What Next is about to start,... ...and you're going to need your phone or computer with you,... ...because this really is a conversation with you. Join the rest of the country at whatnext.nz. And when we ask you a question, all you've got to do is press that button on your device. It couldn't be any easier. So join in now. New Zealand in 20 years ` what do we want it to be like? Tonight is about our health, where we live, how we use resources. It's about what our everyday lives could be like in the year 2037. So what should we do? Together, let's decide what comes next. The way we're living at the moment is old fashioned, and I think we need some new ideas. Technology will be able to prevent illness ` if you have the money to pay for it. Retired at 65 with a gold watch and a pension? At this rate, I don't think so. If I could live to 130, I definitely would just to see if we have flying cars and robots taking over the world. Humans ` natural life span: 80, 90 years tops. 130 is just` it's too much. It's way too much. If we could distribute food more effectively around the world, we'd be able to care for a lot more people. We need to come up with some big plans, and we need to do that now. Copyright Able 2017 Kia ora, and welcome. What Next is a live conversation with you about what we want New Zealand to be like in 20 years, the year 2037. This is episode four. Over the past three nights, we've looked at automation, and what it means for us. We've looked at the climate change and the environment and how we treat it. And we've looked at the economy and inequality. Tonight is about how we might live in 20 years ` longer, yes, but with finite resources and increasing demands. But first, last night we talked about how we could deal with inequality in our economy, We asked you at the end whether you were Plan A ` think we are on the right track ` or Plan B ` needing some new ideas. Again, you guys were pretty clear. 90% saying Plan B, meaning we should try some new ideas. It really feels like people are hurting and want a new way of doing things. Tim from Otago says... With the poverty line increasing, it will only get worse, and investment now will be an investment in our future. I absolutelybelieve that is what we need to do. The world's population will hit 9 billion people somewhere not long after 2037. The year I was born, it was 3.2 billion. That's a staggering increase, and it comes with a huge cost to the planet. If we continue the way we're going, in 20 years we're going to need three earths to maintain our current lifestyle. Let's start with life expectancy. what might a visit to the hospital be like in 2037? The cancer has definitely spread. Obviously, once upon a time, that would've been bad news. But fortunately we can treat that with ivy nano-particles, which effectively hunt out and destroy all the tumours. And with one injection, you'll have a 97% chance of living for another 80 years. Which is good for you. Of course, it is very expensive. And we are dealing with an aging population. Which means there'll be less money to fund maternity services and child health care. What do you think? Would you live to 130 if you could? That's a bigger question than it appears. Go to Whatnext.nz and join the conversation. we want to hear your voice. And at the end of the programme last night, we'd received 150,000 votes. That's a lot. This has been online for the last four weeks, and so far we're split down the middle with just over half wanting to live to 130. But this stuff isn't just for science fiction movies. technology is already opening up a real Pandora's box. would you want to know what might go wrong in your future? Would you want to know the illnesses or fatal diseases hidden in your DNA that might be waiting for you up ahead? For a few hundred dollars, you can take a test which will tell you all about your DNA. Is the future of medicine all about collecting data? A New Zealand company can read my DNA. Analysing my genome, they can see things like whether I have the positivity gene or even the cheating gene. It can predict the chance of me getting things like Alzheimer's or cancer. All I have to do is spit in a cup, and I can find out my future. I've got the positivity gene, of course, so, you know, I wanted to get mine done. In fact, I've had it done six times. In fact, what I might show you ` this is my whole genome sequencing there, OK? It's about 500 pages of stuff, double sided. There is so much data starting to arrive, and over the next five or 10 years, there will be a tsunami of new data that we never had access to before. Health is going to become more and more customised. Instead of treating all diabetics the same, you'll have specific, precise healthcare for every individual. What impact will this have on the cost of healthcare? The cost of healthcare in the developed world is six trillion dollars, and two of that is wasted. Two trillion? Yeah it's huge, two trillion. More data has the possibility of making a huge difference to that. What will the impact be of this technology on human lifespans? Well I think the number was 130 years. people talking of people living longer. There is a view that cancer is a solvable condition. And actually in our lifetimes. How would this change the health system? It's going to be a revolution. With the data, plus machine learning, we are going to be able to predict, inform, make suggestions. As antibiotics have changed healthcare, vaccinations, and hygiene; data is just going make a profound change to health. Huge. Now, I didn't want to do this test, because ` and this is very male of me ` I was scared of what I might find out. For me in a pathetic kind of way. Whereas I didn't think anything bad would come from it. Turns out that's because I have the optimism gene ` as well as the genes for empathy, sprinting, being prone to getting slightly angry, I am not sure what that means. a smattering of increased cancer risk, and luckily, no Alzheimer's. New Zealand will be thinking he has the genes for sprinting. That explains as cheatah like Grace. Why am I so quick? That is why. When I went to open the file tthat's when I started thinking it through and wonder if something was bad. What is this mean for the future of health? We are moving into personalised medical care where we have knowledge that impacts on us and our children as well. That can be a really powerful way to lift our quality of life. It can also be a dangerous thing. If you go back to last nights discussion about inequality because access to these tests and preventative options with 3D printing and the ability to make replacement organs. All of these things will come with a pricetag which can absolutely increase the disadvantage in our communities. We could have a three tier health system. When we go back to the point of how long you want to live, at least will be able to have things like Digital tattos where you could have a feed of information like iron level. And then have things like nano bots which are fixing things from the inside. And then we will build on top of that. The cost of the tests is indicative of what is possible in the future. When I was coming out of university there was a global effort to map the gene known. The world spent five or 6 million to do that. And when the split test came up it was about $10,000. Your test cost about $50. Now I am slightly angry that we have to go back to John because of my jeans and a slight anger. But I am optimistic about what he has to say. The good news is that even though Nigel found out he has an elevated risk of a couple of different cancers, but smart people like Stephen Henry from Kode Biotech are on the verge of curing cancer. we met Stephen on Sunday, but tonight we talk to him about humans living longer. What are some of the results that we're going to see from people living for so long? I think it's a very serious problem. I think that as humans we're fixated on living, but we should be fixated on quality of life. So it would be much better to live a healthy quality of life for a longer period than live to probably what will be 120 years for our children and 150 years for our grandchildren. Sounds crazy. But if they lose quality of life, then there is nothing wrong with dying. So I think we've got to keep focused on what's important to us as humans, and that's living with quality of life. But the biggest problem is ` who will be able to afford it, to pay for this? There are risks that only the rich will be able to afford this, and you'll start to segregate society. These issues are actually becoming political and ethical, and not technological. Technology can solve all of these problems. The political and ethical components of them, that's where the risks actually lie. Those are big issues. We already have to face up to these issues in health ` who gets what kind of operations? But this question is just going to become more important as technology supplies us with more and more ways to keep us. But some of that is very expensive. Lots of feedback already coming in. This is a question would you like to live 130. And that is a very good point we will discuss. Can we retire at 65? Next ` what are the implications for retirement if all these medical advances mean we're all living longer? Check out the three essentials for a healthy home on our website. So would you live to 130 if you could? Because I am genetically predisposed to optimism as we discussed, I automatically assume everyone would want to live 230. But it is kinda 50-50. Half the people want to and half don't. I'm surprised by that. I don't see why you would not want to live longer. I understand. Especially as pressures go on. It feels greedy. I think it will be fine. It is a disability optimism. If you look at the country there is a split in the cities the top of the North Island are keen to live to 130. But as you go down the South Island not so much. No at the bottom of the South Island. The other interesting thing is if you look at female and male'smen are 60% yes they want to keep going. But women are 55% no. The cruelty is that we have the shorter lifespan. We have a shorter lifespan and want a longer one. Our life expectancy has increased by more than 20 years in the last century. So as people live longer, they're expected to work longer, right? The idea that you start knitting or having long tedious conversations about the weather at 65 no longer reflects the reality of New Zealanders who've reached retirement age. Around about 50% of our workforce are actually over the age of 50. Are you the oldest person here? No, I'm not the oldest. I might look the oldest. How old are you? Ah, 67. I came here in 1988. Once upon a time people retired at 65. You weren't interested in that? Ah no, well, it's up to the individual whether they want to retire at 65. In my case, I'd like to carry on for a while yet. Why's that? Oh well, it's more than a lifestyle. It gives me spending power. I can go home and feel like I've done something, achieved something. I'll keep going for another couple of years, and then I'll do away with that. They're becoming aware that the fact that post 65, you may still have 30 or 40 years to live, and they don't necessarily want to feel that they're in retirement for that period of time. And even when we're looking at promoting people into roles, we would allow anyone to apply. In fact, we have an example of someone in our organization who was promoted to manager position when she was 67. Whilst a few people had a few raised eyebrows about that, the reality was she was the best person for the job. I think Graham is a great guy. He comes across. He is getting across the importance of choice. The wonderful opportunity that we now have. A lot of my generation would have stayed in our homes and suburban areas whereas now our trend is to move to the city and we have a really exciting and interesting life. It's another lie. It's not another chapter in a book. It is a new book. Not everyone has the choice. If they are not able to continue to work as they age. If we don't have a retirement system to support everybody whether they are able to or not then we will end up with huge problems. At the moment is a basic maths problem. We can't afford the system as it is set up. We are getting to live longer so we need to have the courage to change the system that reflects that. Even if we are working longer and living longer and then having to work longer it is not going to affect us immediately. It will not affect any of us in this generation probably. The next generation will be used to having multiple careers. How old are you? 27. It will be in two or three generations. If you live to be close to 100 there will still be a huge gap between the idea of retirement. But now we can have portfolio careers and not just have one or two in my lifetime. But you know that now whereas Graham did not know that. Of course, the ports aren't the only place with an aging workforce. New Zealand has the second greyest workforce in the OECD, and it's getting greyer. How will the workforce look different in 20 years? Is 65 the retirement age? New Zealand doesn't actually have a retirement age, and I constantly find people who think we've got a retirement age of 65. We've not had one since 1993. What we've got is at 65, currently, you get a new income stream and you get a Gold Card. I think in 20 years' time, we may well look back and say that retirement was a nice 20th century concept. Up until the late 19th century, we didn't talk about retirement. It didn't exist. It's something that's been constructed in the 20th century. I think in terms of the way we are going, we're going to be rethinking what this whole life stage is about and be needing to find another language to describe it. What's the single most important conversation we have to have about this stuff ` life and work after 50? The single most important conversation is simply to start talking about what is this life stage for you, 50 through to 70/75. What is it that you want to be doing? what is important to you? and how are you going to take charge of creating that future for yourself? I think we would all love to be able to live longer if we can live well and if we can afford to. As it is today we already have challenges with our older generation one in seven or eight in them find themselves lonely or depressed and not feeling useful to society or purposeful. We need to solve and address those things as we continue to get old. As the guy at the Ports of Auckland talked about you can work for a really long time but you need to be retraining and reskilling and reframing what life looks like as you grow old and await moving from retiring to rewiring. There is a great example in New York right now where they are putting daycare inside retirement villages. They appearing them up and having that grandparents and grandchild relationship and urban cities. Those scenarios these become commonplace. There is intergenerational wisdom that can be shared. You spoke with great passion about inequality last night. It is about the reduced ability to participate. The other side of the inequality as the people who will be paying for our ageing population, the healthcare costs and retirement costs, I going to be predominantly Maori, Pacific and Asian people. So we don't address today's inequality problems the people that will be the tax makers of tomorrow won't be earning a high enough wage. By 2050 there will be fewer Pakeha than non-Pakeha. That's right. We are talking about 2037. They will be picking up the slack and if you think about the nature of the jobs that they currently have and they are in sectors that will be disrupted. There is a huge issue about an older European population propped up by a younger Brown population. This is a big discussion. These are big issues. They are complex and interwoven and there are so many different facets to think about. Here is something to think about. Do you expect to retire? Tell us what you think go to whatnext.nz and hit load next question. Himanshu says... 100 years is a long age. Next ` if the problem is we don't have enough planets to make all the stuff we want, do we need to think differently about how much stuff we want? Welcome back to what next. One of the big issues we're facing in the future is that we don't have enough resources to make all the stuff we want. And some of us reckon that stuff doesn't even make us happy. according to the University of Auckland's New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, 64% of us don't think owning luxury goods would make us happy, and only 21% of us think it would. Yet our personal debt is at an all time high. So is it us that has to change? Can we? I love having less. I don't have to think as much about small details. How do you make a decision which stuff to bring into your life? I decide what's important typically based on function. Is this thing something that I need in my life, and do I really actually need it? I feel like we're waking up out of a hangover from having consumed stuff for the last 30 years rampantly. I grew up in a family where for every Christmas we got heaps of toys, and we just accumulated a lot of stuff. And at that time that made sense. And I think what the world is starting to realise is that actually this doesn't really make that much sense. It's not doing what we were told that it would do, which was make us happy. Stuff doesn't really actually matter. And what does is connections and community and experience. So when you take the stuff away, you get more of all the good stuff. It is time for the good stuff. Because needing the three planets is in faraway. This is a question of what can make us buy less or share more. And we have evolving models in our economy than helping us share. And drivers that are encouraging us to buy less. But is something that works into the future what will drive us to do this. It will be either we can't afford it or we don't want it. An interesting thing is our concepts of ownership are changing. We don't need to own things like we did. But our ability to build systems to support borrowing or leasing as is a different way of accessing a car. But if it's down to borrowing a chainsaw of my neighbour, we are not doing that well. Start-ups doing that tanked really quickly. People buy into the idea but don't actually do it. I am that guy. I know it is terrible. But I just don't. And I know that there's people in the world without enough staff. But is in the world built on stuff? The world is changing technologies make it easier to do that . Once we make it easy like uber does I don't have to worry. It becomes convenient. Showing is one aspect of it. But we will invent new things to prevent waste. We are weak are continue to make waste and we build on the end of life into a product. And then there's a way of taking it apart and rebuilding it. All we redesign it like fast fashion. Within a decade where we can 3D printer own clothes and only when we need them. Talking about waste, one of the things I think is hard to get your head around when there's hungry children in a world. We throw away so much food. And so those people that are been thinking about that. Every single day, they save $9000 worth of food. Food that was destined for the bin. Well I think it just makes sense, you know? you've kind of got this issue of food waste, which is not ideal, obviously, and then you've got the issue of people needing to eat, and one problem just solves the other. What I've found is that businesses are doing all they can to minimise food waste, but they can't guarantee exactly how much food they need to make each day. And so if they waste food, it's coming out of their bottom line. And so instead of seeing that food go to waste, businesses want to make sure that it gets to people in need. I truly do believe that New Zealanders care about their communities. I believe that individuals want to see other individuals around them flourish, and that business owners want to operate in sustainable, ethical manners. The beauty of the Free Store is it provides a really simple invitation for people to contribute meaningfully in their community. And we don't ask a lot of people. We don't ask businesses to make more food for us. we simply ask that the food that's left over that's perfectly edible, that's made fresh that day, just doesn't go to waste. I'm on the sickness benefit, and I've got other bills to pay. I've got debts. By the time I pay all of that, I don't have enough money left for food. So I have to come here to get food. Hi, everyone! Thanks for coming tonight! A lot of people probably expect that people will take the mickey and turn up and just try and get some nice stuff for free. Yeah, I hear this nearly every day from people who think surely it gets taken advantage of, and in my experience over the last seven years, I've been blown away myself and had my own prejudices broken down because what I've seen time and time again is amazing good human nature that people in need for whatever reason are welcomed and they receive from us and those who aren't in a place of need are able to say, 'No, that's it for me, 'because surely someone else needs it more than me.' I have visited homes with empty fridges and cupboards. And we throw away $23 million of food a day. What I love about the show is the stories we have about amazing kiwis who see a problem and find a solution. When you look at hunger in New Zealand it is not so much a food problem but it is a logistics problem. It is not in the right place. We have the ability to understand where the food and hunger is and the technology to match the two. And if we decide that food isn't going to waste, we can prevent it from going to waste. I also love that young people are those changing the mould. They are the ones that are stepping up. I have faith in the average person not to abuse the system. And the power of technology to overcome inequality. And it can increase accessibility and democratisation. I think of Dr Lance Sullivans program that increases accessibility and overcoming barriers for lots of children. And that is the power of technology to solve the problems. Our responsibility is the effort. It is actually about trying different things. They are just so impressive these young people. They are different from us and that our generation looked for leadership from other people such as government. And they step up and just make things happen. And it is exciting to see what they are doing. Let's talk on behalf of our generation. Is sharing a value we understand. Could we become a sharing culture? The main thing that gets in the way of people sharing is people themselves. What we need to do is educate young people with those values that are committed to sharing. Because if people are confident, they have faith in each other, that they share this value, that if you share with someone, they will share with you, that's the way sharing will progress and become a part of who we are. And it shouldn't be that hard. It's one of the inheritances of New Zealand, of tangata whenua, that sharing is a part, a Maori concept, a part of who they are. It's a part of who Pacific people are. And until very recently, it also defined a large part of Europe as well, which was built on shared culture of giving. And not even holding land separately. Shea, I am sorry to pick on you. What do you say to that? I think sharing is common against many small communities. And yes in our heritage. The world is catching up. It is a blip in our history when sharing wasn't a thing. Technology is playing a role in enabling it. You can share everything between communities. You have digital payments that allow payment to be easier. And then with drone technology you can drop things off. It's much easier to share. It is also a human thing. I was thinking about my four-year-old boy. And I see them playing. Adults don't even share. We are useless. Technology can unable it but we have to think about how we share more. If we go back in time to when we grow up, we shared everything. The fruit from our trees and the resources from our garden. And it was a completely normal thing. So how do we get back to that? And have that reciprocal. I will share that with Nigel. When you balance up wanting nice things with the limited resources we have, could you make do with less stuff? We know there are lots of people who don't have even the basics, and that's part of the problem, but for those of us who do have some to spare, could you do with less? Go to whatnext.nz and make your choice. Brett from Auckland said... and that is true. You can go on to places like Bunnings. And now let's look at whether or not you expect to retire? Across-the-board 75% of people are saying yes. And retirement and superannuation this worries me. We aren't grasping the numbers. Because that is a big hurdle as a country. Next ` housing seems a bit of a disaster at the moment. Will technology give us solutions to that in 20 years? One of the things we talk about a lot is housing, and the reason we talk about it a lot is because it's really important, and it's a really big problem. Our houses used to be modest affairs, but they've doubled in size since the 1970's. These giant new houses gobble up resources, land, building materials and energy. On top of that, there are currently 42,000 people who are either homeless ` that's living on the streets or in cars or living in garages. We have a housing crisis. And because of population growth, the housing problem is only going to get worse in the future. Will the next generation ever own a house? There are a host of new ideas about how and where we should live. A house you can build in six weeks from push the button to in your house for less than $200,000. And if you have children you can give them a bit of the house when they finally move out. Can you explain the concept of a Wikihouse? That's about the hardest question you can ask us. That's the first question everyone asks. So a Wikihouse is based on taking ordinary off-the-shelf materials, low-level technology ` doesn't need to be high-tech. You can get ordinary people with limited skills in construction to assemble those, and therefore assemble a whole building, but one designed for exceptionally beyond the current building code requirements. It's just so simple, and we've designed a lot of these slots, so they're keyed; the wrong piece can't go into the wrong place. What's wrong with the way that we currently build houses? We're starting to look at a lot of things which are wrong with our conventional houses. In particular, why are they damp, cold and unaffordable? You only need to build what you can afford to build at any given time. you can dramatically reduce or, possibly in the future, eliminate the cost of borrowing. You have a kit set of parts, but they're like a big Lego set. You can buy more parts as you need them. You can split your set, so change them off and adapt and change your house as your needs change and as your needs grow. And then later on in the building's life, if you've got a family and they're growing up and you want to provide for those children, you could potentially split away part of the building and give that to you child as a starter home, so they're debt free starting life; they've already got a home without any debt at all. Why do we need Wikihouses? We just think that too much of our money is tied up in housing as much as anything else. My vision would be to free up a huge amount of the financial investment resources out of this housing chain, and make it available for other initiatives and the things that people want to do, that makes their life meaningful, rather than being slaves to their mortgages. I love the Wikihouse crew. They have been a big part of rebuilding Christchurch. And for trying to pioneer a new way of thinking about housing. Whether it is Wikihouse or 3D printing and construction or looking at intergenerational ways of living we can see that communities and the industry are resistant to change. Wikihouse a struggle to raise funds. So we have resistance to change and an absolute need to change. The sharing economy when the rubber hits the road, we find it a bit tricky. That really frustrates me as we can see there is a great example of a pioneer. They do find it difficult to raise capital and yet we can't build houses fast enough. As a country how do we get the system to change to get great initiatives like this happening more. We need to develop really good pace based strategies. You have to mix transportation and health and social housing. We have a separate system of local government and central government. We need to put that aside. And then we can develop communities. Hobsonville Pt for example. The lawnmowing shed is happening in those communities. They have Facebook pages and parks created by developers. They are creating a great way forward. The people are not waiting for the system. They are coming up with ideas. We found people in Dunedin who are looking at away of building a community. It is based around cohousing. Why do we need co-housing? Like, what's wrong with just houses? Well, I think there's a group of people in society who are feeling that the typical stand-alone house on it's individual section with its individual garden doesn't really fit their needs very well ` leaves them feeling relatively isolated and makes interaction on a social level really difficult. It's basically for anyone who doesn't mind interacting with the neighbours a little bit more and is happy to share resources a little bit more. We're very fortunate that we've got a big square and very flat section. It's kind of houses, houses, shared space, and then just a big green area for kids to play in? Big green area, yeah, that's right. Being a single mum with a little girl, how wonderful it would be to have all these interactions with all the neighbours. And what a wonderful thing it could be to get to know my neighbours really well. Catherine, do you think the concept of co-housing is something that ordinary New Zealanders would go for? Well, we're ordinary New Zealanders, you know? It is hard work because of some of the things about doing things differently always are, but the more we do co-housing, the easier it will become. From a legal kind of point of view, you own your own house and then you've also spaces within this building, which will be turned into what's called the common house. And in that building, we will have a big main multi-use space, which will have a kitchen attached to it. So there's the potential for shared meals within that. We also have a few guest rooms, and the intention here is to be able to reduce the size of the house that people otherwise purchase. Rather than taking away from the typical house, we're simply adding to it. And I mean, it does have a lot of opportunities to share. I don't think it needs to be intimidating, the whole sharing aspect. We want to talk to you about sharing and how far you are prepared to go. Four people my age and older it is a touchy and scary idea. I have a lawn about this big and all the people on my street have won the same size and they own it. That is stupid. Could wesheer? So New Zealand, would you share a toolshed with your neighbours? Go to whatnext.nz and tell us what you think. I would love to share a lawnmower. Then I can say I can't mow the lawn because it is not there. Someone else has got it. He has got a really good point. When you look at the graph whether you could get by with less stuff, three quarters of you say yes. It is 93%. They are saying yes. The 6% who are saying no might not have much stuff to start with. People get the fact that we don't need stuff any more Next ` let's bring your voices together and see how we all want to be living in the future. What is the take-home point? People are worried about 9 billion people and I would say then he's been more patients and more technology and information and we can solve it. I think we're looking at back to the Future solutions. The sharing community and cohousing. Going back into community values of our grandparents generation and before. Technology is enabling us to do what some cheesy New York billboard said the meaning of life is deliver life of meaning. We'll have a growing elderly population that we have to invest those who are earning salaries to afford that and those costs. And that will be a young Maori and Pacific people. One of my favourite sayings is life as long if you know how to use it. Life will be a bit longer we all have many ways in which we can use it. We all have creative and us. And that can come out with the more time we live. I love that we are thinking about our values and thinking about where our generosity is and what more we can be doing. Thank you. So, let's see if you'd share a toolshed with your neighbours. 75%said yes. And 25% is see it's an excuse not to mow the lawn. These are small beginnings with new ideas. We work hard and liked own things. But maybe there's some things we don't need to or own. It is interesting to see how you responded. Most are happy to share and have less. But retirement is the really tricky point. Most expect to retire. But many don't want to live 130. Our last question ` do you think Plan A or Plan B Vote Plan A if you think that our lifestyle now is how we should keep going into the future, and vote Plan B if you think we need some new ideas. Do you think plan a Plan B for the best way of life. That is what we want to know. Continue the conversation ` head to Facebook now, where ` thanks to the support of University of Auckland ` we are hosting a livestream think tank, where our Futurists will be discussing the comments and choices you made tonight. They get to talk more. See you live tomorrow at 8:30 as we pull this whole thing together and work out what you said you want for our future. Captions by Antony Vlug and Ingrid Lauder. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2017