Diamandis and Kotler were neither. They were making an empirical argument, grounded in the data Hans Rosling had been trying unsuccessfully to communicate to audiences in his Gapminder presentations: that by virtually every measurable indicator of human welfare — extreme poverty rates, child mortality, maternal mortality, literacy, access to clean water, access to electricity, life expectancy, violent conflict, hunger — the world in 2012 was dramatically better than the world in 1972, and dramatically better than the world in 1912. The trajectory wasn’t flat or declining. It was improving at rates that, sustained, would produce a world of material abundance within the lifetimes of people then living.
The mechanism Diamandis and Kotler proposed for sustaining and accelerating that trajectory was technology — specifically, the exponential technologies that were in the deception phase of their development curves in 2012 and that would, over the following decade, begin producing the disruptions and democratizations that have since transformed transportation, communication, healthcare, energy, and information access. Abundance is both a historical argument (the world has been getting better) and a forward projection (here’s why it will continue to get better, and who’s making it happen). It’s one of the most important arguments in contemporary public discourse, and one of the most consistently misunderstood.
Plain Truth on Abundance
Abundance is a genuinely important book that makes a genuinely important argument with genuine intellectual rigor. The empirical case for progress — the compilation of data across health, poverty, education, and violence that forms the book’s foundation — is solid, well-sourced, and has been substantially validated by subsequent scholarship, including Steven Pinker’s Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now, which make overlapping arguments with greater statistical depth.
The limitations are real and significant. The book’s optimism about exponential technology is often presented without adequate acknowledgment of second-order consequences, distributional effects, and the genuine difficulty of deploying technological solutions to challenges with deep social, political, and institutional roots. Clean water technology exists; the barriers to universal clean water access are not primarily technological. Solar panels are getting cheaper; the barriers to universal clean energy access are not primarily about panel cost. Diamandis’s tendency to frame these as technology problems susceptible to technology solutions underestimates the non-technological dimensions of the challenges.
The book also underweights the risks associated with exponential technologies themselves — biosafety risks in synthetic biology, existential risks in AI development, ecological risks from geoengineering, concentration-of-power risks from platform monopolies. These aren’t addressed with the seriousness they deserve in a book fundamentally about the consequences of exponential technology deployment.
The verdict: read it as an essential corrective to the media-driven narrative of inevitable decline. Apply it knowing progress is real but not automatic, and that the challenges of sustaining it are at least as much political and institutional as technological.
The Data Behind the Optimism: What the Numbers Actually Show
The empirical foundation of Abundance is the most important and most frequently underweighted section of the book. Before making any argument about exponential technology or future projections, Diamandis and Kotler compile the historical data on human welfare improvements that establishes the baseline their forward-looking claims are built on. That data is striking, and the fact that it isn’t common knowledge reflects a systematic bias in how media and public discourse process information about the world.
Extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 per day in 2011 purchasing power parity, declined from approximately 36% of global population in 1990 to approximately 10% in 2015, and it’s still falling. Over the timeframe of a single generation, the absolute number of people in extreme poverty fell by more than a billion despite significant population growth — the fastest reduction in poverty in human history. The mechanism was primarily economic growth in China, India, and Southeast Asia, enabled by globalization, technology adoption, and institutional improvement.
Child mortality — one of the most direct indicators of a society’s capacity to provide basic welfare — has fallen from approximately 93 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1960 to approximately 38 per 1,000 today, a decline of more than 60 percent. The absolute number of child deaths annually has fallen from approximately 20 million in 1960 to under 7 million today, despite a substantially larger global population. Vaccines, oral rehydration therapy, insecticide-treated bed nets, and improved nutrition are the primary drivers — technologies that exist, that work, and that are being scaled through public health infrastructure, international aid, and innovative distribution models including Diamandis’s preferred mechanism of entrepreneurial innovation.
Literacy rates globally have risen from approximately 67% in 1980 to approximately 87% today, with the largest improvements in regions that were most deficient. Access to electricity — which Diamandis treats as a fundamental enabler of economic opportunity, education, and health — has expanded from 76% of global population in 1990 to over 90% today, with the remaining gap primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
The violence data is the most counterintuitive component of the abundance argument. Despite the media saturation of conflict coverage, per capita death rates from conflict, homicide, and interpersonal violence have declined significantly over the timeframe of recorded history. Steven Pinker’s comprehensive treatment of this data demonstrates that the 21st century, despite its genuine conflicts, is the least violent in human history by per capita measures — a fact so inconsistent with the lived sense of global chaos that most people simply disbelieve it.
“The news media is systematically biased toward catastrophe. It is not lying — each catastrophe it covers is real. It is selecting from a world where the dominant trend is improvement, and selecting only the subset of events that are exceptions to that trend.” — Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler
The Psychology of Scarcity: Why Humans Are Wired for Pessimism
One of the most important chapters in Abundance addresses why the data on human progress is so widely unknown — a question with a compelling evolutionary answer. The human brain was shaped by selection pressures operating in an environment where the primary threats were immediate and physical: predators, starvation, hostile neighboring groups. The neurological systems that evolved to manage those threats are highly sensitive to negative information and highly attentive to immediate threats, relative to their responsiveness to gradual improvements and statistical trends.
The negativity bias — the well-documented tendency to weight negative information more heavily than positive information of equivalent magnitude — is the psychological mechanism that makes the abundance narrative so difficult to absorb and retain. Bad news activates the amygdala and the threat-response systems more powerfully than good news activates the reward and approach systems. The brain spends more cognitive resources processing and remembering threats than processing and remembering opportunities. Adaptive in the ancestral environment. Systematically distorting in the modern information environment.
The media amplification mechanism makes the cognitive bias worse. News organizations compete for attention, and attention is captured by threat more effectively than by opportunity. A child who dies from a preventable disease in a developing country is a tragedy, but it isn’t news in the sense media organizations require — it’s a statistical event less frequent today than it was yesterday. A terrorist attack is news precisely because it’s an exception to the improving security environment that characterizes most people’s most of the time. The media ecosystem selects for exceptions to the dominant trend of improvement and presents them as the dominant trend itself.
Diamandis introduces the concept of the “rational optimist” — someone who accepts the evolutionary basis for pessimistic bias, corrects for it through deliberate engagement with empirical data, and maintains optimism grounded in evidence rather than in denial of genuine challenges. The rational optimist is not a Pollyanna ignoring real problems. It’s someone who engages with real problems in the context of an accurate understanding of the direction of historical change and the capacity of human ingenuity to continue it.
The Four Forces of Abundance: How Progress Happens
The first force is exponential technology — the same framework Diamandis develops in greater detail in Bold. Technologies that have been digitized enter exponential growth curves in capability and exponential decline curves in cost. When a technology’s capabilities cross the threshold required to address a specific human welfare challenge — clean energy, clean water, disease diagnosis, educational access — the cost of addressing that challenge drops rapidly toward the cost of information, which is approaching zero. Solar panel costs have declined more than 90% since 2010, following the pattern of photovoltaic learning curves economists had projected. Not magic. The inexorable progress of digitized manufacturing and design optimization operating on exponential curves.
The second force is what Diamandis calls the “rising billion” — the addition of billions of newly internet-connected people to the global innovation ecosystem. The people entering the global middle class in India, Africa, and Southeast Asia represent not only a massive new market for goods and services but a massive new source of human creativity, problem-solving, and entrepreneurial activity. Some of the most important innovations of the next twenty years will come from people who currently lack electricity, and who are being connected to the global information infrastructure by mobile technology faster than any previous technology deployment in history.
The third force is the DIY innovator — the democratization of innovation tools (3D printing, genetic sequencing, maker electronics, open-source AI) that makes it possible for small teams, individuals, and community organizations to attempt projects that previously required institutional resources. Garage biology labs, small-scale additive manufacturing, community mesh networks — these represent the distributed innovation capacity that complements and extends the institutional R&D that produced the first wave of exponential technologies.
The fourth force is the techno-philanthropist — the new class of extraordinarily wealthy technology entrepreneurs deploying their capital toward global challenges in ways that combine the scale of institutional philanthropy with the agility and risk tolerance of venture capital. Gates Foundation’s commitment to global health, Bezos Earth Fund’s climate investment, and the various philanthropic vehicles of technology wealth represent a new form of patient capital directed toward problems traditional philanthropy approached too incrementally and government was too politically constrained to address adequately.
The Grand Challenges: What Abundance Technology Is Solving
Diamandis and Kotler organize the forward-looking section of Abundance around the grand challenges of global welfare — water, food, energy, healthcare, education, and freedom — and for each, they survey the exponential technologies in the deception phase in 2012 that they project will produce the disruptions required for abundance solutions. A decade after publication, assessing the accuracy of those projections provides a useful empirical test of the framework.
In energy, the projection has been dramatically validated. Solar panel costs have declined approximately 90% since 2012 — faster than the book’s projections. Wind energy costs have declined proportionally. Battery storage costs have fallen at an even faster rate. The global energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables is now proceeding at a pace that the International Energy Agency, which was consistently wrong in the optimistic direction about renewable deployment, underestimated for a decade. In 2012, Diamandis’s projection of near-universal clean energy access within a generation was considered visionary. In 2024, it’s a mainstream projection.
In healthcare, the genomic and AI projections have partially materialized. The cost of whole genome sequencing has fallen from three billion dollars in 2003 to under five hundred dollars today. AI diagnostic systems are now FDA-approved for reading medical images in specific domains, and their performance exceeds that of specialist physicians in well-defined image classification tasks. COVID-19’s mRNA vaccine development — from sequence to authorized vaccine in approximately eleven months — demonstrated the power of exponential biotechnology in ways that validated the most optimistic claims in Abundance.
In education, the Coursera and Khan Academy projections have partially materialized but have encountered the behavioral and institutional resistance that Diamandis’s technology-centric framework predicted less clearly. The technology for delivering world-class education at near-zero marginal cost exists. Utilization rates and completion rates for free online education remain low, demonstrating that access to educational technology is necessary but not sufficient for educational transformation. The social, motivational, and credential-recognition dimensions of education that technology does not yet adequately address remain primary barriers.
What the Research Says: Evaluating the Abundance Argument in 2024
The research literature on progress and abundance has expanded substantially since Diamandis published this book, and the overall direction has validated the core empirical argument while complicating the forward projections. Max Roser’s Our World in Data project has become the most comprehensive and accessible repository of the long-term human welfare data Diamandis relies on, and its visualizations consistently show the improvement trends Abundance describes. Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now (2018) makes the overlapping argument with greater statistical rigor and has been the most influential academic treatment of the empirical case for progress.
The complicating data is also real. Global extreme poverty reduction stalled significantly in the early 2020s, partly due to COVID-19’s effects on developing economies. Climate change represents a genuinely systemic challenge whose full consequences may not be compatible with the business-as-usual extrapolation of historical improvement trends. Inequality within wealthy nations has increased while global inequality between nations has decreased — a distributional pattern that creates its own social and political instabilities. And the AI transition Diamandis projected as abundance-enabling has arrived faster than expected and with distributional consequences more contested than his framework anticipated.
The research on optimism and agency is directly relevant to the book’s prescription. Studies consistently show that calibrated optimism — the belief that positive outcomes are achievable through effort and that one’s own actions can influence outcomes — produces better health, better performance, greater persistence in the face of setbacks, and better decision-making under uncertainty than either naive optimism (expecting good outcomes regardless of action) or pessimism. Diamandis’s argument for rational optimism as a mindset is not merely ideological; it’s psychologically functional, in the sense that it supports the action-taking and problem-solving that actually produces positive outcomes.
The RW Framework: Cultivating Rational Optimism
- Consume global welfare data as a counterweight to news. Our World in Data (ourworldindata.org) provides the empirical context that news media systematically omits. Spending thirty minutes monthly reviewing the long-term trend data on the metrics that matter — poverty, child mortality, literacy, energy access, life expectancy — recalibrates the sense of the world’s trajectory away from the crisis-saturated picture that daily news provides. This is not willful ignorance of genuine problems; it is contextualizing those problems within an accurate understanding of the dominant trend.
- Apply the abundance mindset to your personal challenges. The scarcity mindset that produces pessimism at the global scale produces the same cognitive distortions at the personal scale. The person who approaches a significant life challenge with the genuine belief that the resources, relationships, and creative solutions required to address it exist and are discoverable is more likely to find them than the person who approaches the same challenge with the conviction that they are insufficient and resources are unavailable. Optimism is not the absence of accurate threat assessment; it is the addition of accurate opportunity assessment alongside it.
- Track the exponential technologies that are relevant to your domain. The specific technologies that are in the deception phase today in your industry or career domain will be in the disruption phase within five to ten years. Identifying them early, engaging with the research, and positioning for their disruption rather than against it is the strategic application of the abundance framework at the individual level.
- Contribute to progress at the scale you can. Diamandis’s techno-philanthropist force is not relevant to most people. But the DIY innovator force — the democratization of tools that enables individuals and small groups to work on meaningful problems — is. Identify a specific problem that matters to you and that the combination of your skills, accessible technology, and community engagement could meaningfully address. The abundance framework is not primarily a spectator sport; it is an invitation to contribute to the processes it describes.
- Build information hygiene that corrects for negativity bias. The negativity bias is neurological and cannot be eliminated by knowing it exists. It can be partially corrected through deliberate information practices: consuming the long-form analysis that contextualizes news events within historical trends, explicitly seeking out evidence of progress when the news cycle is dominated by crisis, and maintaining awareness of the selection effects that make the news an unrepresentative sample of the world’s actual state.
Internal Links: Related Reading on This Site
Abundance’s core argument connects to our review of Bold, Diamandis’s companion volume on exponential entrepreneurship. The psychological negativity bias framework connects to our coverage of cognitive biases and decision-making. The historical progress data connects to our society, progress, and the pessimism problem overview. The technology disruption framework connects to our exponential technology and the future overview. And the rational optimism mindset connects to our research on optimism, resilience, and performance.
Key Lessons from Abundance
- The empirical data on human welfare across poverty, child mortality, literacy, violence, and energy access shows consistent improvement over the past century and particularly the past four decades. This data is widely unknown because media selection systematically emphasizes exceptions to improving trends rather than the trends themselves.
- The negativity bias — the brain’s greater responsiveness to threat information than to opportunity information — is an evolutionary adaptation that is systematically distorting in the modern information environment. Correcting for it requires deliberate engagement with data, not just optimistic sentiment.
- Four forces are driving ongoing human progress: exponential technology, the rising billion of newly connected innovators, democratized innovation tools, and techno-philanthropy. Understanding them as a system produces different forward projections than the crisis-focused narrative of conventional media.
- Exponential technology projections have been largely validated in energy and healthcare since publication. The institutional and behavioral dimensions of deploying technology solutions to social challenges have proven more resistant than the technology framework predicted.
- Rational optimism — optimism grounded in data and sustained by accurate understanding of trend directions — is both empirically defensible and psychologically functional. It produces better decision-making, greater persistence, and better health outcomes than either naive optimism or pessimism.
- The abundance argument is not that problems do not exist — it is that the toolkit for solving them is improving faster than they are deteriorating, and that the trajectory of human capability is on the right side of the ledger when assessed at historical rather than news-cycle timescales.
What People Ask About Abundance Summary
Climate change is the most significant challenge to the abundance thesis, and Diamandis doesn’t adequately address it in the original book. The renewable energy transition he projected has materialized faster than expected — the optimistic component. But the accumulated greenhouse gas concentration from two centuries of fossil fuel use represents a systemic risk whose full consequences are still unfolding, and whose mitigation requires not just technology deployment but institutional and political coordination at a scale and speed technology alone cannot produce. The updated answer: the energy technology required for a clean energy transition exists and is cost-competitive; the pace of transition deployment is the primary question, and it’s primarily a political and institutional question, not a technological one.
Does abundance thinking justify ignoring current crises?
No. Diamandis is explicit on this point: acknowledging the trajectory of improvement does not require denying the reality of current suffering. A child dying of a preventable disease today is a real tragedy regardless of whether child mortality rates are lower than they were in 1960. The abundance framework is not a reason for complacency; it is an accurate understanding of the direction of change that provides the motivational context for continued problem-solving. Problems are more solvable when approached from a trajectory of improving capability than from a conviction that decline is inevitable.
What is the relationship between abundance and inequality?
Global inequality — the gap between the world’s wealthiest and poorest nations — has decreased significantly as developing countries have grown faster than wealthy ones. Within-country inequality in wealthy nations has increased significantly over the same period, as the distributional effects of technological change have concentrated gains among capital owners and highly-skilled workers. Diamandis’s framework addresses the global dimension more comfortably than the within-nation dimension. The abundance of technology does not automatically produce equitable distribution of its benefits, and the political economy questions about distribution that the book underweights are among the most important questions of the current moment.
How do exponential risks — AI, bioweapons, climate tipping points — fit into the abundance framework?
Imperfectly. Abundance was written before the existential AI risk debate became mainstream and before climate science had clarified the risk of tipping point feedbacks. Diamandis’s updated position acknowledges these risks more directly than the 2012 text, but the book as written provides inadequate treatment of the downside risks of the technologies it celebrates. Readers who engage seriously with the abundance argument should pair it with literature on existential and catastrophic risks — the work of Nick Bostrom, Toby Ord, and the Future of Humanity Institute provides the necessary counterweight.
Is the “rising billion” projection accurate?
The mobile internet expansion has proceeded approximately as Diamandis projected, with global internet connectivity rising from approximately 2.5 billion users in 2012 to over 5.5 billion in 2024. The innovation contributions of newly connected populations have been significant, particularly in fintech (M-Pesa in Kenya), mobile healthcare (mHealth applications in India and Africa), and distributed education. The full innovation impact of expanded global connectivity will unfold over the coming decades as educational attainment and institutional development catch up with connectivity infrastructure.
What should I read alongside this book?
Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker provides the most rigorous and comprehensive empirical treatment of the progress argument, with greater statistical depth and historical scope than Abundance. Factfulness by Hans Rosling provides the data visualization that makes the progress argument most viscerally accessible. Bold by Diamandis and Kotler provides the entrepreneurial framework for contributing to the abundance trajectory. The Precipice by Toby Ord provides the essential counterweight — an Oxford philosopher’s rigorous treatment of existential risks that the abundance argument needs to account for. And Progress by Johan Norberg provides a compact, data-rich treatment of human welfare improvements across multiple dimensions.
The argument in Abundance is not that everything is fine. It’s that the tools for making things better are improving faster than most people believe, and that the mindset with which people engage with problems determines in large part whether those tools get applied or not. The pessimist who believes decline is inevitable is less likely to work on solutions than the rational optimist who believes solutions are achievable. At a systemic level, the aggregate of these individual orientations toward possibility or futility influences the collective capacity for the problem-solving that actually produces the improvements the data documents.
Diamandis and Kotler aren’t asking readers to stop worrying. They’re asking readers to worry accurately — to direct concern toward problems while maintaining awareness of the capability trajectory that makes those problems solvable, rather than to experience a generalized despair that’s both empirically unjustified and motivationally corrosive. The accurate picture of the world is one of genuine problems occurring within a dominant trend of improving human capability to address them. That picture is both more accurate and more useful than either uncritical optimism or evidence-free pessimism.
In the decade since publication, the world has produced both validation of the abundance argument (energy transition, COVID vaccine development, poverty reduction continuation) and challenges to it (pandemic institutional failures, rising within-country inequality, escalating climate impacts). The honest reading of that record is that the empirical foundation of Abundance is solid and that the forward projections require more uncertainty acknowledgment than the book’s confident tone provided. The progress is real. The trajectory is not guaranteed. The human capacity to accelerate or derail it is at least as large as the technological forces the book celebrates.
The Institutional Gap: Where Technology Meets Its Limits
The most durable criticism of Abundance is that it underweights the institutional dimension of progress — the political, social, and organizational structures that determine whether technological capabilities translate into human welfare improvements. The technology for providing universal clean water exists. The barriers are primarily political economy: water infrastructure requires public investment, maintenance institutions, and governance structures that technology cannot substitute for. The technology for delivering universal primary education exists. The barriers include teacher training, cultural attitudes toward girls’ education, and institutional capacity that are orthogonal to the cost of educational content delivery.
This institutional gap is not an argument against the abundance thesis. It’s a specification of where the work is hardest. The technology optimism in Abundance is most accurate for problems where the primary barrier is cost or access to technical capability, and less accurate for problems where the primary barriers are institutional, political, or behavioral. Understanding which category your specific challenge falls into determines how much use the exponential technology framework provides and how much additional work in institutional development, political coalition-building, or behavioral change is required alongside it.
The Scarcity Mindset and Its Costs: The Personal Abundance Argument
Beyond its macro-level argument about global human welfare, Abundance makes an implicit argument about the costs of operating from a scarcity mindset at the personal level — an argument Diamandis doesn’t develop fully but that the book’s psychological section sets up clearly. The negativity bias and scarcity-oriented cognition are not merely passive distortions of perception. They’re active constraints on the range of possibilities people consider and the energy they invest in pursuing solutions.
The research on scarcity mindset, developed most rigorously by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir in their book Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, shows that cognitive preoccupation with scarcity — whether of money, time, or resources — measurably reduces cognitive bandwidth available for problem-solving, planning, and self-control. People under conditions of genuine scarcity make worse decisions on unrelated tasks, have lower performance on IQ tests, and show reduced capacity for self-regulation. The scarcity mindset is not just a pessimistic framing. It’s a cognitive load that impairs the very capabilities most required to escape the scarcity condition.
The abundance mindset Diamandis advocates is therefore not merely motivationally preferable to scarcity thinking. It’s cognitively superior, in the sense that it preserves bandwidth for the problem-solving and opportunity recognition that produce the outcomes justifying optimism in the first place. The person who genuinely believes the resources required to address their challenge exist and are discoverable will invest cognitive resources in finding them. The person who’s already concluded resources are insufficient won’t — and will be right in a self-fulfilling way that has nothing to do with the actual availability of resources.
Applied to the individual context: what would it mean to approach your most significant current challenge as an abundance problem rather than a scarcity problem? Not to deny real constraints, but to ask — given the resources, connections, technologies, and creative solutions that exist in the world, what would need to happen for this challenge to be addressed at the scale it deserves? The quality of that question is different from “what can I realistically accomplish with what I currently have,” and the answers it generates are correspondingly different. This is the personal application of the abundance framework, and it’s available to everyone regardless of whether exponential technologies are disrupting their specific domain.
Techno-Philanthropy and the New Model of Social Change
Diamandis’s fourth driving force of abundance — the techno-philanthropist — has developed significantly since Abundance was published, and the patterns that have emerged deserve attention both for what they demonstrate about Diamandis’s forward-looking framework and for what they reveal about the limits of private capital as a mechanism for solving global challenges.
The Gates Foundation’s two-decade investment in global health has produced some of the most dramatic philanthropic returns in history: dramatic reductions in polio incidence (on the verge of eradication), near-elimination of Guinea worm disease (from 3.5 million cases in 1986 to fewer than 20 in 2023), and major contributions to malaria prevention through insecticide-treated bed net distribution. The foundation’s approach — treating global health as a technology and logistics challenge amenable to systematic investment — validates the abundance framework’s premise that combining private capital with exponential technology deployment can produce outcomes at previously impossible scale.
The limits have also become clearer. The Gates Foundation’s investments in global education reform — particularly its early support for small schools and later its charter school initiatives — produced more mixed and contested results than its global health work, partly because education is a more institutionally complex challenge than vaccine distribution and partly because the foundation’s private-sector-derived assumptions about what “works” in education were less well-matched to the challenge’s specific complexity. The lesson is consistent with the institutional gap argument: techno-philanthropy works best for challenges where the primary barriers are technological and logistical, and encounters the same difficulties as any other technology-centric approach when the primary barriers are institutional, political, or cultural.
The newer generation of techno-philanthropists — the Bezos Earth Fund’s climate investment, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s science and education work, various AI safety and existential risk philanthropies — will provide additional data on the model’s scope and limits over the coming decade. The pattern Diamandis identified in 2012 is real: a new class of extraordinarily well-resourced private actors is deploying capital toward global challenges with the agility and risk tolerance public funding structures cannot match. Whether that deployment produces proportionate impact on the challenges it targets — or produces techno-solutionist interventions that address symptoms while leaving institutional root causes intact — is the empirical question the next decade will answer.
Related: Awaken the Giant Within Summary
Related: The Coddling of the American Mind Summary
NOT JUST READING ABOUT IT ›
Join the Wolf Pack — mentorship and accountability for men who are done thinking about change
References
Editorial StandardsCorrectionsMedical DisclaimerAbout Our ContentAffiliate DisclosureSite Map