The weirdest humanitarian twitter conversation has just taken place between WFPs Executive Director David Beasley and the world's richest man Elon Musk. WFP is trying to get some money, Musk is not sure that humanitarian know how to solve problems, and David Beasley has offered to meet up in space. 

Hunter Thompson used to say "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" so that is exactly what Meg Sattler, Paula Gil Baizan and Lars Peter Nissen did in this episode.

it has been a strange week, in between trying to make sense out of COP26 in Glasgow, and not totally forgetting about Afghanistan, I suddenly saw out of the corner of my eye that WFP suggested to meet with Elon Musk, on Earth or in space, to fix world hunger in space. It didn't make sense to me. And so I call two very sensible people Meg Sattler in Vienna and Paula Gill Baizan in Bamako, to try to figure out what was going on. I should say that the opinions we express in this podcast are, of course, our personal take on things, and that what we say does not represent the great institutions we work for, but as you listen to what make afterwards called a "impolite and challenging conversation", I think you'll be able to figure that out for yourself. Both Meg and Paula are good at Twitter, and I'm learning, and it would be nice to continue the impolite and challenging conversation in that space so please don't hold back. We didn't.

Hi Meg and Paula.

Hello. Thanks for having me.

Hi Lars. Yeah, good to be here.

I just read through the latest report from the Global Network Against Food Crisis and it's bad news. In 2O2O, we had 155 million people who were IPC Phase Three or above, so acutely food insecure. This year, that number is 161 million. So it's going up from a record number last year and we have 584,000 people who are in Phase Five, which means they're facing starvation or death. So it's no joking matter. And yet, we have this weird social media storm, which starts out with Beasley from WFP basically saying, Elon Musk, give me some of your money, and then we can solve this acute crisis. And Musk saying, if you can show me it works, I'll give you the money. Meg, what was your reaction to that?

The world's decisions, I guess, are largely influenced by these three C's, capitalism, colonialism, and cash or a fourth one would be cringy, white men with too much power, I would throw into this situation. And I think this is just a shining example of that, isn't it? And what is so gross about it is, you know, we see this little tongue in cheek sparring match happening on social media, in front of we, the kind of humanitarian, you know, popcorn munching audience of commentators, but what it actually is is this grotesque display of power over some of the world's most vulnerable people. I mean, all those statistics that you just gave, no matter how problematic the sector is, and obviously both of us are very vocal commentators on that, Musk is, you know, one of the richest people in the world who...

No he's THE richest man in the world.

He's THE richest man in the world who's chosen to kind of dangle his billions over people with very little power in this world. And that is disgusting. But I think what I was alluding to in that tweet, which was you know, a little bit tongue in cheek, is that this whole situation is something that actually one of my colleagues described yesterday very eloquently as an accountability 360. You know, it's kind of throwing to light this online demand for accountability of WFP with the incentive (and we always talk about incentives) of this truly huge donation, but also, more broadly, the accountability that we could all be demanding of Elon Musk about like, what is it to be a financial superpower in the face of this massive global insecurity and suffering? So, you know, what a weird exchange to see played out?

And I'm just going to read out your tweet, which said, Wouldn't it be perfect if the missing ingredient in the humanitarian accountability all this time was actually Elon Musk?

Yeah, I mean, that the sector is so... I mean, that was sort of calling out the fact that one, we do so much navel gazing in the sector, but also like the irony of that. The irony that suddenly, you know, really clearly stating that there is this requirement for some sort of accountability, you know, rightly or wrongly ironic, hypocritical or not, the fact that that came from that corner of the world I think, was something that no one would ever have expected.

So I guess takeaway one is a pissing contest is not very well suited to deal with a situation where millions of people are facing starvation. Paula, what was your take?

I think I was angry but for other reasons, because to me, it feels like who... yet again, we're being bamboozled by double standards and companies. Because here you have a guy who's been asked to donate something that he can probably make back at in the time that like the ink dries in the grant agreement that he's signing to give out like 6 billion,

I think he already made it back from the tweet. In his stocks.

[laughing] Yes, exactly. And here we have yet another like senior humanitarian person asking for the wrong thing. So I think we have probably reached peak, sort of, asking for money sort of moment in the humanitarian sector, when in fact, what I would like to ask Elon Musk is network, political capital, runway, to solve other problems. I don't necessarily want his money. As a humanitarian, what I want is the know how that he has access to, that we don't, to take one problem and solve it. So if you look at what he has done, for example, in Flint, he took a problem that was big, he threw not money at it, but know how (tech, network, engineers) and then he has been able to come up with a solution which is the same business model that he has for transforming the car industry. So if the tweet from WFP had been, Hey, Elon Musk, we have identified this complex problem. Why don't you come and join us to solve it? I would have been, Bravo. But no, the ask was for money. And then the way that we are being treated in the sector is the same way that we were treating people when we were thinking that giving them money was not appropriate. So the answer that we get from this guy is like, I don't trust that you can do good things with the money, either because you're less smart than me, or less able. Prove me that you're smart enough. And what I think of that is like, well, we've been doing that to the people we serve for years. So why is everyone all up in arms if we're just being measured with the same rod we've been measuring people for years.

One thought that crossed my head was, If I have $6 billion, would I give it to WFP?

Who would you give it to Lars Peter?

I think the question I was asking myself was, Why wouldn't you just give it to WFP? What's the alternative?

I mean, I would say there are alternatives. I mean, I also I also thought that through this morning ahead of this conversation, and I also landed on, I think it's okay to give it to WFP. You know, I think at the moment, if we're in a situation where we got to have our high horses for a minute and say, you know, this is funding that couldn't make a difference to people who really need it at the moment. And those, you know, those needs statistics are really not to be sniffed at and people have really been pushed to the brink during COVID-19. And there is a lot of need for emergency assistance. And if that's what that is, then fine. It can go through WFP. I mean, I think it could also be spent in other ways, you know. I don't... I do think that this is money that he shouldn't be providing. I think donating is the wrong word because to me, it's a power adjustment. You know, he doesn't pay tax, he doesn't contribute to societies and decision making in a normal way. So I think, you know, he could do a MacKenzie Scott and say, what is the change I want to see? And then who do I want to support who were kind of movers and shakers in that space to make that difference? That would also be fine. You know, from my perspective. If you wanted to look at root causes, he could say, you know, I'm working on sustainable energy. That does potentially have a lot of implications for people who stand to lose the most from climate change so I'll double down on that. And maybe I'll stop sending billionaires to space in rockets for fun. But I think there is this power adjustment that needs to happen. And that has nothing to do with altruism or donations. It's about correcting an imbalance.

I think for me that there's also been this reminder that we actually don't matter very much. Like the scale of the whole thing is just staggering. And all humanitarian endeavour is just not that not that significant in the big scale of things.

But this was my favourite part of this whole Twitter experience. Usually is... the value of Twitter for me is in the comments that people leave, like out... like under the conversation. And if anyone wants to do like a statistical analysis of like, the comments that were left in that thread, I think it would give us a really good pulse of perceptions of the humanitarian model right now. And some people are calling for Hey, man, don't give them the money, build your own thing. And unfortunately, I'd be like, where do I apply for that one? Um, there are others who are like, the UN, as our model, is already flawed. It has never proven to work. And then there are others who are thinking about like this double standard, right, that we tend to judge humanitarians and and companies. Because if I was to ask Elon Musk, Tell me exactly what you're going to do with a profit of your company. He would be like, I'm not required to say that. And if I said you're spending too much on salaries, he's like, Who are you to ask that question? But in some way, there is this paradigm, sort of, or this belief, that doing good needs to come with a sacrifice of not having a healthy business model, and not earning a lot of money. And I think that's the sort of things that we should be discussing as in like, what is the standard that we're measuring humanitarian assistance with that makes us be terribly inefficient? Because then we can't be transparent, because people are not going to like what they see. But we also cannot hire high performing people, because we're meant to be paying low salaries, because humanitarian comes with a sacrifice.

What about the aspect of the spin that WFP is putting on this? I mean, I've for a long time been somehow troubled by the way they've communicated this business of saying we have a famine of biblical proportions coming our way. My question would be, is the baseline the Old or the New Testament, right? It just seems so detached from everything in any sort of evidence based discussion and the evidence is there, we just call it the figures at the beginning of this conversation. So is it a good thing to spin in this way? Is this a successful for Beasley? Has he managed to communicate with the richest man in the world? And that's a fantastic thing? Or is this the wrong conversation to have?

I think from a... I mean, that's an interesting and complex question, because looking at it from a communications perspective (and I'm already ready for Paula to kind of roll her eyes at me about this)... But I think, you know, as someone who has both trained as a journalist and who spent, you know, some of my career kind of communicating for Big Aid, I've seen a lot of people sort of unpacking, you know, ad nauseam, why the claims made in the tweet or by WFP, were wrong. But I would say, you know, when you're in the position, and this wasn't Beasley, this was a WFP comms team who were thinking, how do we cut through? And that's the question that you're always asking. And, you know, you obviously can do that in right ways or wrong ways, or perfectly ethical ways, or ways that are deemed to be a bit crass. But what you're looking for is an outcome. And I think, you know, having worked myself on campaigns that are all about, you know, Robin Hood taxes or getting billionaires to use their money more equitably, or sort of getting people with this obscene amount of wealth and power to do more in the humanitarian space. You ask that year after year after year in these very nice, you know, PC ways, and it doesn't cut through at all. And I think from a communications perspective, not from a purity and humanitarian sort of intelligence, your perspective, but really, this tweet, I think, achieved what it was supposed to. I don't think it was a stupid move in the sense that it did get engagement from us. And we don't know yet what that results in, you know, maybe it results in $6 billion being poured into humanitarian aid. Maybe if not for a mask from some other billionaire who wants to be better than Musk. So you know, I don't want to sound cringy myself, but just to sort of be realist about the fact that it is sort of hard to cut through with these people and they did that.

It just sounds like so very not with it the way that they've decided to engage with this person. I think like, I salute their efforts to engage with Elon Musk on Twitter because this is the way he rolls but there are other more successful examples so give directly at the beginning of the year, they were putting out the possibility of use, you know, like, sort of Bitcoin, Dogecoin, whatever to receive donations. Right, crypto donations. And they put it out discreetly with some of the people that they already work with. And this people started to post, I have just sent some crypto to give directly. And then Elon just reply sent, Just sent some. It was not give directly going like Hello, Elon Musk. If you were to give us like all of your money, we would solve all of the problems of the world. They just said there is an opportunity out there and this person picked it up and all he said was I've just contributed. So to me, it makes me cringe, because it seems like like the way that a congressman engage with Facebook during the inquiries. There are ways of engaging, but find find one that is more with it, is what I would say.

Yeah, they just this pissing contest aspect to it. And I saw this morning that they're now tweeting, Oh, we'll meet you anywhere on Earth and space. And you can just see the pictures of them going up in a rocket and coming down, putting on the cowboy hats and shaking hands. And it's just so detached from those numbers and the situations of the people we spoke about in the beginning. And for me, it brings, the whole thing of this is really Big Aid fighting with Big Tech, right? And so it is dominant forces in our society having a pissing contest. And then the scale of it where it's probably 1OOO to 1. We are tiny compared to the tech industry. And so what are we doing?

Yeah, but I think if we were able to frame the problem in a way that would be attractive for not only Big Tech, but companies to engage in solving it, then we would actually be having conversations that matter for the people that I see through my window here in Bamako. All these conversations that they have, at that high level, I doubt have many consequences in the actual outcomes of the life of the people here.

I totally agree. I think one, the conversation doesn't start with money and two, from the humanitarian side, it's not carried by a UN agency.

And I think where WFP has sort of gone down a bit of a rabbit hole now is in really pushing the point that this is how we will spend every dollar and I think what would have been smarter... because the way that they've done that, obviously, in the face of this fear about this question around accounting, is to try and break down in this really sort of, you know, overly simplified way like this is the amount of money we will get to this many people in this many days with the amount of money that you're talking about based on some random calculation, which is sort of not how... you know, that's how you sort of market something to grandmother's in suburbia when you're trying to get a small donation to them. That's not how you market to someone who has, as Paula says, a lot of different ways that they could contribute to this problem. And, you know, I remember the situation in Australia where there was this question about setting up a huge solar farm. And I think it was Musk who sort of put his hand up and said, well, I could do that. And that was because, you know, there was this kind of wicked problem that was presented in a way and sort of an invitation to engage. So I do... I mean, I do agree that the approach, as time goes on is increasingly becoming a bit more cringy. Also on Twitter, just seeing David Beasley sort of talking into the void now like a shafted tinder date, you know? Like, "I'm still here. I'll do whatever you want. Please talk to me again." So I think we have missed a bit of an opportunity there.

And the reply he gets from Musk is what about this sexual exploitation case? What happened there? I don't think there's any way that Musk is going to actually engage with this. He's already busy with Hertz or Marz or whatever. And I get the point that maybe somebody else will pick it up. But this seems to be a closed path to me.

Yeah. But I think for me, the issue should should give us wider learning. This conversation is basically about wealth redistribution. That's what it's about. And it's just offering a glimpse into the people that have the wealth and why they are not willing to redistribute it, but also, it should give us, as humanitarian agencies, a very like sort of cold bucket moment of, People do not think that we are the institution that should be the vehicle for wealth redistribution. And that should be a massive wake up call. Because if we do not have popular support to be that institution, and wealth redistribution is being presented as the alternative or future model for well being, then what exactly are we in the business of? Are we in... then we're in the business of BandAids. And if we're in the business of BandAids, then someone that has money, whether it's $2,000 or 2 billion, is able to then question every single aspect because what they're giving me is a grant. You see, for me, it's wider, and I don't necessarily see a lot of people having those conversations of like a true wake up moment of when we engage with the person who was able to make this new model a reality, and the opinion that he had of us as the channel for that redistribution. That, for me, is the really, really shocking thing about all of this.

And I guess it's also about, you know, to add on to that, I think systemically at a broader level, the system or rather the confluence of systems that keep people, kind of, powerless and without the money that they need is the very same system that enable one man to have this cheeky $6 billion in change to spare. And then to decide how humanitarian decisions are made. And they're also the same systems that mean that WFP cannot end hunger, you know, they're the same systems that he has benefited from his whole life. And so it's sort of interesting that everything here is becoming so oversimplified. And what would be really interesting would be to say, well, what's the problem here? And the problem here is this massive power imbalance in global financial inequality? What are the systems that sort of lead to that? And then what would it take to rebalance some of those systems. And as Paula says, you know, emergency aid from the World Food Programme is not going to have a huge hand in that. What it will do, obviously, is meet immediate needs, which we shouldn't sniff out as humanitarians. Yeah, I think we're sort of mixing a lot of issues when we sort of look at this unfold on social media.

Yeah, I guess we have to put different problems in different buckets, right? Firstly, the humanitarian imperative tells us that if you have more than half a million people who are in immediate danger of dying from starvation, that's our job. We have to do something about that, we have to we have to ring the bell. And that's what WFP has done. And that's a good thing, because we do need to attract attention to this and deal with the immediate situation. And to be fair to WFP, I think that is how Beasley framed it in the interview that sparked all of this, right, it was around the weird, weird concentration of power that has happened during COVID and the deepening of the crisis of some of the most vulnerable populations. And we need to fix this now. That's actually what he said. But then it immediately sparks this broader discussion of, yeah, but hey, we don't have a good system for actually dealing with the root causes and we do need to change the way we do business. And maybe we should also ask some of these guys to think about that, because they are actually really bloody good at cracking difficult problems.

Yeah, but I don't necessarily think that that's how it panned out. It panned out as a gimmick from both sides. It panned out as a as a gimmick from the WFP side, not to talk about the structural issues that continue to, you know, have people in extreme poverty so much that they starve. And it came out as a gimmick from Musk because he was never even like intending to make good on his promise. So what I would like to see going forward is more serious conversations in terms of this is the current structure we have where we have a few people with a lot of power. On the other side, we have agencies who have been tasked with protecting people and saving lives. So how are we going to engage this de facto powerful people in being part of the solution, not necessarily engaging with them with the typical sort of cry of, oh, what we need is money, when in fact, what we need is a lot of other things. We need infrastructure, we need political power, we need network, and all of these people have that. It's just that it's not accessible to us as an institution, and it's not accessible to the people we're trying to serve. So that's the sort of conversation I would like to come out of this not more gimmicks. I'm a little bit tired of the gimmicks myself.

However, I would say that as much as you know, I obviously want all of those things the most. But I would also like to see that money handed over. And one of the reasons I would like to see it handed over is that as on top of all of the obvious humanitarian imperative reasons, I would just love to see a situation unfold where the not enough funding excuse is removed, even if just for one month. You know, I think at the moment we... you know, we do surveys with people, and they tell us, you know, people affected by crisis, who receive aid, say to us, I don't have enough food. I don't have enough this. But I know that the humanitarian response is underfunded. And I know that there's this shortfall, because I saw that online. And like if that was gone for a while, I would just love to see so many of these excuses that we make about a lack of reform or lack of imagination or a lack of ability to solve people's immediate problems and how we actually deal with those as sector would be a very interesting exercise.

And yeah, I would love to see that as well. But it's part of the model, Meg. As in, our model is we're not for profit. So our model is to constantly be able to explain how there's a gap that needs to be filled. So if you look at it from an economic point of view, you will have an agency that then says, Okay, we're fully funded. But through this fully funding mechanism, we have now realised that there's actually more need that we didn't cover before, because we weren't keeping our expectations low. So I think it's, it's not a conversation about whether these people should give the money or not. Again, this is about wealth redistribution, and I doubt anyone would say they should not give the money. I think it's a conversation about what is the moral of Aid. And the moral of Aid is truly focused on financial resources and financial resources as Elon embarrassingly, like, pointed out in like, social media, is not what's gonna solve the problem.

But I agree. I get your point, Meg, I think we got musked. And to get masked, is when you ask for something, and you actually get it. And then you realise that what you thought would solve a problem didn't. Right, suddenly, we had to confront the reality. Okay, he might actually do this. And then I think we all realise, and that's not going to make the difference we claim it's gonna do.

Yeah, and I mean, also, these kinds of... the root cause decisions are also, you know, I think so many problems are caused by money. And they can't then be solved by money because of the absolute power imbalances that have sort of perpetuated in the interim and, you know, if you start unpacking all these root cause issues like military spending, and you know, so many other things that contribute to why humanitarian problems exist... You know, I don't know that Elon's brainpower or network is actually going to fix those problems, to be honest. So I think, like, we do have to be a little bit real in terms of, there is a BandAid imperative now. There is also a huge global, structural problem that needs to be readjusted through things like, you know, tax reform, first of all, and then our relationship with militaries and foreign policy and all sorts of other things, corruption, climate change, pollution, other things that must be sort of actively contributing to sometimes. But I do think that there is a need to sort of sometimes break problems down into into bite size chunks. And to kind of recognise the role of the humanitarian system. And I think sometimes that's something we can get better at, too, you know, obviously, we are delving into all these issues that we should be like climate like all these so called Nexus issues, but then also, what is for the system? And what is the system look like? And what does that mean for these people who find themselves time and again, and unfortunately, will continue to, in these very dire emergency situations. Because I think sometimes we've become so sort of complex that we forget about that primary imperative as well.

So we were told to climb off our high horses, Meg, I'd like us to climb back up on the high horses and dish out some advice to people. So what's your advice to Musk?

Oh no, I don't want to go that way. No, what I would like to advise, people who have access to like, incredible wealth, is to actually think about the social model that they want to build for their kids. Because there's a difference between talking about taxation instead of philanthropy, right? And I guess, an issue with people like Elon Musk is his own transparency. This is a person who has built an empire on the back of taxpayer money. And so I would like to have those considerations in terms of why is the system like this? And what are the incentives for people like him to perpetuate it or to change it? Because if we go back to my example of how he fixed the problem in Flint, he fixed that because it's a problem that was created by a car company to start with. And he fixed it in a timely manner to like, almost use it as a way of slapping in the face a government agency that he has a lot of problems with. So I wouldn't want us to be fooled by philanthropic sort of exercises, what they mean and what that means for the future of humanitarian assistance, I would like us to talk more in terms of social justice, what is it exactly that they want to contribute to the future. And if we were having this conversation one to one with them, it would be very clear that they've already made their investments elsewhere. This is a guy who's investing in being able to put a part of humanity, probably his buddies, into a colony on Mars. And you look at Jeff Bezos, he's invested elsewhere. And even the the people who are calling to say, Hey guys focus back on Earth, like, let's save Earth. They're also taking money from them who have their eyes elsewhere. So I don't have any advice. I think I just have a mix of desperation and sadness to say like, why aren't you using your superpowers for good? It's what I like to say.

That was an excellent answer. Meg, do you want to get on the horse again, or not?

[laughing] I don't know if I can get on any horses. But I mean, I think, just seeing... I think the way that Musk engaged with this question, which was, you know, "Show me how it works. Ha ha ha." in this like smug way, and then was really smug about the fact that he didn't seem to think that anyone could. And so if we take that to assume, you know, let's give him maybe the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't deserve, but if we take that to assume that he cares about the issue and the problem at hand, in that he wanted to see it solved. I mean, he is a problem solver at heart, as we've kind of discussed earlier on, I would encourage him to look at the problem and then say, okay, you don't trust the WFP? What's your other solution? Whether or not it's to the tune of that amount of money or not?

Great. And I'll admit, while you guys were talking, I'm actually on the horse and being male and all my advice is, pay your fucking taxes and use your unique brain to think about some of the problems that affect the most vulnerable people in the world. Let's do the same with us. What's the advice to WFP? And the rest of us?

Yeah, I mean, I think the advice to WFP... And I mean, it's an interesting thing for me to be talking about, because on the one hand, I'm coming across as being very pro WFP, but it's just because of the situation at hand. I mean, in my regular life, I spend a lot of time talking about how big UN in the humanitarian system can really be held to account more. I think an advice to... one piece of advice to WFP would be to really stop trying to mark its own homework. Like, I think, to be open to getting these difficult questions from other places, and to actually be ready to demonstrate in a slightly more intelligent way how you answer them. And I think also to unpack on top of that, how we consider an accountable response to be, you know, I think this question of, instead of being so reactive, and being so ready to say to Elon Musk, and whoever else is asking, you know, this is what our accounting might look like, and this is how we will break down small portions of aid. I always sort of try and promote this accountability, idea that we should stop looking at, you know, accounting for every cent all the time. And when I used to work in media for aid agencies, the question I always got levelled at me was, what's the overhead of these big responses. And it's so easy to say the overhead is only 10% or 7%, or whatever your clever accounting team can convincingly come up with. But the question is, what's happening with the other 90%? You know, how is your response in any way, you know, demonstrating that it's effective, or that it's responsive to people's needs, or that it helps them feel like they're going to recover from crisis. And those kinds of other accountability metrics are never really included. And I think this could have been an opportunity for WFP to be a bit bolder, and saying, Well, actually, this is what we would consider an accountable response to look like. But I think they're not ready to say that yet. So I think there's a lot of lessons learned about where we could also be improving as a sector just from this very small and completely grotesque piece in context as contest as you described it.

I think I like to give advice for the whole sector, not to like an agency in particular, but my advice would be read the comments, read the comments and do like some some soul searching in terms of why don't people trust you as an institution, because if people wouldn't trust us as a company, they wouldn't be buying our product, and we would go broke. So if people, the taxpayer, in general, globally, doesn't trust us as a sector, then we are only basically being saved because we're convenient to governments. So do some soul searching, try to really understand what are the perceptions about the sector, and use that as the pulse that guides conversations about humanitarian reform? Stop asking other humanitarians what they think the sector should be reformed because it's like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. Go on see what's happening in terms of what people think about you as a vehicle for wealth redistribution, you as a vehicle that is able to stop people from dying, and then try to figure out what it is that we need to change, not only in the way we work, but also in the way that we position ourselves, who do we work with, how do we market that, and then drive human return transformation through that. Because at the end of the day, what's happening right now, is that we have a product that no one wants to buy, except the people that are comfortable, politically, giving us money so that we continue to spread our substandard product. And I don't know like how many more bashings we're going to have to take until we realise that it's about time that we changed. And if you think about other agencies that have not received the bashing, but have actually received resources it's because they engage in the world and they have a business model that is, I don't know, completely different from the traditional model of aid. So from some... from like, a futurist sort of point of view, that, to me is a trend that is starting to get mainstream. And if we don't listen, we will be in trouble not only with Elon Musk, but with with like the general taxpayer and the idea of what humanitarian agencies should be, what humanitarian aid should be like. So for me, this should be a moment of learning take it is a moment of learning not as a moment of outrage towards rich people, is what I would recommend.

Great, so I'd like to be a bit nice here at the end and just say, I mean, well done WFP. I do think that they broke through the bubble and they managed to create a viral moment that drew headlines across the world. And we do need to draw attention to the humanitarian situation. So I think for me that's in there. At the same time, we really have to recognise what this is not. It is not a solution. It's not a strategy that can be pursued to create any meaningful change. And I think for us as an industry, my piece of advice would be to see the parallels between the problems we have in the tech sector, and in the humanitarian sector, namely the concentration of power, and how the dominant role of a few huge agencies in our little humanitarian bubble, in many ways stops us from innovating, and moving forward and creating those solutions which will enable us to do a better product for the people we serve. And for me, it's really a complex set of feelings. And I still don't think I'd be able to tweet anything sensibly out about this. But that that is where I think I'm at. Great. You know what, guys, thank you so much for agreeing to do this. It's been a great conversation. I hope we'll get some reactions to this and be able to contribute towards the debate that's really urgent for us as a community to have. And I really appreciate the courage both of you have for just engaging in a free flowing wild conversation like this one. So thanks. Thanks a million guys.

Yes, it's always so much fun.

Thanks for having us.