In defense of Davos, or at least its cosmopolitanism

>I suspect either the elites or the explorers of today are better when it comes to understanding differing perspectives of gender, neurology, sexuality, race, age (should you beat your kids?), and a variety of other dimensions

Sorry, but I don't find this to be compelling. "Elites of today" are also terrible long-term planners when you compare to most human history.

If your innovation helps one generation and destroys all others, you're not that prominent or benevolent.

If Davos vanished, would anything change? Help me understand how to see it as more than elitist, pseudointellectual BS.

It would be okay I guess, we would still have Bilderberg meetings.

>It seems unfair to compare Davos sessions to some rather robust, historically important, top-of-the-line explorers. Virtually all sessions are boring, including or maybe even especially in the 19th or early 20th centuries.

So is his argument that Davos is unimportant or is he waffling?

The endless quest for self-importance continues I see.