Thanks so much Rukmini, sorry sorry I was not able to attend,, though I planned it. So thank you... will watch.

Quite tricky this one Nadene. I guess that with all forms of relationship, a line exists or need to be drawn. I love the possibilities offered by the AI i use, I love being able to challenge it whilst feeling safe it would not turn its back. And I also engage in human type of behaviour towards it, like saying hello and thanks. But if the line gets blurred, should we not redraw it?

Thanks Nadene. Pardon me if the word 'tricky' I used could lend to believe that I was mentioning that someone was tricking the other. It was not, and is not, the case. It was the way I expressed that there is ambiguity that needs to be explored. The EU AI Act from its table of contents, does offer reassurance that there is a will to govern it for the well-being of all and I would trust that it addresses all concerns. May I point out that there are two sides to the appropriation of anything, albeit be it of AI. And both sides may require 'consideration'. The shared side provides for a general guideline and a common ground. The uniquely personal side allows to adjust the weightage of the items under 'consideration'... but this is a different meaning of the term 'consideration' Hope this clarifies what I meant.

Thank you @Elizabeth Minotti for underlining that behind the climate crisis is a behaviour crisis. And thanks for pointing to the need for more access to higher self. Please share your views on what could 'enable' and/or 'call for' the kind of behaviour that would bring the right responses to the current climate 'crisis'.

Hi Sarah, and hi Nadene and Sybille, and hi all, you are providing us here with a great place and indeed are giving in quite a portion of your time and energy. First and foremost, thank you. That place has and is allowing us to connect with people, who we might have known or not before, and it is a place of common interests like: - shared hopes; - similarities in the ways we look at the world; - the feeling of walking in the same direction; - and maybe also, battles that to some degrees are same, and that may correspond in trying to put the human being at the center of our concerns. Indeed, finding sustainable options to keep going would be key. If ever you want to work on those options in group settings, count me in. You mentioned paid membership as one option. May I share a few thoughts about what comes to my mind. I would say to look at the existing situation from different perspectives and also from different places. Why? Because it seems to me that we are trying here to find options to keep going in a sustainable way. Hence, we might have to spend some time to analyse options that we could have, for some reasons, discarded, if we put at the center of our consideration, paid membership. One dimension that could be interesting to explore is how to have this place here generate value in monetary terms, and not necessarily from direct membership fees. You would understand that this requires to consider IDG as a movement expanding around the world. One area in this dimension would be how to get members here to bring something to the table that could generate value in monetary terms and not only cost. And the generation of this value would be for all, and I really mean all. This would continue to require time, knowledge, willingness, understanding and efforts from all. Another area would be how IDG, as the parent of the movement, could support initiatives carried on here. Accordingly, in this thinking, there could be generation of value balanced with distribution of value.

Thanks @Nadene Canning. You know you can rely on me to invest myself when my word is given. IDGs is absolutely promising, and I guess that this will be a conversation for applying IDGs in practical ways.

Thank you @M. Aurelius Higgs The into video does make things clear for me, and specifically by using the terms 'sustainable development projects' it does locate the domain as being 'projects', and what qualifies it as being 'sustainable'. It also highlights the purpose which from my understanding is to align inner and have impact outer. Really helpful as often I hear another word, namely 'sustainability' as an existing thing by itself which gets me confused. As then I have to put in in my context (in my mind) which might not be the same as the one referring to it. Anyway, thanks. If the circumstances require, I would be eager to use your platform.

Thank you so much @M. Aurelius Higgs for sharing such valuable ressource. It does provide at start with a mind opening and awakening information; followed by meaning and definition; then promoting dialogue; providing means and tools; caters for repetition and memorising; reconfirms the value of the content shared; and finally a practical how-to ressource. Allow me to say that to me this is a great piece of thinking and of work. I read only the outline of benefits by section. One concern though: Let me share a philosophical stance that seems to guide the thinking and the process: 1. The approach considers the acute specific anxieties of modern young adulthood. Might be good to explore how this 'a priori' will shed light on what, and what might be kept in the dark. Like for instance, by assuming the pre-existence of these conditions in young adulthood (whether sampled or not), it assumes that it is not the case for their parents, and furthermore, validate their parents as habilitated to handle such conditions, albeit in their own children. 2. The 'posteriori is 'indirect reference' (see Eugene Gendlin's work) as it seeks to provide scientific validation and clear road map, like a process to follow. Which to my opinion is essential for research, and for quite a range of engineering, but maybe disempowering for real life as neither the parents, nor the children would be encouraged to find their own paths through life experiences, using intuition to some extent as well as trial and error. You may argue it does, i would say, their thinking will already be framed by the 'reasoned' path provided. But you may be totally right in doing so if it has brought positive results. All this said, maybe I am totally wrong as I have not read the content and only deriving from the outline.