain't going to survive very long high level sexual activity with attempted hierarchical domination. Again Buddha when in practice if to one to be interested in sex, it's quite a good idea. And two, if hierarchical domination in theory gives you a stronger gene pool than not hierarchical domination, what it's about coercive, domination and submission. From a Darwinian perspective. You can actually do the Darwinian maths of how this actually works. A hierarchical structure provides competitive filter to ensure a strong gene pool and it actually helps you manage your fearfulness of not being eaten by other species and so forth. This area of the coerced examination submission hierarchy is to make sure we address this fully. Could you flip to page 22 in your tax and I will flip forward and then sequence of other males, adolescent males, senior females, lower ranking females, adolescents and last infants. The infants are given great scope. If you've got little white tail as a chimp, you can do anything. As soon as that little white tail disappears and it disappears in that year three to four you get the ship kicked out of if you jumped out of line, you're okay. Position of this hierarchy is a source of ongoing conflict because you've got adolescent males going through a life cycle and you've got older males going through a life cycle. So the adolescent males now can I take the old dog on? Have a go. Constant competition and testing of the hierarchy going on just like business, right? Aggressive displays of sound and fury or physical coercion intimidation against lower ranking males and females in common. Happens constantly. I see this happening in business constantly. Frankly, I do it quite often. Aggression is up. The ReMarker is resolved with supplication submission and will withdraw by the loser. And the senior navigator does a bit of gratuitous grooming to actually rebond back what's going on. Position the hierarchy is really important. Status determines packing order for food, sex, best locations and sort of what we're going to do next as well. Just like business, corner office, best looking secretary waited on it's great. Strong uncondecided alpha provides an atmosphere of calm and shrimpstone appear to actually enjoy the conflict of a conflict charge atmosphere. The alpha is obliged to defend the chimp for a hierarchical behavior is also very interesting. I only figured this out after really spending a lot of time on it. If you're in a hierarchy, only the alpha dominant only dominates and only the omega only submits. Everybody else does both. So there's a predisposition according to this approach that we both have a predisposition to domination and submission. So we have very truncated forms of submission when we go bananas about our hoodie team or, you know, we all GenoPlex when Sir Roderick was here, right? We submit our personalities very easily in extreme cases in the Nazi party and so forth, or some of the if you watch Alfred Chimp Bush wandering around, he walks around like this and he's got his others wandering around in submission. That's what's going on. It's alpha chin's domination taking place. So you've got to watch your predisposition submission as well as you have to watch your predisposition to domination. From a human perspective, this hierarchical stuff's great if you get work done well through it, but ain't so bloody great if you're raped or if your boss beats up on you constantly. So you've got this strange positive and negative thing going on all the time. Going back, hopefully we talked about the co authority hierarchy, so now we're into tips attack group reciprocation. I originally, instead of reciprocation, had altruism in there, but some people I've been to has forced it. Well, I ain't altruism, it's reciprocation, so I changed it to that. But basically, chips like friendships, they're largely around, they form around mothers largely, and brothers and sisters, and then they extend out. They learn about friendship in their maternal relationships and their sibling relationships. That then extends out into later, more extensive relationships in the group. And you get ultimately male group hunting relationships formed. And you do get sharing of food and sharing of sleeping places and all that sort of stuff going on. So there's definitely a concept of small group affinities. There troop affinity. The troop is clearly an entity. Troop membership is clearly recognized. nonmembership is also clearly recognized. Troops chimpanzees outside the troop will be attacked, they will be killed. On occasion they'll bring in a female because Darwinian wise, it's quite good to improve the gene pool. But on the whole, if you're outside the troop, you are negatively stereotyped. Just like us, we negatively stereotype anybody outside the truth, right? So again, going into sex describes with you negative stereotyping. Truth affinity together with fearfulness promote negative stereotyping. Hold the other so things you don't understand, if they're just up in Arab gear or they're black or they're Jewish or they're just like different from me, they're potentially dangerous, triggers my survival instincts, triggers my amygdala, which is we'll talk about part of the brain that manages survival and those instincts. Sorry, I just feel frightened by you. Now, we may turn that into aggression, but the truth is it's fear. It's actually fear. I now try to monitor this in myself all the time. Just coming in to do this presentation here makes me fearful meeting numbers of people here. You might not like me, you make me fearful. You may have figured out, but I'm quite shy by nature. That's a fear of rejection. This is for me, this is very, very real. I negative stereotype things all the time. Then. Have to correct myself. Last one there real time observational learning. Chimps learn directly with direct observation and showing. So they'll learn stuff like nutcracking or fishing termites out of a nest or washing potatoes but they learn it in the concrete present real world. So that this I'll go through quickly. All of those seven have a positive aspect and negative aspect and we've really touched on the positive aspects are really double in survival. The negative aspects are that fearfulness can trigger some pretty negative behaviors. If you were frightened. The high level sexual activity ain't too good for subordinates females. These females child raising on their own leaves weaker males out of the gene pool and promotes conflict and jealousy. That's not too good news. Coercive domination it's going to end up in dominance situation promotes competition, conflicts especially males and people status. And this last point here, if status is so important to us and our survival mechanisms have somehow been related and allocated to hierarchy, and Mercedes is, then the demonstration of hierarchy or better brand or a bigger house or a new VCR or whatever, that's what's driving materialism, relative status, position. Because we've got way more than we need. We're way past our needs. That's destroying the planet. But it's a misappropriation of our survival mechanism into status which then strangely enough is threatening to destroy us because we will use up our resources to the point where we don't survive if we don't actually crack it. Negative stereotyping citizen it's bad that it became the basis for exclusivity can lead to vendettas and it limits the idea of forgiveness there and we'll touch on it. But love can't exist if you don't have a sense of forgiveness. If you don't have forgiveness as a primary way of thinking you can't let love work either. It just doesn't happen. Truth affinity, same sort of stuff. Negative stereotyping if the felt truth of the negative stereotyping has no basis in reality at all, which it usually doesn't, it's not very useful, it's not much good physical real time learning is great but it's not very good if you can't actually abstract out into the future. So it's got a negative aspect to it. So what I'm saying there is number one that these are the seven chimp pre solutions. I've talked to Jane Goodall about this and she said yeah you're about on the right track Julian. Not a big argument. That's the predisposition. I'm arguing that they can be both seen as positive negative and I'm arguing that we have these in built into us otherwise we wouldn't survive. And I'm going to try and prove that by showing how they are given the balancing of positive negative is what our institutional forms are actually all about. That's what they do. So we're going to whip through these. This is in your pack there. Now the interactor aspects of the seven behaviors. You got to choose a behavior. The females in season then sexuality is going to drive behavior as it happens in a troop. Female a female disease most of the time in a chip troop. So it's a very sexually imbued place. If resources are limited domination and submission hierarchy will kick in and the alpha trip will get more food than the omega trip. If the troops catch by outsiders then the alpha leadership negative stereotyping and troop affinity will dominate. The young male is trying to improve their ranking then competitive aggression with the white alliances will dominate. If there's more than adequate resources, more benign behaviors, mutual grooming, hanging out they love to hang out, sharing food, teaching kids something new will become apparent. So general rule of chip behavior therefore my thesis is general rule of human behavior is that if placed under stress all the negative stuff comes out. Second World War nazism. Direct relationship. Well if you've got benign resource rich, non competitive environment the more positive behaviors would come out. Fearful situations individuals'immediate self interest will dominate vice versa. When the Gombe reserve was constrained by human encroachment there were originally three trink troops and the square kilometers were compressed so that three troop troops actually didn't have enough resources for three troops. There's only enough resources for two troops. One troop took on another troop basically murdered all of them. One troop was murdered by another troop and cannibalism took place. So it was genocide. Cannibalism and infanticide took place because of lack of resources. So the early books of Jane and how wonderful chimps are and then she was actually forced to say oh God, when the resource base changes they ain't so wonderful. Quite into cannibalism into taking other troops children, killing them and eating them and killing males and killing most of the females but some of them a couple of females were allowed in the troop. So for me I'm fearful all the bloody time I was saying that sex. I just amazed by the beauty of women. I just like wow, this is like sitting with Isabella, Sheila and my wife last night. We're having dinner. I think wow, this is really something. So wonderful to be surrounded by these beautiful witches. Domination and submission. I'm an opportunity businessman. I want to get more of my fair share of good things in life. If I don't get my fair share, my fair share and all my status is threatened. I'm very aggressive, dominate meetings quite unattractive and I actually have to force myself to say now I'll work with these guys who are good because actually it's my self interest but they might doing it family. We had a recent situation where our family was at extreme risk one of our members and I was thinking through these sorts of issues of what I would have to do to resolve that extreme risk. True loyalty. This is a really good one. I hate the fact that the Iraq war is going on. As soon as I hear on the news that the Australian SAS has done something good. I just feel fantastic. There's complete disconnect between my emotions and my total disconnect negative stereotyping. I was on a trip to Asia recently and there were some Muslims, the waiting group, that all the whiteies were over here and there was a couple of Muslims over here in full gear. The whiteies were quite fearful. The Muslims were fearful. We were all getting on a plane together and I was right. So I looked at these guys and I thought, were they going to blow the plane? Completely irrational, maybe stereotyping. So the only thing I could do is go and talk to them and experience them as human beings. And I actually said you frightened. Are we frightening you? And they said, yeah. And I said, yeah, you're frightening me. It's a bit crazy. And we laughed about it because that had happened. Then everybody else got a bit less frightened. So all I can say to myself, I see these things going on all the time. This isn't excess, it isn't sort of reverse engineering. I started with the chimp stuff and then looked at myself going on. So we've done the kids stuff. I'm going to check whether we're on time or not. We don't finish this one. Yeah, okay. And again, I just want to stress my hypothesis. I want to prove this hypothesis by saying you can see all this stuff in religions, you can see all this stuff in our democratic institutions and the institutions that we run, our societies in all cultures and in all societies. So that's the sort of interconnect, the proof of it. Now what I want to do is get into the chimpanzee and human brain and this is a relatively new science neuropsychology, and it's a materialistic based science saying this material area does this emotional thing and biochemistry and so forth. And I'm quite not sure at the end of the day whether what sort of progress is going to come out of it. So I suppose what I'm saying, this is mainly flaky that I'm going to talk about. So we're going to look at the similarities of chimp and human brains in terms of structure and also abilities. And for me this is like, wow, this is quite fascinating. So we're going to look at simplified view brain, we look at structural abilities and we're going to structure similarities, differences. We look at ability similarities, differences. Okay. From an evolutionary point of view, the brain evolved in stages and these are gross compounding of things together. But first of all was the lizard brain and lizards have lizard brains and alligators have lizard brains. And it's about physical security and running the autonomic systems. We'll go to the next page. There's a limbic system which then came on top of the lizard brain, which is the emotional and fear system. Then the neocortex which is question problem solving and improved physical emotional security as I put down the bottom. There a very broad concept. This is an evolutionary pathway. So evolution is tracking along there. If you look at it a little bit more detail the lizard brain controls the autonomic body functions. Plus that spirit of life offspring allows you if you've only got lizard brain and you're a circle, you're born complete and the lizard brain is sufficient operate you as a living critter. You could live in a coma if they for long periods of time if the lizard brain is okay in space of other brain damage. When you get people in these long term coma situations this is potentially what the situation is. The limbic system, which used to be called what I call the emotional brain is a region of the brain where the offspring are largely born incomplete. Birds, for instance, they need it and then I flop. Mammals, they need some form of and different degrees of it attachment and nurturing to survive. And humans are the least complete of all animals at birth. It seems to be the center of attachment and values. If the limbic system is damaged, judgment is impaired and decision making variance difficult. This is the stuff in the black is probably the most important bit. The limbic system contains the amygdala which I'll just get to this page and it responds to the memory of threat once triggered, can swamp the neocortex, cutting it off from behavioral control. In human beings, the interconnections, the synaptic connections between the amygdala to the neocortex upwards are much, much stronger than in the reverse direction. So it says it's much more powerful. The biochemistry and the electronics of the amygdala are much faster than rest parts of the brain. And you'll actually do stuff fearfully without even knowing it's happening. It will do stuff that is completely subconscious. It will recognize dangerous situations before you have any idea that there's a dangerous situation and make you respond to it. It's also where's Jack Jack in fact, when Jack was a union steward and he was arousing usually no good reason at all the negative vibe of his crew. He was calling up the amygdala and getting that flowing. And once you've got that flowing, you can basically do anything you like with a group of people. It's how groups are controlled. Basically trigger the amygdala and you've got group control in action. No very little chance of rational neocortex activity. That's why unions love show of hands, group meetings, all that stuff. They hate voting by posts. They hate anything that would cause rational, concrete reflection. They want physical, noisy contact in groups with hands raised and shouting and yelling. That's what triggers that part of the brain. The neocortex and especially prefrontal lobes, the neocortex it's the location of complex activity. It seems like speech reading. Now, these aren't actually true. They're sort of generalities what I'm talking about here because it's a little bit complicated than that. But we'll go with this. And the prefrontal lobes, which are right here, seem to be executive control that manages three multiple roles of the brain and it's pretty exclusive to humans. Chimpanzees have some cells in front of the brain that appear to be similar to the star cells, the prefrontal load, but not hell of a lot. The prefrontal load seems to be able to push us out in time and to understand future consequences of parents and actions. So like the old story with children, here's a sweetie on the table. If I go out of the room and you don't eat the sweetie, I'll give you three and small children will always grab it, off they go, because their prefrontal lobes haven't figured out a delayed gratification. It's a better idea as the prefrontal lobes are more matured then they sell, I'll wait till he comes back, I get three sweeties type of stuff going on. I think it's the basis of morality because it's the basis of understanding consequences, present action and future, which is a logical way of thinking about morality. That may be a different way of thinking, but at least it's logical. And it's the difference between thinking about pleasure I've got a pleasure now versus I have a context of happiness. So am I going to do this now to have my 43rd drink or whatever, and I'll have the pleasure of doing that? Or is it actually going to make me happier to actually limit my drinking, which is a happiness thing? This also is probably something to do with complex problem solving. So that's a quick introduction to brain pushing that a bit further, looking some similarities and differences. So the component structure of all brains must be similar because it's an evolutionary pathway. And the interesting thing is it's like refurbishment of a house because you may change the seller into the family room, but it's still the seller because you can't suddenly just build a new house. You got to build on what you've already got. So there are component structures the same size or just component structure that are quite different. All brains chimpanzees. Two are heavily and preferentially wired for fearfulness. Those are similarities, structure differences. Weight ratio is different, about three to one. We'll get to this a bit more in a minute. Total brain to body weight ratio is about 50% larger. That's, again, a bit dodgy, like a whale brain belt. A lot bigger than our brain. However, its body weight ratio is much lower than ours. So it seems to be something to do with body weight ratio to brain size that's got something to do with insulin. The relative size and weights of the component brains are different, especially these prefrontal lobes. Moving on, if you turn your page around, that's just a chart showing a codfish's brain down to the human brain. And if you could act, which you won't be able to, if you could read the notation there, you'll see that these codfish have got eyes, so they've got an optic lobe. We've got eyes that we've got an optic lobe too. Codfish smell things, so they've got an olfactory bulb. We smell things too. The olfactory bulb in an alligator is a lot bigger than in relationship than the olfactory bulb in a human. So they smell a lot better than us. If there was a dog on there, the olfactory bulb of the dog would actually be much larger than ours too, because they have an incredible sense of smell. So the component structures of the brains are similar, but the relative size reflects evolution. The next chart is just again, story of Signways. If you turn the page around, these little in the brain there, amygdala is Greek for almonds. Those little almonds there is where all the fear interactions take place. And it's basically saying we're wired for fear. If we weren't wired for fear, we'd be at risk in terms of survival. So those are the structural similarities differences we talked through. Basically. Now we're going to look in terms of ability. This is where it starts to get really interesting. And we've got each of these abilities. They start on page 36 and then they're sort of back up in the abilities as we go through each of the pages. So we'll keep go back and forth from page 36 plus pages. Okay? Both chimpanzees and human beings construct concrete realities for the use of their five senses. We understand ourselves as entities in reality because we have senses. Our senses tell us that we are entities. And there's some quite interesting philosophical issues as to whether or not that's true enough and whether we're construction of our own senses in reality. What are we that leads into also incidentally to a construct of that we're separate entities. So I'm separate from Barry. My senses are telling me I'm separate from Barry. So we have a construct of separateness. And if we have a construct of fearfulness, we can very quickly get led into between Barry and I, between a zero sum game of survival. That what I get. Barry doesn't get vice versa. So we have this and that comes from our senses. A difference to this is that human beings have got an ability to develop abstract concepts that have no basis in physical reality, self truth. Let's just go to those pages, okay? Whipping through all life forms are able to construct a picture of reality dependent upon their senses. Neither constructs reality, but it's going to be different from mine because it senses different, but it's their valid interpretation. If I stuck a frog on here, it will be interpreting this room quite differently from how I'm interpreting it. If you came up here as assembly, you'd also be interpreting this room quite differently from how I'm interpreting this room. A chip's construct. The physical reality is similar to us because they've got similar senses, but not exactly because they've got a much better sense of smell. So they'd actually be smelling all of you, and they'd actually be smelling things about you too, at the same time. So they'd be saying, oh, Barry, something's going on with Barry's. Frightened, or he's not frightened or he's happy or he's sad or whatever. Maybe they're sensing that. I can't tell that. And when we pont them down on the tarnak in front of the seven four seven, they're quite differently than we do now. The big difference is the huge difference is that we can create abstract concepts that are connected to reality but don't really exist in reality in their own right. So if I had an apple, if I have a glass here in my hand, it exists as a physical reality and we call it an apple. Apples do not exist. Only this thing here exists. The word apple is an abstraction. So if we go here, we've got apples down here which are in the real world, our senses at least are telling us that they're real. We have decided to call them apples. Apples as an abstraction. We might shift up and call them Cox's apples or Golden Delicious apples, which are also abstractions and very useful constructs. They're useful abstractions. We then got weeding apples, and over here we've got Granny Smith and crab apples and they're called cooking apples. And again, lo and behold, the claim of Russian dolls, right, russian dolls is in ancient then we Russian doll eating apples and the cooking apples, and we've got deciduous fruits. Shrimps can't do that. They just don't do that. We do it, but they don't do it. So there's a huge difference between us in shrimps, because when you move up to here, when you move up into this zone, to the decibel fruit zone, and you get up, say, in that zone, and it's about a theory of inflation rates and Samuelson or whoever else has got freedman or whatever's got their theory of inflation rates. You are way out in the world of abstraction, and you are way away from concrete, sensory reality. What does that allow you? It allows you to drift off into things that you have felt truth for that ain't necessarily true, simply are not necessarily true unless they can get attached back to reality, concrete, physical, sensual reality, and say this is true. So I call those things felt truths there. So we can create felt truths that float up here terrifically useful because they allow us to do science more out of it, but they're not necessarily connected back to concrete, physical reality. So we live in felt truths and we can tax felt truth to the most banal of things, to the most sophisticated of things. I was brought up in an English family that was really tuned into table Menace, and I was beaten to death about how to hold your knife and fork. And if somebody holds their knife and fork in front of me and eats in front of me like this. That person is a nasty human being. And my amygdala is triggered instantaneously and I have to, with enormous resolve, say, Julian, stick your head. This is one of your best friends. But my Amygdala says, no, this is a nasty, distrustful, horrible human being misbato. If there's any fruit here, I've got a chopstick that's like chopsticks. And I go steer the fruit with the chopstick, pop it in. Woo. This is not good marital relations. So down at this complete banal level, this goes on. And then right at the top, it's Islam versus Christianity, communism versus capitalism, rational economics versus some more socialism or whatever. The interesting thing is, I'm sort of jumping ahead of it here, that we ascribe our feelings about that felt truth. We hold on to that with survival vigor. The vigor intensity of survival is attached to something as banal as holding a knife and fork up. When I figured this out, that's what's going on in my head. I'm holding these felt truths with survival vigor. And they're just felt truths. They're not true at all. They're just bloody abstractions. Why would I attach my whole personality and emotion to these things? All they are is abstraction. And I can change my abstraction. I've got a choice to change them. So that to me was a very, very hopeful moment. It said, now if I can figure out how to change these, I can actually do something quite different in my life. So going back to that setup page, we .2, which was sort of covered both of us solved real time concrete problems, but we also solved problems with abstract concepts, which I think we don't really need to go into very much because it's what drugs is what it's all about. Item three is really important. I just touched on it is pre programmed to chimpanzees are pre programmed to identify potential danger and act quickly and act accordingly, in sight, in mind. So if I'm a chimp, I'm pre programmed. This comes into sight and I've got to identify instantaneously. Is that threatening or is that not threatening? And then I hold it as a felt truth. Bang. That is threatening. Boom. It's the amygdala. I remember that as threatening. Felt truth. Rest my days, even if we don't currently do it. Really weird. Really weird. It says we ain't thinking properly. There's some felt truth out there. Felt truth nationalism, for instance, is inhibiting us, actually cracking these problems there. We have every capability of feeding the world, for instance, or combating AIDS, and we just flat. And if you aren't doing it in my book, you have to say, well, what are the thought patterns that are preventing this occurring? Next strength is we're able to address metaphysical problems. You'll see this coming up a lot more in the next chapter because we can reflect on the past and the future. We're confronted the question of being and dying whenever you see a dead body and suddenly the mind goes oh I might end up with that too. And that leads to some five core metaphysical questions. Is there a God that caused the world? Is there some force of causality called God or not? Is there life after death? What's my purpose in life? How should I lead a good life and why is there so much suffering? These five questions are basically addressed by every single religion. If you go and look at religions from whatever there's about eight core meta religions they all address those five questions. They all address interestingly enough, in quite different ways and therefore they create a whole bunch of different felt truths which then creates a whole bunch of negative stereotyping. But the questions are exactly the same. So we went from polytheistic religion to monotheistic religion. A huge shift in felt truth to rational philosophy. Another huge shift in felt truth and then political philosophy out of rational philosophy. So we see felt truth shifting quite dramatically as we evolve. Each approach has progressively tried to draw out a positive predisposition managing our negative ones and we're going to get into that very very much more heavily in the next chapter. But the message in there is that all religions are actually trying to do the same thing. They do them differently. In doing them differently they create different felt truths and in creating different felt truths they create negative spiritizing. And that's one of the underlying causes of some of the issues of today that's over the strength, that weakness obviously. Next one is we're able to understand future consequences. Action potentially leading to concepts of love and morality. Good action predisposition to love, to nurture babies and survive through mutual support together with ability to accept consequences of action without the future I think gives you some insight into morality and love and this is assertion stuff. Who knows? Morality the golden rule of do other others as you wish is an expression as how to create positive consequences over a period of time. In moral actions like murder, theft of lying they ignore the long term consequences to human happiness, immediate pleasure driving out long term happiness. So it's this conflict between immediate pleasure and happiness. Love is a bit more complicated. Seems to be like four love stages. There's peptide love which is ruled by a chemistry lover wants children, new lover it seems it's pure DNA and chemistry action. There's then one on one conditional love that says if you're pretty and a provider or do this or do that or whatever I'll love you conditionally. There's then one on one unconditional love that says I'm going to love you whatever. And then there's broad unconditional love which is beyond one on one. So love and obviously where I'm working towards is whether or not one can get to more broad unconditional love as the basis for one's behavior especially having overcome fear and overcome forgiveness of yourself and forgiveness of others. So a touristic strength of our futurist abstracting brain linked to our four. Another strength is problem solving capabilities, also catalytic. We get smarter and smarter and smarter and smarter. This is ability to problem solve using true language and game signaling and ultimately crystallize that in knowledge and teaching in writing allows us to create more and more complex societies. Complex societies, however, leading to piggybacking off some of what Jack has said, is a society that's got increased entropy and it's disobeying the laws of entropy. So they're pretty fragile. So unless we constantly maintain and put more energy into the understanding of our complexity, it's going to crash. What I'm working on and spending time on here is actually trying to understand how to maintain the energy level so it doesn't crash. So what you get is this autocatalytic activity complexity begets complex problem solving ability, which begets further complexity. This is important in, say, democratic societies and complex societies because they can't function without a large number of people with highly realized capabilities. Now, the other paper you've got on Eritrea, I said, I wrote that actually ten years ago, is actually all about that last sentence. So it actually hypothesizes levels of societal development along several dimensions, and it shows how capability is reflected in societal development. The numbers in there are about ten years old from the United Nations, but can update them quite quickly. Fifth great strength is we're beginning to understand how we participate in the creation of our own perceived reality. This is the sort of main message, or partially the main message in this presentation is we can quite clearly see that we create our own reality. I mean, this was created out of imagination. We created that out of it wasn't there. It was created out of pure imagination, bunch of abstractions and so forth, and ended up by bringing this into reality. So there's no doubt at all that we understand physical creation around physical reality. I think we actually have the same choice as to create our own emotional reality, but we actually don't make those choices as often as we might do. And when I say the choices between fear and love, that's actually the choice of how we think about our own emotional reality too. So artists in some religions, like Buddhists, have understood the degree to which we create our help to create our own reality in Western societies, coming to similar conclusions through quantum mechanics. And Paul? Where's Paul? Paul knows a lot more about this than I do. But there's a great movie out at the moment which is addressing issues called What We Believe. Do we know anybody seen that? It's a fantastic movie that actually addresses these issues of what reality is actually all about. In simple terms, the fact we're able to choose our own felt truths and to choose how to manage our DNA predispositions. And that as a. Result we can choose how to behave gradually becoming understood. So there are some American psychologists, one called Gerald Jampalski who has been really pissed off when I read his book basically because he just used way he's reached very similar conclusions from a completely different orientation. As to that our next step is to manage the way we think about our emotional reality in the world and to monitor our own DNA predispositions and to make choices how we express those predispositions in our real behaviors. So last bit confucius was onto it as well two and a half thousand years ago. He's not spiritual at all. He actually wasn't into God as an idea, he was into society as an idea and he basically the foundations of harmonious society were the self knowledge and self discipline of the leadership and the people. Choice is only available through self knowledge. I ended that bit off. So again this presentation is trying to edge out and say how can we get more self knowledge about ourselves which then allows us to make different choices. So those are the huge going back, those are the huge strengths of the Chimp big brain combo basically fantastic strengths. The weaknesses we're going to go into now weaknesses, disadvantages okay, first one is that survival fearfulness is sucked out of the past and the future to invade the present. So because I can abstract and think about the future and I can really mullen retain the past in my mind, and because I might have a via for fearfulness to start with, because I'm a living entity that needs to be fearful to survive, I can suck all this fearful potential out of the future, bring it into the present. I can suck all of the fearful past that I may be worrying about and suck that into the present and basically destroy the present. I mean if you really think about it at this instant in time at this name a second I have everything to make me happy. Everything. And the next name second I will have everything to make me happy. The following name second I will have everything to make me happy. Now. Sometimes I don't. If I keep sucking in anxiety into the present from the future and I suck anxiety from the past into the future, I just destroy the present in a way. And obviously Buddhism is the religion that focuses on us mainly, but one has to be very, very careful about how one's sucking fearfulness into the present. What I try to do is pre frame or reframe. If I'm in a fearful situation I try to reframe the situation I say is that you have everything you need right now, why are you fearful? Or if I'm going to a fearful situation I say how can I reprieframe that situation? So I will come into that situation with love rather than fear and I just do this all day. I'm getting better. So this stuff happens at many, many levels so you could just feel uneasy as meaning new person becomes shy. You may feel diminished in status by somebody else's branded clothes, car or whatever. I took my eleven year old back to one of virtues where to stay over or sleep over and I took her back and came back and we drove up a driveway that was sort of long enough to have a gas station up there in case you ran out of gas. Then when we arrived at the house it was like three stories, swimming pools and I was completely diminished by this. I was immediately intensely competitive. I was diminished by it. I thought maybe I should have a house like this. And it was about survival favour speaking about competitive hierarchy in survival. And I had to slap myself around the face and say no Julian, this is really, really stupid. Stop feeling like this. It's self destructive. This will destroy your happiness if you don't get hold of it. It will destroy your happiness apart from it destroying bloody planet as well. 1 may feel unloved, become jealous of love demonstrated to others and they demand attention through horrific behavior. My eleven year old is quite good at this. Or adult is an absence of love or whatever can result in very difficult behaviors and you can get so anxious about everything and control the one's life you can become paranoid or psychotic. Now obviously there may be some other reasons for that but it's basically it's sucking fear out of the present, out of the past into this sorry, out of the future, out of the past, into the present. And the honest truth is in the present we have everything we need. So it's a bit of a weakness that our abstraction capability has all this benefit but this is a big weakness. So I'm saying that disquiet or fear can always be traced back to survival. Even something as weird as I'm going to wear a Nike shirt today can be traced back to survival needs and acceptance and community and so forth. We're being manipulated in that particular case by brand owners to reduce our fearfulness. So I personally sort of trying to manage that. And keeping up with Joneses is very strange. I mean it's survival. So not only do we have these abstract things for felt truths, but dumb stuff like keeping up with the Joneses. And where you are in the hierarchy is just infused with survival vigor, which drives you towards behaviors that are not happiness creating behaviors on a personal level and on a global level, actually potentially extinction creating behaviors if we actually don't either stop doing them and create a science that will allow us to continue doing it. So then the last is something we see all the time in business and somebody had a slide up in one of the presentations that said the same sort of thing is that long term solutions are driven out by potential unreal past or future fears. So you can prep. If you're in a fearful situation, you do short term behaviors all the time. You don't give you space to do the longer term behaviors. So even though you might be capable of operating at level five or whatever, you're actually operating at level one because you're in a fearful situation just sucked in there. So that's one weakness of the combo. Second one, which I've been harping on about all morning. We create abstract felt truths that are not true in reality. To survive in a world of potentially full of danger of predators, living creatures got to quickly decide if something's dangerous or not. They've got to hold this as a fact in memory for rapid recall. Humans not only appraise real things danger, but they also have the ability to create abstract danger. Now, abstractions range from apples to inflation rates for God kings. I can assure you, in the 14th century or 13th century, the concept of God kings was felt to be a real concept. This guy was God, right? I mean, Japan's only just died with with the Emperor. They're only partially in it still. So we've got these God King ideas, say, floating around that temporarily or initially in the case of God kings, was a fantastic idea because it stopped warfare, basically and created a unification of warring groups under a single power source that said, we'll have less war largely. So it was a great idea. But if you've got a lot of God kings around, you ain't going to have democracy and you're going to have god kings are still pretty bloody coercive. A surf life in God king time is not a particularly attractive life. It's a pretty limited life. So you get this interesting thing that felt truths often are initially very useful and then have to be destroyed to get to the next level of usefulness. In that suitcase that's the execute three, we hold on to felt truths of survival that were not true and link these ideas together. You've got felt truths that may be wrong, they're set very hard to change as you build them into your whole psychological framework. So you end up with felt truth, catholicism or communism or what el Jews are evil if you're in the 1930s in Germany. And these felt truths to help with survival vigor, they operate at this banana level of every day where night and four, the chopsticks are unacceptable. They arouse survival vigor and despair. In amygdala to such a point we despise. The personality paradox in these felt truths is this business of promoting progress and then reducing progress. So there's a wave that says I've moved up to high level of abstraction, all addict stuff that was useful, but then I've got to actually move up to the next level of abstraction to get to the next useful stuff. Four, this hierarchical phase being drives materialism which is the underpinning of environmental degradation. So do I need survival sustains? The need to demonstrate status. So in all modern consumer markets, products will be broken down in four categories super, premium, premium, end market and value. Ferrari Mercedes, toyota Hyundai. Those are just expressions of status. Those are expressions of the survival need. They're endless, just endless. We're just driven constantly to go for more and more stuff. I talked to my mates who were into cars or whatever and they gave me 15 different intellectual technical reasons why they got to buy this particular car. I said, Bullshit, this is about status, it's about showing off. And they sort of riddle around a bit and say, no, you don't understand, Julie. I say, all Mercedes is doing is giving you an engineering excuse to express your status. But that's what it is, that's what's going on. And it's endless. So endless materialism, and we all know it's sort of endless materialism and we're sort of satisfied with it, but I'm trying to get that captured. But I'm captured. So we're driven with wants well beyond artificial needs, self worth this is really interesting. Is defined extrinsically by product, not by character. So I drive a Mercedes, so I have a good character. Wow, that's an interesting felt truth that has good character of all Mercedes. So we've got now a felt truth that says material possessions define the quality of the human being. That is not a very good idea. That is not a very good idea. Even worse, we keep climbing up this ladder and we're degrading the planet as we do it. So it's quite a difficult situation. So in the developed world we consume not just as an, eat much more than we need to survive. We've got obesity problems in the western world and starvation problems in the undeveloped world. You go, what is going on here? What is going on? The most popular books there are in the Western world are diet books, most popular books there are. And then we have a billion people starving. There's something going on and stopping us cracking the problem. So our survival imperative is manifested in status means. Our survival imperative is very vigorous. So our status means are extremely vigorous. I don't think we're going to get rid of our status beings, but maybe we can channel them in a less destructive way of materialism and self knowledge. And life in itself is actually quite good. Like now and again I'll go down to the BMW yard, right, and I drive a Toyota Camry and I could pull BMW and I think, oh, I really love one of these. And I go back home and I slap myself around and say, julian, this is really, really stupid. So I don't think you get away from it, you don't get away from feeling, but you have to manage it differently. Last one is the AutoCAD catalytic problem solving stuff is scientific commercial problem solving. There's a few little wrinkles in the end has little relationship to moral problem solving capability and how to live a good life question in the religious questions is not well informed by commercial or scientific problem solving capability. Indeed, it may even exclude it that the felt truth of either science or commercialism economics are pretty silent on morality. So we've got we're concentrating all the time about problem solving but frankly we're problem solving in a if I split two domains between physical domain, which are physical wants, needs, all that sort of stuff, and the metaphysical domain, we've got a terrific emphasis in our current world on physical problem solving capabilities. But we're spending almost no time on metaphysical problem solving. If if you go back 50 or 100 years and it was embedded in religion, of course, which some people have some problems, other people won't. People spent hours a week on the how to live a good life question. Hours. You read Bible, you prayed at night, you went to a sermon on Sundays, you discussed the sermon after lunch, you read another bit of the Bible, discussed what maybe the Bible was trying to get at and there was a constant effort towards the question how do we live a good life? I don't do that anymore, but I'm actually beginning to. But historically haven't done that at all. We're all just these big brains cracking business problems or whatever, but not for what purpose. So we've got to tell the truth that we crack some business problem or some strategy or whatever and that leads to human happiness. They don't see the connection anymore, really don't. So we have a problem solving capability has got two things. One, it's autocadalytic, which then tends to draw out our domination submission stuff because now I'm a lot smarter than you, so I can dominate you and you're really dumb, so you should be dominated. And two, if we bifurcate a problem solving issue as to a materialistic problem solving, we're fantastic at that. And we have conquered the physical world basically. But we've actually gone backwards in terms of, I think the metaphysical problem solving questions now in the United States, part of the movement back to Born again Christians is I think it's a recognition of that and it's a fix on that problem. When I was in the States in the 70s, nobody was born again Christian. I now go to something like a third to 40% of my friends that I had 20 years ago. Now born again Christians. Wow, this is interesting. And it's crying out for a need of metaphysical solutions to life as well as physical solutions to life. And clearly it meets a certain need in that. And Christianity is pretty bloody smart in a lot of directions. So complex problem solving, it's going out off the rails in terms of its focus and it can also lead to racial bias. Different levels of realized problem solving can rationally justify alpha domination in one country or another. So that basically is actually I'll go back to the that's saying if you go through the presentation of talking about ultimate causes, survival, then you look at chimpanzees as a model. Look at chimpanzees versus our brains, how they work again, especially this dimension of moving out of time and abstraction. Join those two together, we get some strong strengths and strengths and strong weaknesses. Chapter five is then a bit of a summary and then we move into chapter six which is historical testing and saying well, can we see these ideas emerging with society? Got sort of nine propositions one through six are about summarizing the argument state and seven through nine is about institutional stuff. Simple summary behaviors are lots of manifestations ultimate cause is survival for a species born and complete fear love is required. So fear and love is an ultimate cause of human behavior. Pretty strong statement but all I might and read at the end of the day is my own personal experience. That's just what I experience. That the building blocks of behavior of DNA biological predispositions to survival and love and the large brain complex problem solving capability to achieve survival and love. Three is the DNA dispositions are difficult to separate out from learned behavior because we see a lot of learned behavior obviously breathable ways to separate out those of chimpanzees. Chimps display the seven prime behaviors from a Darwinian fitness point of view they're survival smart from a human perspective they completely seem both positive and negative. Negative predispositions dominate in fearfulness due to our brain structure which is structured like all animals to respond to fearful situations individual threat and fearful can drive out long term or loving thinking ways of thinking. So at the end of the day there's a choice between fear and love. Fear and love don't coexist. Love and a lack of forgiveness coexist at the same time. One of these DNA predispositions is about hierarchy. The stuff that you do I think is largely obviously about hierarchy getting requisite levels in place and it's also about trying to manage our predisposition to domination. That's what it's actually about when I reflect on what it's admitting that we actually have a predisposition to domination and how do we manage that predisposition in a work environment where we want to use our intellectual capability? The fourth point is our life brains are able to project ourselves out of the concrete physical world of the present into an abstract and central future. This with language writing has allowed us to identify resolve problems of increasing complexity with complexity being great times all our future stuff here this is now a statement which we'll try and test with the next chapter. Human cultural progress is where when the context of a positive negative predisposition our large brain has drawn out to address two problems first, how to resolve physical survival problems of life and second metaphysical problems of being loving and living in a fearful world. That's what we are at cultures address that's the problem that they address. The outcome of this large brain activity has been astounding technology, which I separate out from true science, which we'll talk about more, has improved our physical well being and security by creating so much surplus that our fearfulness should have been significantly reduced. Should have been significantly reduced. It hasn't. And second, on the metaphysical dimension, we created initial religious and political institutions that have enabled positive aspects and softened the negative aspects of our DNA predispositions. A little angle in there I want to bring out when we start to about democracy, what we'll see is that democracy largely allows us to control and manage our negative predispositions. It is almost silent, as in fact I think Elliot's work is is almost silent on creating institutions that actually proactively create loving environments. Religions tend to proactively create loving environments. In religions you hold hands, you sing together, you pray together, you kneel together, you share the moments of birth and entry into the society with Christians and death and all those sorts of things. There are institutions of love creation and love recognition. Democracy doesn't do that. It's almost completely silent. So we have a wonderful system to reduce coercion, which is what democracy does do. But we have not got institutions of love creation, so we've got this gap. I think the gap then forces us emotionally, materialism, so human progress can be directly related back to the seven shim predispositions and how we progress through that. And I'll just quickly jump into the summary and in summary, seven predispositions have been managed well, more and more people cruise and devices. The predisposition fearfulness has been reduced physically and metaphysically. First religion and then technology reduced our physical metaphysical fearfulness and then philosophy and science. Male aggressive, aggression and coercion has been reduced. We've got laws, customs to honor marriage and protect children. We have reduced collisive power hierarchies while still allowing to deliver results. We have divided the power. So corporations are separate which separate from the law, separate from the military, separate from the church. We have churning of leadership. So we churn our democratic leaders, we churn our CEOs, we churn the leadership structures in all our structures. And then we have legal constraints placed on corporations which basically moral they have no moral imperative at all. So we put corporate constraints on. There's a massive increase in altruism, drawing out our predisposition to altruism redistributed taxes in the States for about 35% of the GMP, in Australia they're about 40%, in Europe they may be 50 55%. So we have institutional altruism, institutional redistribution of wealth. We've constantly increased the size of our affinity groups. So we've moved from the city states to nations, federations of nations and then the European Union. We're constantly increasing our affinity, the size of our affinity group to totally say we don't go to war with each other. Basically the drive to the European Union is basically the memory of first and Second World War. This is ultimately what's going on. We've reduced negative stereotyping, there's coercive laws that forbid negative stereotyping and better cultural understanding and experience have taken place and we've massively increased physical and conceptual learning through compulsory education, schools and universities. So at a high level of abstraction, this is saying that that's the trajectory of human progress and you can draw spectrum against each of those and say, where am I on the spectrum? So that's this point about trajectory of human progress and we're going to get into that in a lot more detail in the next chapter. Item six is a large problem solving range. Got some few problems, we're a lot more fearful than we need be, frankly, so we're a lot less happy than we need be. And resulting anxiety drives us on occasion towards short term activities rather than to long term problems. We've also got an ability to extract future abstractions of the future. So we get lots of science and then other engines to create power sources. But it also allows us to create abstractions of felt truths to the held survival figure that aren't necessarily true at all. Most of what we are actually holding, a lot of what we are holding to be true in this room right now is not necessarily true. Hence the choice. We can make choices. Huge challenge tomorrow. And lastly, the uneven realization capabilities can support a predisposition hierarchy in alpha domination. This requires constant vigilance and institutional forms that separate powers, leadership and so forth. We're getting into institutional stuff now. So then seven is that though an echo capabilities distributed evenly across population realized capabilities, a function of education, life experience and solving complex problems. This is a global level. This has resulted significant difference in real life, different societies. The idea, if you believe that the idea that Iraq, for instance, can move from its current levels of capability to democracy in a single shift is just a naive idea, the institutions of democracy now voting ain't democracy. Running a proper postal service is democracy. Running proper legal services democracy. Running a proper customs office, running a proper tax office. It requires enormous institutional capability to run the institutions of democracy and you've got to develop the capability to do it. These are not a five, threes and fours to run a democracy. That's what the Eritrean paper is actually about. So progress is ultimately fueled, I think, by the distribution of realized problem saving capability in population size, both the threat of population and capability of population. Proposition Eight, the mechanics of progress is about getting increased problem solving capability and then the erosion of felt truths and the replacement with more powerful ones. Now the felt truths that say Iraq has to erode are quite different from the felt truth that the United States, the economic union, has to erode. There are different sets of felt truths that have to be eroded. The old god king gets beheaded. And last but not least, few cultures have explicitly recognized and implicitly recognized their DNA predispositions, but none have explicitly understood the weaknesses of our large future and abstracting, problem solving brain stuff about felt truth, especially the survival figure that we attach to them. In an institutional sense, our predispositions both dominant and submissive behaviors, and how a felt truth of the time maintains the benefits of the alpha of the time, but pretty hard to change felt truths. If the alphas have got all the power, they want to retain the felt truth because those felt truths are the things that retain their privilege, the result will make slow progress on global poverty, extremist, conflict, environmental degradation, meaning to materialism until we have more self knowledge, create new felt truths. My view is that unless we actually rock up and start to address some of these both on a personal basis and then an institutional basis, I wasn't open about avoiding extinction. When I look at my eleven year old and think she may live for another 80 years, I'm not sure that's going to happen. I'm frankly just flat not sure that's going to happen. I'm almost dead certain that in the mind I'm going to die within 20 to 30 years. I'm almost certain there is going to be a massive economic adjustment. I have no expectation whatsoever of anything else going to be in that 20 or 30 year period. There will be as bad a depression as the 30s if we don't change the way we actually structure the way we think about the world. So I think these are quite serious issues. Okay, so we've now through the story. We're going to do some historical testing. There's a setup slide on this, which is this one. And then I'm going to use this setup slide and come in and out on two real two really things. Three things. One is religion, the other is science. And the last is democracy. And on talking about religion, I'm going to talk about how felt truth shift when I talk about science, how science is a completely new felt truth, an incredibly important felt truth, and how that shifted, then I'm in democracy. We are back into democracy and say, here we are, here's democracy. This is how democracy addresses the self. Seven chimp predispositions such as that lining up, which persuades me that they are real, they're not just figments of the imagination. So at a macro level, and you can read more micro stuff later on, there's four eras I'm looking at. There's a hunter gatherer era of round about 60 00, 60,000 BC to about 8000 BC. There's then an era of what I call the theocracy theocratic aristocratic society. 8000 BC to about 50 50, give or take 50 or 100 years. We then have the emergence of science and rationality in the 1550s to about 1950. And democracy, I don't think it really had a grid until around about the 1950s and then constitutional democracy going across there to start with and then we'll dive into the religious stuff is hunger gatherers. That's basically the passive collection of resources. For my felt truth there was that I am passively collecting resources and I do very little to manage those resources. So in Australia, the Aborigines were hunter gatherers and they were not manipulating nature. They certainly didn't have scientific viewpoints. They were collectors of nature. And they needed very large living spaces, especially in Australia too, to collect resources. They had and still do have polytheistic nature goddess. So the nature god, I've got the apple god, I've got microphone god, I've got the screen god and so forth. And they're quite capricious because the waterfall god or the rain god or whatever sometimes rain, sometimes doesn't rain, lightning god sometimes hits me, sometimes doesn't hit me. So I can't have a cohesive philosophy when I've got a polytheistic view of the world. So if my felt truth is polytheistic, it's difficult for me to create a unified philosophy of life, especially when the polytheistic gods are capricious, as in the Greek gods were capricious. So there's not a cohesive philosophy there. Strangely enough, if you look at the second trajectory in progress that we looked on earlier on, there might have been a fairly fearful life because I'm worried about what the lightning god is going to do to me or the waterfall god is going to do to me or whatever. And they seem to be pretty capricious. But there were probably little variable hierarchy and variable dominance going on. We were in small groups, in levels at level speed, probably all level ones, no level twos. Everybody had to work for a living, so there's no surplus. So I couldn't sit on my butt and order other people around and create a hierarchy. So from a hierarchical perspective, what you see in hunter gatherer groups is actually a very egalitarian society and egalitarianism as a mode of living. And, I mean, just in passing our intellectual capabilities is only something in the order of it's something like 60, 70,000 years. That's all. We've been as smart or potentially as smart as we are today. Prior to that point, there's no evidence that we were. We then move to some strange reason, somebody who figures out that you can modify nature, that you can take cereal crops that are naturally growing and breed them in a way that actually increases their yields, that you can take domesticated cattle and breed them in a way that increases their ability to feed you. And so you've got practical modification and use of technology of nature, which I call technology and natural power sources. So you got horses, oxen, windmills, water mills and so forth as a source of power. But it was technology. It was not science. Basically, you learned to do things like. Direct observational learning. Leonardo learned to paint through direct observational learning. There was not a theory of painting, there was not a theory of bridge building. There was not a theory of canal building or anything. If you wanted to learn how to bridge build bridges, you went and worked with bridge builder.
Speaker A Some people are leaving to check out with a 01:00 check. Now that has all been relaxed for us. Lunch is I think they're going to finish about one and lunch is held for us so there's no reason to go out and need to attend if.
Speaker B You don't want to.
Speaker A So I just didn't want people leaving thinking you had to follow hotel rules because they relaxed everything.
Speaker B So it was practical, it was an extension of chip learning. I go and I sit and watch bridge build up. So it isn't a theory forces for instance, that allows you to build bridges in your mind and they go then what you got is advanced with monarchyism and I can see what this through. This was a huge shift and let's just look at what happened there. So we'll skip on to monotheism. Got five questions and what you have is those five questions are answered in a cohesive way and very big summary. Christianity is lambda. And confucius you do this anybody they answer in a different way. So where do I come from? Is there a supernatural sure that God made the world man and man as well and caused all things in the world? In Buddhism, the cosmos just is different. Bloody answer. In Confucius, the world came from a long line of ancestors and not a god per se. The ancestors may not be exactly right. Certainly not a god. Confucius is actually very interesting in that particular question. Is it life after death? Yes. Heaven or hell? Depending on faith. Islam? Yes. Allah awaits you from judgment. Buddhism yes. You return to be born again in many central forms. Confucius you go to live with your ancestors who await you. Better have done well, otherwise they're not going to be too happy. How should I live a good life? Follow the high level principles of the Ten Commandments, the attributes used, et cetera, et cetera. Islam follow the full prescriptions and the detailed instructions. The Quran and other religious texts. Detailed instructions. Buddhism meditate regularly. Meditation is critical. Opening yourself to the truth that there are no absolute truths. Confucius follow the detailed role set out for you as a son, the father of daughter and followed. Right, exactly. What's my purpose in life? To overcome my evilness, basically my weakness and faithfulness of God. Islam to accept the will of Allah. His purpose through me. Buddhism to move through the stages of life, attain increasing levels of clarity. Confucius to honor one's relatives and ultimately the emperor, living or dead. Why is there so much suffering? It's got an unknowable plan. Don't resist it. It's Allah's will. Suffering is due to illusions, an interesting one. And suffering follows the disobedience to the form of the right. So that's obviously just sloganizing and you can do it to all religions, but it's basically the message there is all religions address the same problems. Furthermore, if you take I won't go through all this. If you take religions Christianity Confucius, you can track them back to all the seven Chip predispositions. So how does Christianity address fearfulness? They reduce fearfulness and they use fearfulness reduces fearfulness proprieting law from the super alpha chip called God. And the earthly chip must obey the alpha chip. So it reduces overall. Fearfulness provides an all knowing, all loving God to care for you and love you provides a path to a good life after death. Those are all fearfulness reducing ideas. It uses fearfulness to discipline the masses and theocracy uses that. And it uses fearfulness to give power and wealth. For the theocracy, Confucius provides a set of roles and rules and rights that performed in true acceptance by the ancestors and by the community. It teaches you will rejoin your ancestors mother and father in heaven. It uses fearfulness by tracking rejection from the community to discipline the masses and ensure status and power for the scholars and the emperors. Male Sexual Aggression christianity rejoices in the concept of love and marriage which is blessed by God as other children. Disapproves of sexual relationships and children out of marriage proves as absurd. It makes sex guilty and it promises all kinds of retribution in its rules of disobey. Confucius sexuality is not seen as a guilt creating thing. Methods of sexual release is allowed for in Concubines but marriage until children take an extremely serious way and the role of father husbands is very specifically detailed. In the soon to be continued to come hella high water hierarchical organizations level by level domination and compliance, god and Christ become a super alpha chimp that everybody must obey and provide role models for responsible authority. The Church has a competitive hierarchy, however, with strongly delineated spaces and symbols. The Church, however, is also active in a wide range of social activities, delivering good things to the community through a hierarchical structure. In Confucianism, ancestors are watching in the behavior of living to ensure they're not shamed. Family is the basic building block of hierarchy, the section age defining position and rank. Competition within the family is not encouraged. Confucian scholars are the backbone of China's bureaucratic structure, having great status on their prerequisite in their hierarchical structure. It just goes on. It won't really go through it because we don't have a lot of time. But again, you can align the religious precepts to the Seven Chin predispositions and see how religions have drawn out the positive and negative negative and used them at the same time. So that if we go back this one so we dealt here with the idea of martyrs and coherent philosophy. What you end up with there over in the trajectory to progress is technology allows a huge surplus to be developed not huge significant surplus to be created which allows the hierarchy to develop and a non working class to develop which allows for coercion of the serfs and the slaves basically to take place. You have non working hierarchy in theocracy and the aristocracy aristocracy owns the land, the theocracy owns the self truth and the serfs don't own anything. So an improvement for the hierarchy, the alphabets but entry probably regression for rest of everybody else. Then what you get is the emergence of science and rationality in about the 1550s and so forth. What happens is you move, science comes along paradoxically with Martin Luther and Martin Luther together with science and Whitliff in England and Luther in Germany together with science undermine the felt truths of theocracy and the aristocracy. So Martin Luther rocks. So Wichita, first of all, rocks up and then Luther. And they're so disgusted with the Catholic Church in terms of how it is so vehicle, in terms of its execution, of being you can pay off your guilt with money and so forth and so on that they say you can have a direct relationship with God not through any institution. You can go straight into God. You don't have to talk to this bunch over here. The theocracy is irrelevant. You talk to God one on one. Huge felt truth undermines theocracy. First wickliffe started in England, then Lucid, and it in Germany. Then you have science rocking up and science will just flip on page 69, the bottom of the bottom dot points. In 69, science starts to emerge. 40 50 thinkers like Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus, Leonardo Bruno they start to develop scientific methods. The methods based on hypothesis, definition, measurements, experimentation and mathematical representation resulting in proof, theory and ultimately, scientific law. Most of them were trying to uncover the beauty of God's work because they didn't want to give away the idea of God totally though Bruno got burned to the stake so he was a fairly firm character. Leonardo avoided conflict dramatically, copernicus disappeared off and Galileau recanted but what they were doing as night follows day is actually saying that the world could be understood through reason, not through just spirit. So they started to undermine the theocracy again the science also shifted suddenly our ability to harness energy if anything, was the big one. There was actually a steam engine in Alexandria in 50 BC that opened and closed the temple doors. But because they didn't have a modeling, a scientific mathematical modeling of Boyle's Law and childhood law, they couldn't do 4000 theoretical combinations of experiments on paper to figure out how to use it to create circular energy. They could see that it all worked in the physical world. And the door raised, the door went down. It was run with steam. But because they hadn't got oils or they hadn't got Charles Law, they couldn't run theoretical 500 theoretical analyses to say how could I design a steam engine to do this? And so science allowed that allowed that to happen. And obviously what Elliot has talked about is he's trying to with Bevel's theory, is trying to become more scientific in terms of measurements, definition, with science piggybacking off this as history. So suddenly science rocks up. I'll go back to the original page. So you get science and what science does, it creates wealth through sources other than land. The aristocracy owned land. The theocracy owned the felt truths. Felt truths are getting done by science, getting done by Martin Luther, getting done by Darwin. So they're getting eroded. And the ownership of the factors of production are getting done because they don't own the steam engines. The aristocracy don't own the steam engines, the capitalists don't own steam engines. The commercial world starts to blossom and undermine the aristocracy. So the aristocracy gets undermined, the religious theocracy gets undermined. And you get the emergence of rational philosophers coming out saying, we can think our way through how to structure a society. We can think how to answer that fourth question, how to live a good life. So you have the English Revolution, which is partially a religious revolution, but it's also about individual rights. And you have the French Revolution, which says, I'm going to get rid of this idea of the God King and we are going to develop philosophies about human rights and human happiness. And then you get the American Revolution that says we're on the same pathway here that ends up on the trajectory of progress. There's a great deal of improvement, but still there's now a class structure emerges and the lower classes and you get ideas of communism emerging. You get shop stewards like Alpha emerging to protect the people at the bottom of this hierarchy. And slowly, by around about 1950, what you get is constitutional democracy coming out in the, quote, the advanced world. And science has actually conquered the physical world. It's into the microcosmical world and it's going even further. We can do almost anything we want physically to meet our needs. We don't, but we can. Religion has been sidelined with some going back to things like born again Christianity when there's a tell them for it. But religion is basically sidelined by science. And what we've got is a materialistic philosophy left over. And we've got rational economics as a felt truth as to how the world works and how it should work. Just an abstraction. We've got felt truth of how corporations should work just an abstraction. We can choose how they should work, we can choose how economics ought to work. What we've ended up with is major improvement across all dimensions and classes. And we've created larger and larger communities where democracy basically reduces it provides physical wealth and it reduces coercion in society. It's got great institutions produce coercion. So I'll quickly work into democracy. We won't go into this but it's basically you can go through each one of the seven trim predispositions fearfulness and project protection. Then you can look at democracy on page 71 and on 40 and see that democracy actually handles it income faith can have employment benefit, pension benefit, cult service, police service and freedom of worship male sexual, prominent security and so forth. Got laws to stop it. Competition and domination very important for independent laws. Splitting a power bank, equal access to capital. It's all about stopping coercive, hierarchies, small group affection, cooperation they're encouraged altruism democracy spended true and true territorial democracy cult forbids negative stereotyping educates our infants and every adolescent democracy as a method of drawing out positive aspects, managing negative. However, as I mentioned before, the difficulty with democracy is that it's silence what's two circles mean eight minutes. The instruments of love, the way you deal, the way actually express it. Religion knows something about that. So where might we go? This is a personal sort of thing is we won't go to key ideas. The key ideas for me is that much of my behavior is driven by the interaction I like brain animal positive negative survival instincts the fear and love stuff that my survival instincts manifest themselves in needs for hierarchy, status. My survival instincts manifest themselves quick with certain assessments of learning these ideas of good or bad, threatening or unthreating. How I think imagine the world helps create the world. Haven't talked a lot about that. We don't have time to. But I think I can imagine the world. I am determined to imagine the world. Basically that's where I'm going. And I think the expression of fear and love don't easy coexist and my choice is fear. What I can do about it. I determine to choose love, not fear. And there's a book by Jan Posky called Fear. Love is Letting go of Fear. Anybody's interested in this? It is just for me just is mind blowing fantastic book. I'm going to figure out how I can participate in guarding our democratic institutions. I haven't figured that out yet but that's what is on my list. I do visit dark idea my constantly watch my own fearfulness then I reframe and I preframe my fearfulness. I'm teaching young. I'm setting up an NGO with some other people in Vietnam and also working from here with the young in Australia and I'm constantly questioning and doubting my self truths whilst trying to accept the existence of other people's self truths. And I'm recognizing that fearfulness is a zero sum game and love is unbound. So as I said when I started off this is a personal journey and I've used a lot of that stuff and a lot of other people start to come to this and that. I'm really quite real that I think that if we don't crack a hold of how our fearfulness infuses our life and how we have felt truth that choices and how our current felt truth are not actually enabling us to go very far at this instant. The sign of that is that we're not winning on some issues that we would like to win, that we've got to actually change. It's not a prescription of Google this stuff and change the structure of this or whatever. It's a way of thinking. It's saying, I'm going to change my way of thinking and hopefully something comes out of that's. The end of the presentation. Thank you very much. Ram Sam.
