Ezio Manzini - WDC Valencia 2022, Design Policy Conference

Summary

El discurso aborda la necesidad de redefinir el diseño para abordar el cambio social en tiempos de crisis ambiental, social y política. El orador enfatiza la importancia de la colaboración y el cuidado en lugar de la competencia, y propone que el diseño debe generar condiciones que fomenten la proximidad y el cuidado mutuo, siendo esenciales para una sociedad sostenible y resiliente. Plantea que el diseño debe ser una co-diseño en la que todos participan y que, frente a la complejidad, el diseñador debe tomar decisiones éticas y navegar en el sistema.

Takeaways

• 🕒 El discurso se centra en el tiempo y la importancia de adaptarse a las circunstancias cambiantes.
• 🔄 La crítica a la visión simplista del cambio, enfatizando la complejidad de la realidad actual en contraste con el pasado.
• 🌱 La necesidad de un cambio social y técnico, más allá de la innovación tecnológica pura.
• 🌍 La percepción de una crisis múltiple ambiental, social, política y de guerra que demanda un cambio de modelo.
• 🧭 La importancia de definir una dirección para el cambio, que no es un problema técnico sino una elección humana.
• 🤝 La promoción de la colaboración y el cuidado como pilar de un sistema sostenible y resiliente.
• 👥 La visión de la sociedad como una red de interrelaciones, donde el diseño busca fomentar la proximidad y el cuidado mutuo.
• 🌐 La crítica a la idea de que el sistema es inmutable y que solo podemos adaptarnos a él, en lugar de buscar activamente cambiarlo.
• 🛠 La afirmación de que el diseño no es la creación de un producto fijo, sino la generación de condiciones que permitan la transformación.
• 🌟 La necesidad de aceptar y promover la complejidad, en lugar de intentar reducirla o controlarla.
• 🚀 La llamada a la acción para los diseñadores, quienes deben ser agentes activos en la co-diseño de soluciones, aceptando su rol en la sociedad.

Q & A

¿Cuál es el título original del discurso y cómo se adapta el orador para su presentación?

El título original es 'Rethinking Design for Social Change', pero el orador lo adapta a 'Rethinking Social Change to Decide What Design Can Do', enfocándose en cómo el diseño puede contribuir al cambio social en lugar de simplemente hablar de un cambio en el diseño.

¿Por qué el orador insiste en la importancia de mirar más allá de nosotros mismos para entender el cambio social?

El orador cree que el cambio social crítico no es solo una discusión interna, sino más bien lo que sucede fuera de nosotros y lo que formamos parte, destacando que la comprensión del contexto más amplio es crucial para el cambio efectivo.

¿Cómo describe el orador la relación entre el diseño y la innovación en el pasado?

Según el orador, el diseño surgió hace un siglo con el propósito de innovar, donde la innovación era principalmente tecnológica y el progreso parecía ser una línea clara y directa hacia sociedades más avanzadas.

¿Qué crisis múltiples enfrenta la sociedad actual según el discurso?

El orador menciona crisis ambiental, social, política y la reciente crisis de guerra, destacando que estas crisis reflejan la necesidad urgente de un cambio en el modelo existente.

¿Qué tipo de cambio es necesario según el orador para abordar las crisis actuales?

El orador sugiere que se necesita un cambio social-técnico, que va más allá de la tecnología y abarca cambios sociales significativos, incluyendo la creación de una sociedad sostenible y resiliente.

¿Por qué el orador considera que la dirección del cambio no es un problema de ingeniería, sino una elección?

Porque el orador cree que la dirección del cambio no puede ser determinada por un algoritmo o un proceso técnico, sino que es una decisión consciente y emocional que cada individuo debe tomar.

¿Qué papel desempeña la idea de 'cuidado' en la visión del orador para un cambio social?

El 'cuidado' es un concepto central para el orador, quien lo ve como una forma de reconectar con los demás y el entorno, sugiriendo que una sociedad que se ocupa de sus miembros y del medio ambiente es fundamental para la sostenibilidad y resiliencia.

¿Qué es la 'proximidad' y por qué es importante para el orador en el contexto del diseño y el cambio social?

La 'proximidad' se refiere a la cercanía física y relacional, y es crucial para el orador porque permite el cuidado y la conexión humana, lo que es esencial para una sociedad sostenible y resiliente.

¿Cómo ve el orador el papel del diseñador en el proceso de cambio social en el contexto de sistemas complejos?

El orador considera que los diseñadores no diseñan el futuro, sino que perturban el sistema con intervenciones que pueden generar transformaciones inesperadas, enfocándose en el co-diseño y la aceptación de la complejidad.

¿Qué desafíos identifica el orador para el diseño en la era de la complejidad y la co-diseño?

El orador identifica el desafío de aceptar y navegar en la complejidad, tomar decisiones éticas en un contexto de incertidumbre y encontrar su posición en el co-diseño, donde todos participan en el proceso de cambio.

¿Cómo concluye el orador sobre la necesidad de los diseñadores en el mundo actual?

El orador concluye que los diseñadores son desesperadamente necesarios, no porque todos puedan diseñar, sino porque su entrenamiento, metodología y experiencia son valiosos para enriquecer el co-diseño y aportar ideas y enfoques innovadores.

Outlines

00:00

🌏 Redefiniendo el Diseño para el Cambio Social

El orador inicia agradeciendo la invitación y enfatiza la importancia de abordar el cambio social desde una perspectiva más amplia, que incluye factores externos al diseño. Explica que el diseño tradicional se centraba en la innovación tecnológica para humanizar la tecnología y guiar la transición de sociedades tradicionales a sociedades industriales modernas. Sin embargo, en el contexto actual de crisis ambiental, social y política, se hace necesario replantear el papel del diseño para abordar estos desafíos. El orador destaca la necesidad de una reflexión más profunda sobre el cambio social y cómo el diseño puede contribuir a ello, más allá de la mera innovación tecnológica.

05:01

🔄 Cambio Social y Técnico: Una Transformación Necesaria

El orador aborda la urgencia de un cambio social y técnico, argumentando que cualquier transformación social implica la utilización de tecnología y que, por ende, el diseño debe ser un proceso de co-diseño que involucre a todas las partes interesadas. Se hace un llamado a la acción para que el diseño no solo busque soluciones técnicas, sino que defina la dirección que se desea tomar, reconociendo que el camino a seguir no es un proceso lineal y predecible, sino que requiere la toma de decisiones éticas y la consideración de la complejidad inherente a los sistemas sociales y naturales.

10:03

🌱 La Importancia de la Proximidad y el Cuidado en el Diseño

En este párrafo, el orador enfatiza la importancia de la proximidad y el cuidado en el diseño, argumentando que la sociedad actual es descuidada y que el diseño debe fomentar la creación de contextos que favorezcan el cuidado por uno mismo y por el medio ambiente. Se menciona que el cuidado es una relación humana que no puede ser diseñada directamente, pero que se puede crear un entorno propicio para que surja. El orador sugiere que la proximidad, tanto física como relacional, es fundamental para fomentar el cuidado y, por lo tanto, para imaginar una sociedad sostenible y resiliente.

15:04

🌐 Manejando la Complejidad del Cambio de Sistemas

El orador discute la naturaleza compleja de los sistemas y cómo el diseño puede influir en su cambio. Rechaza la idea de que los sistemas son máquinas que pueden ser controlados y dirigidos, y en su lugar, aboga por la aceptación de la complejidad y la promoción de la diversidad como valores positivos. Se argumenta que el diseño debe ser un proceso de co-diseño que involucre a todas las partes interesadas y que, al introducir perturbaciones en el sistema, se pueden generar condiciones que favorezcan el cambio deseado.

20:07

🤔 Reflexión Final: El Diseño y la Transformación

En la conclusión, el orador subraya la necesidad de que el diseño y los diseñadores se enfrenten a la complejidad y la incertidumbre, aprendiendo a navegar en un entorno donde nadie tiene el control total. Se hace un llamado a la responsabilidad ética de los diseñadores al tomar decisiones en un sistema complejo y a la importancia de intervenir en sub-sistemas específicos para generar cambios positivos. El orador enfatiza la importancia de los diseñadores en la sociedad actual y cómo su papel es esencial en la promoción de la complejidad y la diversidad como caminos hacia un futuro sostenible.

Keywords

💡Cambio social

El 'cambio social' se refiere a los cambios en las estructuras sociales, relaciones y valores que impactan la vida de las personas en una sociedad. En el vídeo, el orador enfatiza la necesidad de un cambio social profundo para abordar crisis como la ambiental, la social y la política. El cambio social es esencial para movilizarnos hacia una sociedad sostenible y resiliente, más allá de la innovación tecnológica.

💡Crisis múltiple

La 'crisis múltiple' abarca una serie de problemas interconectados que afectan a la sociedad, como el cambio climático, la desigualdad social y la crisis política. El orador menciona que vivimos en un tiempo de crisis múltiple, lo que subraya la urgencia de un cambio social y tecnológico para enfrentar estos desafíos.

💡Diseño

El 'diseño' es presentado como un proceso creativo que puede ser utilizado para innovar y resolver problemas. En el contexto del vídeo, el diseño no solo se refiere a la estética o la funcionalidad de un objeto, sino que también se extiende a la capacidad de diseñar sistemas y servicios que fomenten el cambio social y la sostenibilidad.

💡Innovación

La 'innovación' es el proceso por el cual se introducen nuevos productos, servicios o procesos que tienen un impacto significativo en la sociedad. Aunque históricamente la innovación ha estado fuertemente ligada a la tecnología, el orador sugiere que en el contexto actual, la innovación también debe incluir cambios sociales y tecnológicos que apunten a un modelo más sostenible.

💡Sostenibilidad

La 'sostenibilidad' se refiere a la capacidad de un sistema o sociedad para mantenerse a largo plazo sin dañar el entorno natural o la calidad de vida de las futuras generaciones. El orador discute la importancia de movilizarnos hacia una sociedad sostenible, lo que implica no solo la protección ambiental, sino también la equidad social y la resiliencia.

💡Resiliencia

La 'resiliencia' es la capacidad de un sistema o sociedad para adaptarse y recuperarse ante disturbios o cambios adversos. En el vídeo, el orador argumenta que, en respuesta a la crisis múltiple, es necesario enfocarse en la resiliencia para garantizar que las sociedades puedan manejar futuros desafíos y catástrofes.

💡Co-diseño

El 'co-diseño' es un enfoque colaborativo en el que los diseñadores trabajan junto con otros stakeholders, como usuarios, clientes o comunidades, para crear soluciones más inclusivas y efectivas. El orador menciona que cada diseño es en realidad un co-diseño, lo que subraya la importancia de la participación y la colaboración en el proceso de diseño.

💡Compromiso

El 'compromiso' implica una determinación y un compromiso con una causa o un objetivo específico. En el vídeo, el orador habla sobre la necesidad de un compromiso con la idea de cambio social y tecnológico, lo que requiere una actitud activa y una disposición a enfrentar desafíos complejos.

💡Colaboración

La 'colaboración' se refiere a la cooperación entre individuos o grupos para lograr un objetivo común. El orador sugiere que la sociedad actual, que ha estado enfocada en la competencia, necesita moverse hacia un modelo basado en la colaboración, lo que implica un enfoque en la comunidad y la interdependencia.

💡Cuidado

El 'cuidado' es un concepto que abarca la atención, la protección y la consideración hacia los demás y el entorno. En el vídeo, el orador argumenta que el cuidado es fundamental para la construcción de una sociedad sostenible y resiliente, y que el diseño puede contribuir creando contextos que fomenten el cuidado y la proximidad física y relacional.

Highlights

The speaker emphasizes the importance of time management during presentations by using a mobile phone to track time.

A shift in design philosophy is proposed, moving from 'rethinking design for social change' to 'rethinking social change to decide what design can do'.

The critical discussion is not just about us, but about what is happening outside us and what we are part of, suggesting a larger systemic view.

A historical perspective on design's role in humanizing technology and aiding the transition from pre-modern to modern industrial society.

The acknowledgment of multiple crises—environmental, social, political, and war—that necessitate a rethinking of design and social change.

A call for a change in direction towards a sustainable and resilient society, acknowledging the current catastrophes and the need for a new model.

The assertion that social change implies technological change, advocating for a 'social technical change'.

The idea that the direction of progress is no longer clear, and that choosing a direction is a conscious and emotional decision.

The notion that design is about defining what we want to do, not just how we want to do it, highlighting the importance of meaning over solutions.

A personal position on the need for a system based on collaboration and caring, as opposed to competition and carelessness.

The concept of 'proximity' as essential for care, suggesting that physical and relational closeness is necessary for a sustainable society.

The speaker's belief that creating conditions for care involves designing contexts that encourage human interaction and environmental concern.

A critique of the belief in hyper-artifacts like financial markets driving the future, suggesting that this perspective limits human agency.

The rejection of the 'no alternative' ideology, advocating for the possibility of systemic change through design.

The idea that complex systems cannot be driven like machines, and the need to embrace and navigate within this complexity.

A call for designers to disturb the system by introducing elements that could generate transformation, rather than designing the future itself.

The assertion that every design is now a co-design, requiring designers to find their position in a participatory design process.

The importance of designers' training and experience in bringing new ideas and methodologies to co-design conversations.

The need for designers to accept complexity, promote diversity, and learn how to navigate and intervene within complex systems.

Transcripts

okay thank you so much and it's a

pleasure and honor obviously to be

invited here

we agreed to speak for 20 minutes so I

have here if you look you see me looking

to the mobile phone is not because I'm

looking my email but because I'm looking

to the time that is passing

so I I try to give my interpretation of

this title that is of course Very near

to what I try to do and what I try to

think but even if I really want to

answer to this question I must change it

a little bit because I want to move from

rethinking design for social change

toward the rethinking social change to

decide what design can do

because it may view the most critical

part is not so much a discussion about

us

the most critical path is what is

happening outside us or what we are part

of

so I think that it's good to arrive to

say something about us moving from

something that is

outside Earth or in any case we are part

of a larger system

so why are we talking about social

change

um as designer we are totally accustomed

to talk about change and Innovation so

in some way we can say that from the

beginning one century ago a design was

there to innovate

but at that point Innovation was

incredibly simpler than today because at

least in the perception of the people it

was a line there was a line of progress

and the change which kind of changes to

be done it was obvious we had to move

from a traditional Society

pre-modern Society pre-industrial

Society pre and urban Society towards a

society that was supposed to be more

Progressive

the progress of the previous one

and also the way to do it was clear that

the main driver was technology

so the role of the designer was in some

way to humanize technology so there was

so many new technologies and we have to

try to make in a way that people could

appreciate it and why because this was

the way to help to move from prey

industrial pray modern toward the modern

industrial society

now this is not the time to make the

overall story that has been complex and

contradictory

but let's jump to today

it's not me but you open a newspaper

and everybody knows state that we are in

a multiple crisis

and the multiple crisis is

the environmental one that now we are

talking about environmental issues since

40 years now but now everybody touches

in a very practical way

there is a social crisis because that

progress has not generated a more equal

Society but it's a society that is more

and more Diversified in terms of

opportunities for people

and

there is also in Subway a political

crisis because

we can have different opinion but

something is happening that is in some

way weakening our democracy the one in

which we believe so much but we have to

say democracy is not in such a good

shape in this moment so we have to see

what does it mean to reinforce democracy

and finally War

I committed myself to not to do any

conference in this last month without

stopping for a while and saying look we

are here we talk we are safe we are

happy we we eat and it's correct to do

it but we are in the middle of a

catastrophe and nowadays the catasoff is

also the war and the war is a kind of

summary of all the other catastrophs so

when we say why we have to change

it's clear that something has to change

because we are sitting in a condition

that is going very fastly toward a

catastrophic and

really and because now we also talk

about atomic war that was a kind of

taboo for a certain number of years was

impossible to talk about the atomic

weapons and now there is a discussion

about what will be the implication of

using atomic bombs

so this is to say that if we had good

reason to talk about design and change

years ago if at that time was designed

and changed through Innovation That was

supposed to be mainly a technological

innovation

towards we have to talk about design and

change because we desperately need to

change the model

but this change is not only

technological even though it is also

technological but it's also very much

Social

and therefore we need to have a social

change that to be more correct should

always be social technical change

because there is no social change they

do not imply some technology

so here we are but in the moment in

which we said we had to change one

century ago it was relatively clear the

arrow of the

progress what was the direction

toward to today the question is okay we

have to change but in which direction

where are we supposed to go

and of course it has been said everybody

say we have to go towards sustainable

society and nowadays with all the

disaster because we are already in the

catastrophe we add normally also the

resilient Society

and it's not this at least for me the

moment to to explain all this kind of

story but

each one of us has to

in some way consciously or unconsciously

in a rational way of emotionally choose

a Direction

so the direction is not an engineering

issue it's not given by some algorithm

the direction that we have to choose

is a choice the direction that we want

to have is a choice and this is why we

can say that there is a lot of design

because design is

defining what we want to do not only how

we want to do so in an issue about the

meaning not only an issue about

Solutions

and therefore we have to choose where we

want to go

and I do not develop this too much I

only declare my position but without

explaining it too much because I don't

have the time now

and it's for me at the end of the story

we have to move toward a system

that has to

be based on the idea of collaboration

because the system in which we are have

been based on the idea of competing

individuals

I'll be based on the idea of caring

so be capable to be near each other and

near to the environment and I think that

at the core of the disaster both social

and environmental is that we are a

careless society as somebody wrote

already many some decades ago so this

lust of care and try to substitute care

with some kind of other more technical

service

do not create any society

do not create create this yes it creates

the non-society The Madame toucher said

there is no Society there are all

individuals but we see the disaster of

imagining a society that is only done by

individuals when we lose

the social fabric

therefore there is an issue about how to

relieve the social Fabric and we can

open a discussion for me one of the Core

Concepts is caring

and finally for me again these are a

number of statements that should be

discussed and also in any case they are

personal

I arrived to this ideal proximity

that again I cannot explain it now but

for me proximity is a very designingly

world because

in reality we cannot design care

is a human relationship so there is no

way to say you have to care for the

other you are not way to create

something that oblige people to be

careful

but what we can do is to create a

context

in which is more possible and probable

in which is possible and more probable

that people take care

for themselves and for the environment

and I think that to have the possibility

to take care

for each other and for the environment

you need proximity

because care as has been written very

well by a lady that is Maria Puig De La

Bella Casa is touching you cannot care

in distance you have care only if you

are in a tactile mood

so if we don't create condition of

proximity

both physical and relational we will not

have possibility to imagine a

sustainable resilient Society

therefore this the strategy to create

opportunity of care that cannot be

designed

pass through the possibility to create

condition of physical proximity they

generate the opportunities for people to

start to exchange something and for this

reason to care

and

the final issue that has to be discussed

for me about the change that we have to

do

that is very controversial also this one

so it's my personal position

is the how

because I just to give you an idea where

I am I told you what are my ideas about

some core keywords of the direction that

we should follow

but after there is how we can do it

and we have a

diff so we should have and we have

implicitly even if we don't declare a

model of change of systemic change

so if we talk about change it means that

we imagine that the systems can change

because otherwise we could not talk

about change so how the system change

and the system we discovered that are

hyper complex

and therefore what does it mean to

change the hyper complex system

and again we can work without having all

the theory about complexity but many

people do it very well without knowing

anything that I'm talking about because

intuitively they do the right thing but

it's at this in this moment it's called

useful at least to name some element

looking here

many people says if the system is so

complex it means that there are some

hyper artifacts

that generate what will be the future

and this hyper artifact is the financial

movement the market so something that is

impossible to really manage

and so the only thing that we have to do

is to adapt ourself to some change that

are already going on done by some

machines that are so bigger than us that

cannot be changed

I will say that also for the war they

are creating a condition in which it

appears that is impossible not to make

the world and many people say okay but

if it is like this what we have to do we

cannot do anything so every time and all

the new liberalism ideology was when

they say there is no alternative

there is no alternative means there are

some machines that are working in a

certain direction and the only thing

that we can do is to adapt ourselves

of course this is not my position and I

hope that is not the position of many

others

the second one is the most traditional

for the modern culture and design has

been born inside modernity so in our DNA

there is a lot of idea that okay again

consciously or not we use

and the idea of modernity was yes maybe

the system is complex but we can

simplify it

and we can act on the reality as it was

a machine

and if it is a machine you know the

metaphor of the spaceship earth so the

Earth has a big machine

it accepts the limited resources it

accepts everything but

a spaceship is a machine

and in this spaceship can be driven

and we are at the same time the people

that are in this machine in the

spaceship and also the driver and we can

adjust we can do something upgrade as it

can happen for every machine

this is the Heritage that we have from a

super

anthropocentric attitude

so around us there is a world that can

be simplified in order to do what we

want and we are at the center

and design is born in this kind of

cultural framework

but as you know this cultural framework

now is challenged

first of all because we discover that

the complexity

you can have a different attitude but

cannot be reduced

and for somebody as me complexity is a

value so not only it cannot be reduced

but it does be to be recognized and we

have to learn how to be into the

complexity

but the complex system by definition

cannot be driven

so we cannot bring a complex system as

we want it cannot be a kind of machine

that can be disassembled

so what we can do and this is the third

position that somebody tried to have is

and is also my one very modestly

that the change of the complex system

happens

because we have seen in the history

the complex system change

but the change is not designed in the

way that there is a group of people that

design the future and that is the future

so a production or the future system

but to use a term of a person that is

very important in my life and maybe in

the life of many people that is gone

away if you we months ago that is Bruno

latur

we can engender transformation

so we as designer Collective designers

we are not designing something that can

be done because whatever we do is such

included in such a complex networks of

other elements living or not living so

actors and actants using the latur

terminologies that what we can do and we

arrive to the the final point is

disturb the system introducing the

system something that hopefully will

generate something else that nobody

really knows but if we have operated in

the good way maybe we can create

conditions

to make something happens

to be I understand that I could be very

abstract now but I give you one example

if we work on services

I use Services because the complexity in

Services is much more evident than in

products

because

I have to run a little bit because in

the services you have a human being

inside in the process or not so you can

imagine the process relatively simpler

in the service you cannot because you

cannot reduce the complexity that is

introduced in the system by the fact

that the service is mainly the service

encounter in between people they do

something together

well many people now is using design the

term design for services and not design

of services because you cannot design

the service you can create an

environment

that generate a certain conditions in

which is possible that the people behave

in a certain way

but the maximum that we can say is

possible and if it is well done maybe

also probable but in any case the people

that is intrinsically part of the

service

will be free to behave also in a totally

different way from the one that the

designer has designed it so I have two

minutes now to go

to what the designer can do

but I think that having said what is

the change that we would like to do it's

a not so difficult and I can stay in my

time

so rethinking design is my view asks for

rethinking the very deep philosophy of

what we do and what we are as human

being and as the special kind of human

being so if we say who are we the

designers

the answer and the merge also by many of

the presentations today is whoever

because whoever not because people like

to design

because if the things work very well if

I can go on with the business as usual

and the businesses use are all as the

tradition tell you to do if you do like

that why you should change if it works

well

you are pushing to change when tradition

do not tell you what to do and so before

there was a question between the

difference between policy

politicians and designer of course there

are a lot of differences but the

politicians are obliged

to make to take some design choice

because they cannot simply repeat what

they have already done facing the

transformation that we have in front of

us

the fact that we said and that being

said not only by me but practical by

everybody that the the this human

capability of Designing is forced

to exist

do the design expert that is us are

needed or not in my view are desperately

needed so it's a supposed idea that

because everybody designed what is our

role so maybe not a I think

even no exactly because everybody

designs

it's very important to have somebody

that has been trained that has been

grown more in depth in some methodology

that have some ideas that spend their

life making experience they can bring

the co-design conversation with the new

idea with ideas and with methodology

so for me the first step is to imagine

that today every design is a co-design

to accept that everybody

is participating to a design co-design

and to find our position

in relation to the other

that of course ask us to change

something in relation to what has been

the egoic uh way of Designing in a

certain moment that was very coherent

with the certain idea of modernity

and how we can do it

we can I think

well I'm running out of time so I say

only some titles so what we we had to

accept complexity

and not only for me to accept but to be

very convinced that in the same way that

when we talk about an ecosystem the

ecosystem is more healthy where it's

Diversified when it's very rich where

there are so many different elements

inside well this is a metaphor of

everything so we should be promoters

or complexity especially in the moment

in which there are stronger power that

try to reduce complexity and reducing

complexity means desertification

so how we should we would in some way

enter in this complexity

but we should learn how to navigate into

this complexity

because navigating the complexity means

for instance as I said before assuming

that nobody has the control of the

situation nobody has the control of the

result you can never collect so many

information to be sure that you have all

the impossible information because the

complexity of the system could not be

reduced to any information even if you

stay ears collecting information so it

asks you really to be designer because

being designed to be

somebody to make an ethical choice so

you face complexity at a certain point

you have to decide so what what we have

to do we have to learn how to navigate

and how to navigate what does it means

not to be overwhelmed because if you are

overwhelmed we don't do anything and if

you don't do anything we don't learn if

we don't learn we cannot move in the

transition but to take our

responsibility to cut

in the overall big system some soup

systems

knowing that they are part of a larger

system and to intervene in the smaller

system that is possible

as a kind of plugin so we introduce in

the larger system something

thinking that maybe and probably this

could generate conditions that are near

to the one that we wanted thank you

[Applause]