The first question is about demography, and I spoke with you in the past about that, and I think it's very important for you, and you pointed on that in a lot of your discussion and your partners, is it? Yeah, I really want to emphasize that it's important to have children and to create the new generation. And as simple as it sounds, If people do not have children, there is no new generation. I'm very much in favor of humanity expanding and creating a bright and exciting future for the world. But fundamental to the furtherance of human civilization is having humans, as simple and basic as that sounds. And every year I look at the birth rates, and I'm like, it's a bit depressing, because birth rates seem to decline every year. And I think that perhaps my biggest advice to leaders, to government leaders, and to the people in general, would be to make sure to have children to create the new generation. And I think any incentives that can be done to incent the new generation, to make it easier for women to have children, and to support the children, I think would be very wise. This is so fundamental, and I really can't emphasize that enough. If you don't have a new generation, there is no new generation. Or with current birth rates, I think it may be the generations are, birth rates may be half of the replacement rate. And what that means is, in three generations, the population will be roughly one-tenth of its current size. In three generations, maybe four generations, the population will be one-tenth of its current size. So I always want to emphasize this point, because it is so basic and fundamental, that if there's not at least a birth rate which is keeping population constant, then people will disappear. Disappear, Mr. Musk. Disappear. Disappear. We have a lot of immigration. Somebody says that immigration is important for that reason. What's your point on that? Immigration is coming in Europe, and it's coming in America from the south of America, and then Europe from the south of the Mediterranean Sea. What do you think about that? Well, I think one can't depend on other countries for immigration. And in fact, if you look at, say, the population worldwide, and this is almost everywhere in the world, and it seems to be a function of how, once a country industrializes, once a country urbanizes, the population immediately starts to decline. So one could say, for example, China could not possibly solve its population with immigration, because if China is currently tracking to maybe lose 40% of its population every generation, that would be 700 million, 800 million people, or roughly 700 million people. It's a lot, basically. You'd have to have the entire United States immigrate there twice, every generation, to simply maintain numbers, just for China. So immigration, there simply aren't enough numbers in immigration. And I think there is value to a culture. We don't want cultures, we don't want Japan to disappear, we don't want Italy as a culture to disappear, We don't want France as a culture to disappear. I think we have to maintain the sort of reasonable cultural identity of the various countries, or they simply will not be those countries. Italy is the people of Italy. The buildings are there, but really, what is Italy? Italy is the people of Italy. I speak as someone who is very much an environmentalist. I believe in building a sustainable future for the world. I think there are very few people, as an individual, who have done more than I have to help the environment with electric cars, and solar, and batteries, to create a sustainable energy future, because we absolutely need a sustainable energy future. But there is an aspect of the environmental movement that I think has gone too far. Really? Said from you? Yes. So, said from me, I think I am objectively one of the world's leading environmentalists in terms of doing things. I'm not saying so. Like, I'm an environmentalist who does things. I'm in action, not talking. I act. So I feel I can say, as an environmentalist, that the environmentalist movement has gone too far. In the natural extension of the environmentalist movement, if you go too far, you start to look at humanity as a bad thing. You start to look at humanity as though we are a plague on the surface of the earth, as though humanity is a bad thing. In fact, there are some people who think, and say explicitly, that, in fact, it was on the front page of the New York Times, there was a guy who said, there are 8 billion people on earth, it would be better if there were none, which is crazy. Definitely. You told me once a joke about the cows and the problem with the cows. You remember that? Oh, yeah, don't worry about the cows. The cows are fine. Cows are not going to destroy the environment. Cows are fine. Yes. We have a lot of laws, European laws, against all the people who work for them. It's a big issue for us, because it's a green issue, but it's a very industrial issue for us. Yeah, I think farming and cows do not have any meaningful effect on the environment. Yes. Underline, please. Yes. Objectively, this is true. So, if you say, like, there's really only one thing that matters from an environmental standpoint for carbon, which is that we are taking billions, eventually trillions of tons of carbon from buried deep under the earth and transferring it to the atmosphere and oceans. That's actually really all that matters, is taking vast amounts of carbon from underground, where it's buried, and moving it into the atmosphere by burning it. And if you do that for long enough, eventually you will get to climate change. Now, I think the climate change alarm is somewhat overblown in the short term. It's still a concern in the long term, but I think it's exaggerated in the short term. Great. Now, I have to try to thread the needle here between what is pragmatic and what is sensible, what really matters and what doesn't matter. What really matters is that over the long term, over the course of the next several decades, that we gradually reduce how many millions and billions of tons of carbon that we move from underground to the atmosphere, because we're running sort of a climate experiment that is dangerous. But I also don't think of it as a fundamental civilizational risk. It's not going to destroy life on earth. It's not going to destroy humanity. But it will create hardship if you change the climate over many decades. My message is, I think, much more pragmatic and, I think, correct and sensible. And I don't think we should demonize oil and gas. I think we should say, look, That is obviously necessary in the short term and the medium term too. And it will take several decades to become sustainable. So I think if we just, without getting too worried about it, seek to have a sustainable energy future gradually, then that's what will happen. And so I think that some of the environmentalist movement is part of what is causing people to lose hope in the future. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should have hope in the future. We should be excited about the future, and we should build the future we want. What about, and you call it the woke mind, yes, it's the name you gave to that. Yeah, yeah, woke mind virus. So woke-mind illness. What's that, a virus? Yeah, so… It's coming to Europe, I have to advise you, huh? Yes, well, this is not something you should import from America. Please don't import the woke mind virus, it's bad. So the, I mean, essentially that, to summarize maybe the woke mind virus, It consists of creating very divisive identity politics. So it actually amplifies, woke virus, mind virus, in my view, amplifies racism, amplifies, frankly, sexism, and all the isms. And while claiming to do the opposite, it actually divides people and makes them sort of hate each other, and it makes people hate themselves. And it's also anti-meritocratic. It's not like that, it's not merit-based. So you want to have people succeed based on how hard they work and the talents, not who they are, whether they're man, woman, what race or gender. That stuff is all creating, it's an artificial mental civil war that is created. And it's not, and let me tell you, it's no fun, okay? It is like woke mind virus and fun are incompatible, there's no fun in that, no joy. Woke mind virus is all about condemning people instead of celebrating people. Like when in the woke, it just doesn't celebrate, it's all about condemning and being divisive and being just, I think it's just evil, frankly. Really? Yeah, yeah, it's bad. So bad? Yeah. I get a lot of problems saying so on your social, In Excel, I have this point of view. You are a good friend of Obama administration, and now they don't really like you so much for this kind of speech you do in public, or not? I don't know, I mean, I just, I'm very pro-human, I'm very pro-civilization. I'm in favor of humanity and our collective consciousness expanding on Earth and going beyond Earth. And being a multi-planet species, a space-faring civilization, and being out there among the stars, and finding out the nature of the universe. Like all the things that, it's, that seems like to me, an exciting thing, something you can get really excited about, is you can get excited. Like, we want to have ideas that make you look forward to waking up in the morning, look forward to the day, look forward to the future. So, you have to say, what excites you about the future? What moves your heart about the future? What makes you say like, yes, I'm glad about what will happen in the future. That's what we must focus on. And that's why we have to have a new generation, we've got to build, and we've got to grow. And like I said, we understand this, understand the nature of this beautiful universe that we find ourselves in and the meaning of life, or even what questions to ask about the meaning of life. Let us explore this wondrous creation, and have a good time doing it. That's my philosophy. Let me go back for a little, because I want to ask you about your perception of Europe as a building, not as people. Because Europe does have a lot of integration of cultures, different cultures, and has a different approach to immigration. We heard Meloni did a lot on that, with Premier Rama, I see, in the first line of Albania. What do you think about this approach of Europe, approach as building, I would say, as an established building? Well, I should say, to be clear, on immigration overall, I'm very much in favor of legal immigration. I think that generally, I think one should welcome to a country anyone who is willing to work hard, and is honest, has high integrity, and will add to any given country. If somebody is an asset to the country, why not have them join? That is obviously a great thing to do. So I think it's good, actually, to have an increase in legal immigration, and a simple… Legal, with paper, with… Yeah, just some approval process, but with a simple requirement that, look, if somebody is going to add to a country, like just really hard working and high integrity, let them in. I think that's great. But if it's illegal immigration, and there's no filter, Well, how do you know who is coming? You don't know. So you have to have some basis for saying somebody should come in or not come in. And my argument is, like, it should be a very simple basis. Will they add to the country? Will they be a productive part of the economy? And do they admire the culture? Do they want to join because of the culture? Then that's great. But if there's no process for that, then you don't know. I think at least some number of the people that come in will not necessarily… And I want to be careful, because my words will be misconstrued. I'm not saying all illegal immigrants are… I think most of them are probably good. But there will be some, if there's no process for reviewing, not at all, then how can you say that everyone who is an illegal immigrant is it going to be honest and hardworking? You can't say that. You simply don't know. So I want to be clear, top line, pro-immigration, but let's increase legal immigration, but we should stop illegal immigration. I think this is just logical. You have a lot of companies. That's right. You can drink because I want to do the list of the companies. You have five, seven minutes to do that. I mean, I'm joking with SpaceX, X, Neuralink. So many Xs. All the Xs. Guess what my favorite letter is. It's a good place to invest, Italy. It's a good place to invest some of, I mean, not your money, but some investment from your company, of the American companies, of the, I would say, competitive companies in this place. What's your opinion? I mean, I think Italy is an incredible country, with an incredible culture. I love visiting. I love the Italian people. I think you guys are amazing. So I want, actually, I want the prosperity of Italy and I want the prosperity of every country. I want the prosperity of humanity as a whole. And like I said, I want us to have an exciting future where we're fired up about what's going to happen and really excited. So, I think Italy is a great place to invest. It's a great, great country. And, but I do want to emphasize that I do worry about the low birth rate. And if a company is to invest in Italy, they're like, well, you have to say like, will there be enough people to work there? It's a simple question. If the workforce is declining, then if the workforce is declining, Then who will work at the company? It's simple. If there's no people, there's no people to work. Yeah, but I mean, in 50 years, 60. I think it's even sooner than that, though. We're so worried about that. It's the problem. I feel like a total Cassandra here because I seem to be worried about it much more than other people. But there just needs to be people. If you don't make a new generation of people, There is no new generation of people. So that's it. I know I'm being I'm being repetitive here, but I'm just trying to state facts. So yeah, so it's a good place to invest. No, I agree. It's a good place to invest. And what a wonderful country. So please make more Italians, is what I'm saying. You said once that the Internet is the system is the network. I will write down your words. The nervous system of humanity. What's it? Yes. You said it once to me. Yeah, a long time ago. Intelligence for you. Sorry. The intellectual Artificial. Artificial. If that is a nervous system, artificial intelligence. What I mean, use another metaphor. You asked me, what do I think of artificial intelligence? Obviously. Well, you can think of artificial intelligence as this is perhaps the. The biggest inflection point in intelligence since Homo sapiens. Artificial intelligence is will be essentially a sort of a new species or is a new species. So I think one of the biggest challenges, if I look at, say, civilizational risk, the risk to the future of humanity. Birth rate is one of them. If we just don't have kids and dwindle away. That's one which I've talked a lot about. The other is that there's always a potential nuclear war. Of course, that kind of thing. But then AI is also an existential risk. And we need to be. I think we need to be careful with the advent of AI. But it is very much. It's very much a double edged sword. You can think of AI as kind of like the magic genie that like digital superintelligence will be capable of doing. Anything. Pretty much anything. But he doesn't have any consciousness. I'm wondering about that. I mean, there is a whole question of like, what is consciousness? In fact, so here's like I would say I've thought a lot about what is consciousness and where does consciousness arise? To say like, because I think in terms of physics, and at least if physics is true, then we go from a start of the universe where things are almost entirely hydrogen. And then if you leave the hydrogen out long enough, eventually it coalesces into stars. And then those stars explode. And then they recondense. And so like most of the mass in your body is was once at the center of a star which was kind of wild billions of years ago. And so where along the lines of hydrogen to human Does consciousness arise? You get very serious when you speak about that. Yeah, that's a real question. If you leave hydrogen out in the sun long enough, it starts talking to itself. There we are, hydrogen talking to itself. How to deal with that? So if it is so important, how to deal with it? I mean, red lows, personal behavior, how to deal with that digital intelligence? It's a process. I mean, I think we need to keep a close eye on artificial intelligence. I mean, I'm in favor of some regulatory insight just so that someone can at least be a referee. If you think of any game, there's always a referee for a game. For industries that affect the good of the people, There are regulatory agencies that oversee those industries. Anything that's dangerous is overseen by some kind of referee or regulator. I think we should have the same thing for AI just to help ensure that it is beneficial. The good part of AI is that we are headed for a future of abundance. So AI and robotics will mean that there are no shortage of goods and services. There will be goods and services. If you can think of it, you can have it, basically. So this is quite profound. Like I said, it's the magic genie. AI and robotics will get you anything you want. Now, usually in these sort of fairy tales about magic genies, it doesn't turn out so well. You have to be careful what you wish for, even if what you wish for are wishes. So it's just something we should be cautious about. On the plus side, it will bring many benefits, like I said. It will usher in an age of abundance. So the positive scenario of AI is that there's an age of abundance, and there's no shortage of goods and services. That any scarcity that exists will be only because we define it to be scarce. And it does seem to be somewhat of an inevitable thing, AI. Supposedly, there's that Chinese saying about, may you live in interesting times. Well, I think we currently live in the most interesting of times in all of history right now. So anyway, so my recommendation on AI is I think we want some kind of regulatory oversight just to make sure that it's beneficial AI. Great. We hope so. And what about what the governments like? I mean, they are elected by people like Meloni and this government and the other government. Do they have any risks? Or what do you think about the challenge for the executive of the nations about all these new processes? I'm not sure I understand the question. What's the risk for the government of this intelligence? Are there any risks? I mean, that democracy is finished. Well, I think there's certainly a risk of artificial intelligence affecting voting opinion, I suppose, and manipulating public opinion. So I think there's some risk of, yeah, AI manipulating the public. I think there's some risk of that. But I think, like I said, 80% probable that AI is beneficial, 20%, something like that. I'm always worried because we have a new government. It's two years, this government, almost two years. And we have a Europe for us. It's our artificial intelligence. It seems like artificial intelligence, but it's not very intelligent sometimes, Europe. And so I'm wondering what you think about the government and about Europe. For us, it's so important. I understand artificial intelligence and the future. But in the present, we have laws, constraints that come from Europe. What do you think about that, if you have any opinion? What do you think about the Italian government, which is trying to have a
position? I would say a position. Meloni, I don't know if there's more than a position. You want me to be more tough than a position? It's okay. What do you think? It's good to have a position in Europe, but to be, I mean, I would say it is different from the main course of European politics. Do you mean like country decisions versus EU decisions? Decision about green, about politics, immigration. I mean, there's a separate question of like, I think regulations in Europe, there are too many regulations. In general, I'm not speaking about specific cases of AI. I think one could look at this as overall a fundamental function of a stable civilization. The longer that any given civilization is stable and does not have a big war, the more rules and regulations will accumulate over time. So rules, regulations, laws, they are immortal. They never die, but people die. So if every year more and more rules, regulations, and laws are added, you will eventually make everything illegal. And you can think of it, Gulliver's Travels, where Gulliver, if the nation is Gulliver, is being tied down by one little regulatory string at a time. And eventually you have millions of strings, and then the giant can't move. And so I think there needs to be something where we delete rules, regulations, and laws. Because if we simply, if all we do is add them, eventually we will be able to do nothing. Chef, shall I ask some questions about your companies? Because here there are all the young people, not only the young people from an important Italian party. And most of them use the social network, they use X. And I saw in the past days that the CEO of Disney said, I don't want to invest in any advertising on X. And he's investing, for example, in the Meta, in the Instagram. And he said that there are problems of, I don't know which kind of problem they find on X. Yeah, child exploitation on Instagram. Yeah, what's going on? Why does an important investor like Disney say something so tough on X? What's going on there? Well, I think, first of all, I think X will be fine. And we are actually already seeing advertisers return to X. So I guess they were, I don't know, upset with something I said or something, I don't know. But the advertisers, I think, are, the brand advertisers are a little, they're always worried about their brand. And maybe, I think, maybe a bit more than they should be. But I think it's a short-term issue. Like I said, the advertisers, they sometimes get upset, but then they usually calm down and they return to advertising. Come on, you know that there is the woke virus over there. Well, yes. I don't want to answer it for you. You're right. If we're going to fight the woke mind virus, then the woke mind virus will fight back. And unfortunately, Disney is deeply infected with the woke mind virus. In fact, if you ask an AI, what is the most woke company on Earth? It's Disney. And you have to say, what would, I mean, I think they should be asking themselves, what would Walt Disney think of Disney today? I think he's turning in his grave. I think he's not happy. Sure. If the namesake of the company is not happy, That's probably a bad sign. Because Walt Disney, what did he care about? He cared about bringing joy to people's lives. He made wonderful things that children and families could enjoy. And he created some of the coolest art in the world and stuff that even 100 years after it's created, We still remember it. And it's still a major thing. But you have to say, how great was Walt Disney? He was amazing. But now, Disney, at least for now, is deeply infected with the woke mind virus. I think that will change. Yeah. Oh, I hope so. Yeah, right. The European Commission, they're not investing on X. You know that. Maybe they got the woke mind virus, too. Yeah. You don't care. I think so. And it's like, why are they importing this crazy thing from America? It's just something that was created basically by sort of far left crazy people in US colleges. And now it's spreading all over the world. And the thing is, the woke mind virus, it's not a message of joy. It's a message of division. It's not a message of love. It's a message of hate. And so I'm in favor of a future that's got more love, more like, more. And let us build a fun, exciting future. And the woke mind virus is all about condemning one group and condemning this, condemning that. And it's also just being like, it just wants to scold you all the time and treat you like a, I don't know. If it wants to be scolded, it's not fun. So anyway, I think we want to have like, so I guess at its heart, My concern is that the woke mind virus is anti-civilizational. End of civilization. Anti-civilization. If it represents a cost for your company, what's your trade off between the cost of your position and the cost for the company? What's your choice? And how much is important in your behavior, the free speech standing? That's the question. I do think free speech is incredibly important because if people cannot speak their minds and then we won't have a democracy. Democracy is, the foundation of democracy is freedom of speech. But also saying something. So. He's laughing at that because he knows that it's so important for you. But tell me more about free speech because it is very important. A person here couldn't speech for a lot of people because they were considered mavericks and worse than that. Free speech for everybody is important, not just for the person who says the right things. Exactly. Exactly. Free speech means that free speech is only relevant. Free speech is only meaningful if you allow people you don't like to say things you don't like. That's how it's working. That's how you know it's working. Because once you start to censor people you don't like saying things you don't like, it's only a matter of time before that censorship turns on you. Eventually, live by the sword, die by the sword. Live by censorship, die by censorship. Two minutes. Ok, we have two minutes. Guys. What? Everybody, give him a round of applause. Come on, let's do the other two minutes. Elon, why did you speak about free speech? You bought Twitter for free speech. Two minutes, come on, two minutes. Just for free speech, not for the business inside. Oh yeah. Well, I mean, here's the thing. So, I think you have to say, like, if civilization is not strong, If civilization doesn't grow, then nothing else matters. Profits don't matter if civilization collapses. There's no profits, there's no... We cannot exist absent civilization. So sometimes people may say, like, well, is this an altruistic thing? I mean, I think for me it feels altruistic, but even if one is not altruistic, even if one is very self-centered, you have to say, if you simply think long-term, you have to be pro-civilization because you cannot exist without civilization. How important from zero to ten, in the scale from zero to ten, is money? You are the richest person in the world. How is important money for you from zero to ten? Zero is the less important and is the good one. I don't know. I don't want to... One or two or something? No, come on. No, I mean... One or two, just one or two. The reason, I guess, I have what wealth, or it's really just shares in the company, is that I've created these companies. And these companies, like SpaceX, Tesla has 140,000 jobs direct worldwide and five times that number, maybe almost a million jobs when you look at the whole supply chain, is what Tesla has created. And then SpaceX is about 15,000 people and also, like, maybe for total supply chain, 50,000 people. So, I mean, I've basically, with the help of many talented people, built these companies. And then the so-called, these wealth statistics, they simply add up what the ownership is in the companies and say, okay, this is a certain amount of money. But I don't actually have that in money, I have it in stock. It's just that the companies have succeeded. How was the last launch of the SpaceX? Tell me something. Last question, please, Giovanni. The last launch, I see Mauro there sitting on the floor. Why are you sitting on the floor? Are you worried about the height? Because the last launch, you were an optimist about your SpaceX, the big... Yeah, so, well, Starship... So, the exciting thing about Starship is that it's the first rocket design that could make life multi-planetary, that could enable a self-sustaining base on the Moon and a city on Mars. So, because it is not just a very large vehicle, but it is designed for full and rapid reusability, so that would lower the cost of access to space by, I don't know, maybe 100 or more. And so, basically, it's the first rocket that is capable of building a base on Mars and a base on the Moon. Yes. So, there's the great Italian physicist Enrico Fermi. I'm a big admirer of Fermi, and he was very good at asking profound questions. And one of his questions, which is called the Fermi Paradox, is Where are the aliens? And one of the explanations is that, and perhaps I think the one that I think appears to be most accurate, is that consciousness is extremely rare. People often ask me, do I know about aliens or something like that? I get asked that a lot. And the crazy thing is that I've seen no evidence of aliens whatsoever. This means that I think most likely, at least in this part of the galaxy, we are the only consciousness that exists. And so, you can think of human consciousness really as like a tiny candle in a vast darkness. And we must do everything we can to ensure that the candle does not go out. Great. We can finish with that. We can finish with that. Okay. We can finish with this. Oh. And so, it's worth reading about the Fermi Paradox, because people have thought very hard about this. Because one of the things is like, well, maybe there are these great filters, and these civilizations don't pass these filters. One of the filters is, do we become a multi-planet species or not? If we do not become a multi-planet species, then eventually, at some point, something will happen to the planet. Either it will be man-made, or it will be something natural, like a meteor, like whatever killed the dinosaurs, for example. And then, eventually, the sun will actually expand and will destroy all life on Earth. So, if one cares about life on Earth at all, we should care about becoming a multi-planet species and eventually going out there and becoming a multi-stellar species and having many star systems. We want the exciting parts of science fiction to not be fiction forever. We want to make them real. Great. Thank you very much.