We live in fascinating times.

This is the most dynamic time 
in the history of humanity.

Everything is changing very,
very fast, my friends.

Just in the past 30 years, 
people have invented

internet, smartphones, cloning, drones,

portable GPS, flat screens.

Tinder alone is quite
noteworthy, isn’t it?

An object created by humans

left the solar system for the first time.

We are preparing to colonize Mars.

Look at how modern factories 
are starting to look.

And this is how they looked just
some 30 years ago, in the 1990s.

You see how modern smartphones look.

Now you will see it ... most likely.

Believe me, they look really cool.

We use them every day
and know what they are capable of.

And they look very different
from the mobile phones of the 1990s.

And that, too, was just 30 years ago.

This is what a contemporary
car looks like.

It’s full of electronics.

And here is how it looked in the 1990s.

And now please
have a look at this picture.

This is a parliament in 2019.

And this is a parliament
in the beginning of the 21st century.

Here is a parliament 
in the beginning of the 20th century.

And here - you can hardly believe it -

a parliament,

a parliament in the beginning
of the 19th century.

Is it just me

or can you not see much difference
between these pictures either?

I find it outrageous that politics,

which affects so many things in our lives,

remains one of the most
conservative and inflexible systems.

Think about it.

The way we organize governance,

the way we build relationships
with our neighbors,

and the way we manage our resources

have not changed for decades
and even centuries.

We are long overdue for a global
reform of the political system.

We cannot go on like this.

We need fundamental changes 
in political processes

on both regional and global levels.

We need new global regulations

for our financial and tax systems.

We need new forms of citizenship, 
possibly independent of geography.

Nowadays, the circumstances

in which we were lucky
or not so lucky to be born

determine our well-being,
our opportunities,

and, let’s be honest,

our mere chances of survival.

Isn’t it rather archaic?

I think that our descendants
may also find it bizarre

that we all were divided into 193 groups.

Every group had its symbol, 
a picture inside a rectangle.

Some would have horizontal
stripes of different colors,

others would have vertical stripes,
some would have a circle in the middle,

others would have a cross.

Some tried to be more original,

which they probably shouldn’t have.

Even if people from those groups
were not so different from each other,

it was crucial to them to prove
that they were better than the rest,

at least in some respect.

Only because they were born
in a certain territory.

This doesn't make much sense.

People who focused on proving 
that their group was better

were prepared to do so at all costs.

They made sacrifices, they suffered.

They went as far as sending
their own children to war,

all in pursuit of those
illusory objectives.

Benedict Anderson, 
a prominent sociologist,

called nation-states 
“imaginary communities.”

On a historic scale, nation-states
are a relatively new phenomenon.

They appeared at the end
of the 18th century

in response to the challenges
of the First Industrial Revolution.

Governments needed
to direct and motivate people

by appealing to their national identity,

to their awareness of a unique historic
destiny, a special national mission.

Suddenly, agendas of one piece of land
became more important to people

than agendas and the future
of the humanity combined.

Thus, it turns out that the countries

that emerged as a response 
to the First Industrial Revolution,

are pure egoists.

Of course, one could always
find a rational explanation

of why countries act
in this particular manner.

But this only holds true 
if we look at competition

as the only way to co-exist in the world.

Time passed, this paradigm shifted,

but nations remain as selfish
now as they were before.

What do I mean when I say
that nations are selfish?

Let’s figure it out together.

I decided not to overwhelm
you with academic work

and scientific references,

but instead take a glossy magazine,

find an article, “Signs of your
partner being overly selfish,”

and check the nations
against those criteria.

After all, we are in relationship
with our governments, aren’t we?

Let’s see what came out 
of this experiment.

Number one. Your partner
is self-centered. Hmm.

This reminds me a little bit 
of the nation-states.

Nation-states are preoccupied
solely with their internal affairs.

They live from one
election cycle to another.

They compete with the other
countries for world domination.

In the meantime, we as humanity
are facing the kind of challenges

that no nation-state could
possibly resolve on its own.

What kind of challenges are there?

We are talking about
the ecological crisis,

extinction of species 
essential to our own survival,

pandemics,

oceans full of plastic,

contaminated air,

lack of drinking water,

political and climate migration.

Meanwhile, we all still focus
only on our internal agendas.

It is important for us
to have good insight

not only into the local
but also into the global issues.

Ask yourselves

how well you navigate 
current global trends?

How good are your insights on issues
of global technological regulations?

Do you believe those people
who think climate change is a hoax?

And depending on your answer,

the better you are aware
of those global issues,

the more difficult it is 
to manipulate you.

Number two.

Instead of discussing uneasy topics, 
your partner keeps silent.

We, as citizens, do demand reforms

that often remain ignored.

We have no control over
the way our taxes are spent.

Not all governments have developed
a habit of consulting us, citizens,

when it comes to the decisions

on important internal 
and external policy matters.

Corporate and state media

tend to manipulate public opinion

in order to distract us
from what really matters.

We need to get much more involved

in holding governments accountable.

Governments are us.

Let’s imagine that a country 
runs as a business.

It has certain limited resources.

It has a certain budget.

I think that a government
must function as a CEO,

who is hired to effectively manage
the structure within the scope

of their responsibility 
to maximize value for shareholders

in a healthy competition
of the market environment.

What happens if those
duties are not carried out?

Shareholders fire the CEO

and hire a new person.

Now look at how most governments
and even the United Nations work.

This kind of business would
go under water in no time.

Why do we allow ourselves
to have CEOs like that?

Where else would shareholders

be so indifferent towards
their own businesses?

Who tolerates CEOs

who while appealing
to patriotism and duty,

surround themselves with highly corrupt

and extremely inefficient people?

How long would such a CEO last?

An interesting thing about business is

that a general director 
holds very limited power.

The same arrangement
could be applied to governments.

I am convinced that no person, 
no single group of people

should hold absolute power.

If you ask me about 
possible alternative models,

I’d say governments for rent. Why not?

Government as a service?
I’m certainly in favor.

Number three.

Your partner criticizes you, 
your friends, and your relatives.

This is the narrative that remains
with us from birth to death.

That makes us skeptical towards

our neighbors

and coalitions they are part of.

They are bad. They are alien. 
They are not like us.

Very convenient, isn’t it?

This narrative used by nation-states

does not contribute to
the development of global partnerships

and transnational good-neighborliness

that could create a basis
of trust for uniting people

in addressing our common shared agendas.

Why can’t our empathy 
surpass a line on a map

or a boundary pillar stuck in the ground?

Tell me, can nations not be selfish?

Nations are us, people.

Love other people.

People who are not like you.

People who are said to be savages, alien,

and altogether strange,

even those living next door.

People we never sought to understand.

People that your government 
doesn’t want you to love.

All that must be done with 
a high degree of priority, my friends.

We carry a responsibility
to future generations

and the world that
they will inherit from us.

Imagine you are flying
on a plane without a pilot

or traveling on an ocean liner
without a captain.

Will you continue
to have fun in first class

or will you unite and go up
to the captain’s deck

where the captain is missing?

Will you continue relying on people

who serve you drinks and play movies

or will you get together
and solve the problem?

Because the problem is real.

We keep hearing about
who has developed new weapons

and what new tariffs have been
imposed against another country.

But those are not the things that matter.

One may certainly dismiss this and say,

"That's nonsense.

There is no alternative
to the nation-state system.

It is but an illusion, a utopia, 
and is not worthy of attention."

But let’s think about all the innovations

people managed to develop and implement.

I believe that if we are capable
of such things in technology,

then it means that
we should also be capable

of similar breakthroughs
in political thought.

Try to support politicians
and opinion leaders

who promote the global agenda,

who stand for openness.

And I also ask you -

there are many young people in the room -

to become such politicians yourselves.

Because such concepts
as “our sovereign model,”

“our unique traditions,”

“our path,”

“our world order”

will be supported until the end

by those who benefit the most
from preserving the status quo.

It would be naive

to count on the politicians
to drive the change.

It is up to us to make the change happen.

Please don’t get me wrong.

I’m not calling for an overthrow

of the constitutional order 
or a take-over of government.

There is no need for any
forceful seizure of power.

We can gradually shift 
towards a new paradigm

by doing something every day 
that aligns with the global agenda.

We can’t invent the future 
using yesterday’s tools.

Imagine you order an Uber, 
and this car shows up.

You can be sure to get
a lot of Likes on Instagram,

but if you ask yourself 
how convenient this is

and whether it satisfies
the needs of today,

you will know that this scenario
is very far from ideal.

But frankly, even this car is more modern

than the idea of the nation-state.

Why does everyone still accept

that the majority of national elections

result in something like this car,
only in the political domain?

If we take steps towards
a more globalized world,

we might see a different future.

A future on higher levels of existence.

A future in a united
and not a fragmented world.

A future which is
keeping up with the spirit

of the time we live in.

Thank you.

(Applause)