The content reflects on a series of workshops exploring complex societal and personal challenges, emphasizing the need for new approaches to understanding and navigating change, particularly in the face of uncertainty and systemic issues.
Mind Map
انقر للتوسيع
انقر لاستعراض خريطة الذهن التفاعلية الكاملة
All right. Now, we're going to do that
very carefully. Not talking about
But somehow
trying to get maybe a feeling or a sense
of a smell or a frequency from the
workshop tracks.
And uh the invitation is for five minutes
minutes
and the prompt
was what did you notice?
What did you learn today?
And uh
do you want to start with the AI and
>> Sure.
>> I'm taking the risk that no one has
Uh, and maybe that's okay. Um, can you
see me and the baby?
>> Uh, right.
What did I notice?
Ah.
Um, actually that moved me when I
listened to you. Um, both now when you
laughed and a minute ago when you were
doing music and the question in my head
was, "How did you know how to do it?"
Cuz my eyes were were closed and me and
the baby were feeling it and my question
was, "How did you know how to do it?" Uh
and yeah that question is is very
relevant to
in the question of education and AI. Uh
it's kind of sim similar kind of knowing
that she leans her head like this
because she wants milk. How does she
know that she has to do this to get
milk? I don't know. Uh so what was
happening is that we were kind of um perhaps
perhaps
questioning uh well let me first tell
you actually on the on the on my side
very personally what shifted what I
noticed I think that's more interesting
than giving you a summarization of of
the track um because what shifted was uh
between the two sessions
And everyone who was in both sessions
really could in their body they could
feel that something changed. Something
was very very different. Uh and I have
no idea what it was. Was it the lunch in
our bodies or or a different
constellation of people? Our uh our
thinking that this must go somewhere or
we perhaps we had uh I don't know but
the feeling was very different. Um so
that was something I noticed that uh
also what shifted
and in that
uh even that itself was kind of
educational moment which was shared
during the second bit. Uh and I guess
the biggest thing that was something
that I learned was how am I with that
shifting or uh shifting of the ground or
moving of the ground that I felt.
I think she's okay.
Cool. Now everyone's looking at Tim.
Uh yeah,
how can we hold the fact that things are
shifting and how can we be
with all of that? uh and in the sessions
there were very big things mentioned
like not not knowing where the AI is
going or uh the end was mentioned and uh
big things so and and and fear and also
that is darkness a bad thing and
and then
yeah I don't know for me the learning
was that
how do I get better at being with
the ground shifting and not knowing
where education and AI is going. Even
though I sometimes fall into this, oh, I
have a brilliant idea of of what it is
and they're brilliant ideas and
brilliant things are coming and uh can I
sometimes drop them and not know uh
where it's going and still have a breath
stop to breathe
uh and feel the feelings and the
emotions that come with it? Um
yeah, we me and Tim we we're thinking
that the first bit of the session we're
we're asking the big questions and the
second one we're thinking what is the
work where are we going what are we
going to do and it didn't go as planned and
and
and I I am grateful for that because
without that if it had gone according to
my plan I don't think I would have about
this learning and uh I think that was
the biggest education
for me. So yeah, thank you for being
there and uh learning from each other.
That was lovely. [Applause]
[Applause]
Thank you.
Who's next? Samantha, are you speaking
>> Okay, I'll I'll you you go for it.
That's good. Um, so this is the
reimagining ourselves and our culture.
>> So, what did what did we notice and what shifted?
shifted?
>> What did you learn?
>> What did I learn?
>> What did you notice? And what shifts did
you sense today, if any?
So, I mean, I learned a ton because I
got to collaborate with Olivier and
Jenny and with the field. Um,
Um,
what did we learn?
I can't answer that for the collective
but I think we inquired into what is
culture what is self what is the
relationship between them with an
emphasis on the relationship and the
qualities of relationship that arise
between uh individuals and the contexts
that we switch through all the time. Um,
in the morning we talked about we we we
explored uh a context. We explored
deepening intimacy and what that does to
create a culture in a in a micro way.
And then on top of that we layered two
different questions. One of which was
around cultures that feel really
liberating and one of which was around
cultures that feel entrapping
and and how we relate to that.
um which is a kind of a contextual
question at the root of design in a way.
And in the afternoon, we um brought in a
story from an indigenous teacher of mine
about uh that tells the story of their 10,000-year
10,000-year
uh lineage that they remember orally and
then kind of plants the seeds. Well, we
remember that. If you're here, that also
happened to you. And uh given that, what
stories and seeds would you like to
carry that could get you through what's coming?
coming?
And we did a process to explore that. Um
I'm telling I'm I'm about right now, but
I think I learned that those things are
interesting things to do.
Um one thing that was spoken is that
it's very surreal to do such things in a
basement room with no rooms, with no
windows. I think that's a useful harvest.
harvest. Um,
Um,
and what shifted, what I felt shifted
really profoundly was the imaginal
fabric of how we're thinking about
self-culture, the relationship between
them, and the relationship between
culture and deep time
and that that a field can be generated
that expands our thinking about culture
in time, which I think is a really
important I personally think is a design.
design.
It's an invitation to qualities of in of
of imagination that could incentivize
different questions and different
processes and different incentive
structures for why we do anything. So, I
think that was pretty effective and I'm
>> Cool.
So Erica from regenerative economics
right or business or I don't know how
you frame it good economics very
specific go ahead
>> hi guys what a different viewpoint from
here and uh going after Samantha
Sweetwater my husband thinks she should
be president of the world so no pressure now
now
so we were in the regenerative economics
group and Um,
we got the question how long we had been
working together. Um, and uh, doing this
and uh, we had 30 minutes in the Sona
yesterday and then we for us it was
learning how to kind of go with the flow
and um,
have ideas and and then see how it
evolved over time together with a group
which was super exciting.
We had did embodied practices and
conversation. So we tried to keep the
rational mind out of it as much as possible.
possible.
And in the first session in the morning
we did time travel.
Um first a year from now coming back to
waves and then five years from now
coming back to waves meeting each other
in a new situation.
So we're boosting ticket sales now.
everybody knows they're going to go back
for 25 years in a row. Um, but we also
want we looked at how do we want the
future to be um in the context of our
ourselves but also the system and and
outside of ourselves.
And there was a lot of energy and
expansiveness and potential and smiles
And then we tried to backtrack and see,
okay, what do we need to do to get there?
there?
uh and we grouped around clusters where
we might be working like education or
food system and business. And then the
energy in the room got a little bit
stuck. We got boxed in. The energy dropped.
After lunch, we did a similar exercise.
We were trying time traveling again.
This time we're focusing more on the
self time traveling with ourselves
uh and exploring how we want to show up
And again when we just explored how we
want to show up there was a lot of
potential and energy and expansiveness.
And then when we asked ourselves
okay when we look back in how we want to
take that out in the world what do we
need to do? we again got a stuck and
mind came in and and um energy in the
room uh dropped.
So we decided to take some time to just
notice that
and the difference and what that meant
And um something that came up was that
the economy the word in itself means
something about uh householding of
resources or or householding resources
in your household. I'm not exactly sure
and playing with this playing with
energies and and playing with what we
can do and playing with different
presences. I think that was what we
could distill from it that
when we go from this outside system and
we kind of take it back to ourselves
and that's where the potential lies.
That's where we have energy
yeah I think that's
where I will conclude. It was a lovely
fun experience. I hope you enjoyed it.
>> Thank you. Impeccable timing.
The fourth and final workshop was on
institutional innovation and collective
intelligence and uh you kept boosting
the second session and then I didn't go
to the second session. So now I'm really
curious what you have to say for yourself.
yourself.
>> What what do you what would you like a
summary? I would uh well not so much a
summary as the prompts that I've been
giving is what did you notice?
What did you learn?
What if anything
did shift or what shifts did you sense?
>> So but you can also do a summary
>> and more more
>> um well for those that weren't there a
very very quick summary. So we spoke
about institutional uh innovation and
collective intelligence. We started with
trying to understand how institutions
fail, where, why, how, how it feels for
institutions to fail. Um, and tried to
sort of elicit a sort of a gestalt of
the diagnosis of that problem. Um, enter
collective intelligence. We sort of not
positing it as a solution, but really as
a sort of a way to potentially begin to
shift um the sort of rigorous of
institutions. Um we also made a
distinction I think that's important to
tease out between innovation and design.
So not just uh doing things within
institutions but sort of designing them
from scratch and what role collective
intelligence can play there. Uh that was
the morning session and I think in that
really off the top of my head here
trying to think about what um what came
up I think a lot of I overheard one
conversation which I think was the most
profound I think for me which was um
that an institution that can mean
security, familiarity and safety in a
high trust culture can be the same
institution that is um a purveyor of of
untold violence in another
um and how when we're having
conversations across national boundaries
and cultures about how we reform
institutions, sometimes if we're not
naming those contextual differences,
we're working across purposes. Um so
assuming there's a universal
conversation about institutional
dynamics and institutes design is a
mistake. I think that was a really
interesting uh not necessarily a lesson
but just something really good to to be
reminded of. Am I am I doing too long?
>> No, go ahead. You have a timer in front.
Um in the second session we went into a
design spirit. So we tried to give a
very uh for those that were there very
um barebones framework sort of light
enough to to to play with basically um
collapsing all the many many dimensions
that you can design um for collective
intelligence with into just three people
data process. um really horrendously
collapsing. Uh something trying to
design an institutional innovation in 25
minutes was a really uh it was a great
design challenge for us as facilitators
to think how do we take this huge field
the last systematic review sorry people
have heard this twice if you came to the
workshop the last systematic review
written on collective intelligence
frameworks reviewed just n and a half
thousand of them out there. So there's
really this like framework overload. So
trying to then look at that and condense
it down um was quite fun for us to
realize what we're what we're getting
rid of. And we had a really I think the
the the the reflection at the end we had
the sharing session about what tensions
came up. Uh and whilst there were some
really interesting tensions about
collective intelligence itself
especially sure we can create these cool
methods that institutions can use are
they actually going to do anything about
it? Um and I think there's a sense in
the room that probably not actually and
sometimes looking at the institution as
the as the site or the locus of change
misses a trick. Um the innovation
happens at the edges. The institutions
seek to preserve themselves. There's I
think um that was an interesting thing.
But apart from that tension, the meta
tension that came up was that we
designed a process. We were asking
people to design a collective
intelligence process by going through a
process of collective intelligence that
we designed. It's quite meta. Um, but in
what we ask people to focus on, people,
data, process, there's so much about
collective intelligence that's not
included in those dimensions. Context,
diversity, trust, the list really,
really goes on and on. Um, we chose
three. Those choices radically shaped
the kinds of institutional innovations
that people came up with. And I think
there's a lesson in there for us that
when we when we hold space or when we
when we design process, we shape what
outcomes are possible. And I what the
reflection that Lucas and I were just
kind of leaning into briefly was that
really having a gratitude for this
conference and its choices in design. Um
so often we're up in our heads doing
these kind of things and the and the
decision to not do that, to focus on
different things produces different
results, produces different learnings,
different conversations at the coffee
table. um as well. So whilst it's fun to
think about collective intelligence
design, it's also really fun for the
designers of these kinds of events to
really reflect on what choices they're
making and how they shape possibilities
as well. So a thank you to Thomas and
Sarah for curating an event that's held
so much space for for difference in that
respect. Yeah, [Applause]
[Applause]
>> thank you.
So, uh, I would like to invite Dave and
Nora up on stage and had this notion of,
uh, inviting a riff on what we've heard.
If there are patterns or things or
learnings or shifts even, maybe, maybe
We could have really done with a 15inut
summary of each in order to do this. You
understand? Right.
>> I do. So, we're probably going to have
to riff on the subject rather than the report.
report.
Don't know. Nora, do you want to start?
>> This is Please start, Nora. Do you understand?
understand?
>> I I I hear that in your voice. Yeah.
Um, well, I I did my best to attend a
little bit of everything,
which is to say that I completely failed
at attending any of all of it. Um,
Um, and
I think
if I'm going to zoom out for a second,
what I'm really seeing is this uh
interest, urgency, appetite,
appetite, need
need to
to
figure out some way to get loose
of the patterns of thinking that we've
been stuck in
um in different in different types of ways.
ways.
uh whether it's through imagination
um sort of transing through things or
through various sorts of you know
designed dialogues
or uh
um even just sitting around thinking together,
together,
you know, what do you think and what do
you think and what do I think and
throwing a bean bag around and just
seeing where it goes.
Um, and I didn't get to spend much time
actually in the in the institutional
one, but I peaked in a little bit.
So, I think it's that that I'm the most
the content
was seemingly different in each space
and yet not as somebody who was passing
through. There was a similar content of
essentially we're headed for some hard
times and things have to be completely
reshaped and we're in the middle of it
and we're carrying the past and we're
here on behalf of the future and what
the hell are we going to do?
How should we be? How should we see? How
should we talk about it? How should we
how do how do I feel about it? what what
where am I in this?
Um, so that's
that's where I'll start. That was my
initial sort of feeling. Does that feel
okay to you guys who were in there that
this this was something that was
happening? Okay.
>> Okay. Um, I think we probably play our
Jacqueline Hyde thing and I'll be the
nasty one on this. All right. Okay. Um,
and I would say one of the common themes
on this, and it's what I called
yesterday this morning the IDG era. It's
the assumption that if we just all think
differently, the world will suddenly
magically be all right. All right? And
that isn't going to happen.
>> Right? And I think we need to have start
to think about would you have this
conversation in the streets of say Toner
in Wales? If you tried to have this sort
of conversation there, you'd probably be
mugged and dead at the end of it, right?
Um but if you don't change those street
stories you're not going to change
society right so I think there is this
danger it's called lotus eating if you
go back to homer it's very easy to sit
somewhere and talk about how things
should be and feel really good at the
end of it but reality is it just makes
you feel comfortable right now for my
many and various sins I sit on a couple
of think tanks where I'm considered the
that that that's a sort of you know it's
a mortal sin to go up on hope if you're
a Catholic but it doesn't require you to
be optimistic right so I mean let's
throw a couple of things >> stop
>> stop
>> yeah go on
>> you just skipped over something super important
important
>> okay go with it
>> and I bet half the room didn't actually
hear what you said
>> oh okay so the
>> it's a mortal sin
>> yeah to give up on hope
>> to give up on hope in the Catholic
>> faith like that's something I think we
need to actually consider for a minute.
>> Okay. Now, happy to go on that. There's
a really good book on I mean there's a
couple of books I'd recommend on this by
the way. So, Moltman's original theology
of hope
just so you can have that. All right.
Well, you have to remember hope was a
big theme in liberation theology in the 70s.
70s.
Yeah. We we had hope that we could
change society. Yeah. And that was
really important. Right. Now, if
somebody was then summoned for heresy on
that subject, which is a story I told at
the whiskey last night, um everything on
liberation theology was then suppressed.
>> All right, we thought we were at least
starting to move towards a carbon
neutral planet and now populism is
actually reversing that. In fact, it's
been used against against us. So I think
in that circumstances and I think the
important thing in the second book which
is um called hope without optim hope
without optimism
>> Mhm. uh which is by Terry all right a
brilliant book right and it basically
says we shouldn't be optimistic but
we've got to hope that there's some sort
of solution now I think that also means
we got to really actively think about
where we find that solution and the
solution isn't going to come from white
middleclass northern Europeans
nor is it going to come from some false
romanticism about indigenous culture
because that isn't going to happen right
um We're going to face sometime in the
next decade 30 to 50 million people
dying on a single day due to heat death.
Right? And the only debate we're having
is where it will happen first. Right?
Now, what is that going to do to the way
we think about ourselves as a species?
No. And I think the key thing for me on
how you manage this and we wrote a lot
of this in the European Union field
guide on on complexity is you've got to
build a system which is resilient
rather than designing a solution for
something you can't forecast anyway. In
fact, we're now saying you can't
forecast full stop. We need to this is
using Napoleon's concept. You can't
forecast the future but you can have forthought.
forthought.
So shifting from foresight to
forethought becomes important. So just
give a couple of ideas on this one. This
is in the EU field guide. Increasing
social networks is really important.
Yeah. Human to human empathy, I talked
about that this morning is absolutely
critical. You have to be able to talk
with people other than yourself and that
doesn't happen easily. Yeah. One of the
ideas we've talked about in the UK, but
I haven't got any retraction yet, is
basically reintroducing national
service, which we're probably going to
have to do in military terms anyway, I'm
afraid. Right. But actually designing it
linked to free education. So if you
spend two years doing some sort of
service, which isn't necessarily
military, and you do it overseas, your
education is paid for because you've
proved your contribute to society. And
the goal on that is to increase people's
networks and get to see other cultures.
Yeah. So, I I think it's we got to
change the what's called the the
substrate thing I talked about this
morning. You've got to focus on how you
change the environment so good things
are easier and bad things are harder.
And deciding what the good things in and
designing for them is a mistake. And
I'll give you one example on this.
Extinction rebellion and this is
personal opinion. I defend it to death
was almost destroyed because they
adopted hocrisy.
Yeah. which came out that nonsensical
book you know um what is it teal
organization by lacrosse yeah which is
kind of like one of the worst
researchers book he ignores every fact
which contradicts his thesis in his
cases he ignores right that's not called
research holocracy rewarded bureaucracy
people trying to use it at the moment
for democracy are working off an
enlightenment model of rationality and
that isn't the way it works
and And and to leave a theme on this, I
think we need renaissance, not enlightenment.
enlightenment.
Yeah. The renaissance embrace the new,
but also embrace the old. And we got to
stop thinking we can design solutions
and design an environment from which the
solutions will emerge. All institutions
of any strength evolved. They were never designed.
designed. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> So
>> So
what I was hoping you were going to say,
>> but you can always say it for me. Well,
I think I'll I'll prompt you again.
>> Oh god. >> Um
>> Um
maybe we can play in this together
because it's something that I think
>> we we have, you know, parent child
issues here. You can understand that.
>> you can't give up on hope because to do
so is to give up on grace. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
Oh, you want to be b grace? Oh, sorry.
I'm forgetting some of the stuff we
talked about last night. Right. Okay, go.
go.
>> It's the whiskey.
>> Yeah, it is. Actually, two bottles was a mistake.
mistake.
>> But, but this is that's why I took the
second one home.
I felt like it wasn't the right thing to
do, but then I felt like it was the
right thing to do. Um,
Um,
Grace though, you see this this panel
being called transcontextual learnings
and watching what I saw today. There's
all these different pieces coming together.
together. Um,
and I I think this is something Dave
that our work really shares is that both
of us make space for grace.
>> And and so people ask me all the time
like how do you keep your head up? How
do you get up in the morning?
And the way that I do that is that I am
I am operating in a very rigorous
practice of grace.
There is a lot of doing and learning and
reflecting and practicing and creating
the conditions and and place where what
I would call grace can occur.
>> Yeah. I think
>> Yeah. One thing we've also got in common
is both of us have tried to create
methods and organizations which are not
dependent on us.
>> Yeah. So I'm really pleased when
somebody takes something we put we put
all our stuff in open source. All right.
When people somebody take it and adapt
it. Um and I but I think and grace I
mean sorry I'm going to get theological.
It's always a danger. All right. But um
there there's a huge difference between
Augustine and Pelagius if you if you
know your history. Right. So Augustine
basically says everything is God. So
there we get no free will,
predestination, all of that. Calvin
picks up on Augustine. Pelagius
basically say like we're here, we got to
trust in God, but we got to do something.
something.
>> And for that he gets declared a heretic.
All right. I've kind of self-confessed
Pelagian these days on that thing. So I
think we got to do something, but we got
to trust that doing lots of small things
will produce the big things. And that's
my big, you know, I think this is why
I'm really disturbed about systems
thinking starting to get dominance in
government again because that's trying
to look at the thing at a macro level
and nothing will ever change if you
start at a macro level. It only changes
if you do thousands of little things,
right? And that requires creating
systems which will propagate at scale
and which aren't reliant on small groups
of people having goodwill. So my point
on climate change and we got a you can
join this if you want. We got a program
on that which is to capture the stories
of small sacrifices that communities make
make
>> because they're needed for things that
they value in that community. If enough
people worry about their duck pond,
politicians will worry about climate
change. But if you haven't got thousands
of people worrying about their duck
ponds, politicians will ignore climate
change. And this thing entered the uh socio
socio
cultural ideas in in all the wrong ways.
I'm sorry to say it entered as uh and
now you have to recycle and everything
you do to recycle is going to help
>> but still what was the the burden was
placed on the individual.
back to this isolated identification of
the individual
that what you do matters
>> and and there was it was a mistake
>> and I think the language is also it's
why I and others now fundamentally
oppose the use of the word me well
mental models don't exist that's just
bad science but the use of the word
mindset is a real problem
>> because basically if something don't
work you didn't have the right mindset
all right so it's a way of transfer in
responsibility to the individual rather
than the interactions between
individuals and groups. And one of the
key things complexity teaches us is
interactions matter far more than people.
people.
Yeah. If you want to change a system,
you change the interactions. So get for
example, one thing which we can then
from indigenous which we starting to
play with is the concept of gifting.
>> Right? So gifting is you you don't gift
to get the same gift back. It's not that
this idea that there's social capital.
Social capital is another one of those
phrases I would I would ban. All right.
Uh gifting is a gift which means the
community if it accepts the gift, they
accept you and they set responsibility
for you. There is absolutely no reason
why we shouldn't have free at the point
of entry health care and education
worldwide. We just choose to ration it
with money.
Yeah. If you don't ration something with
money, if you don't have a means, and
that's the problem with Bitcoin. Bitcoin
is yet another means of exchange
>> and whoever owns the means of exchange
then effectively controls society. So
the bond markets at the moment so let's
get on to economics have encouraged
national death and now the bond markets
can determine politics.
Yeah. So you and and and that's going to
happen with AI. I mean all these people
who keep talking about AI on democracy
or AI in education, we've reduced
ourselves to text processors and
actually AI will always do that better.
Yeah. Anything AI can do better than
humans, you probably shouldn't be doing
because you should actually do more. So
I think changing the way we interact,
stop trying to find magic pill
solutions, which is what AI is. You
aren't going to and stop calling it
intelligence. It isn't. It's an
artificial inference machine.
Yeah. And the dependency is scary. A lot
of us forecast cognitive decline. We
thought it would take years. It's
actually taking weeks.
Yeah. If people start to depend on these
things in education, I'm quite appalled
at the idea that people think giving
students AI coaches to retrieve
information and regurgitate it is
education. And I think we probably end
up going back to the Oxford system where
you actually have to go in and defend a
thesis in front of a tutor and have a
conversation about it.
>> Yeah. Because in but we we've reduced
our society to process in text and we
think information is only text. So
starting to change that would be a good
start and starting to increase the
social interactions.
>> I had an interesting um exchange with um
a gentleman on the stairs.
you know who you are.
And and he said, "Yeah, I just, you
know, I just look around and I I can't
really find anything that's not corruptable,
corruptable,
whether it's sports or, you know,
whatever it is, all the institutions,
the education system, the tech world,
the this, the that, everywhere you look,
the thing is for sale." Um,
Um,
and I guess you know when we're talking
about all of these things that you know
various kinds of economies or
institutions or how we're going to
imagine our ourselves in relationships
to our ancestors even um or education
systems or AI in all these cases we're still
still
in the same and this is the problem one
of the big problems that I see is that
We are in an ecological problem
and the it's the ecology
that are interdependent
and have many of the same patterns that
the meadow has
of inter relational process and us
within it except that
that ecology is in defiance of the
ecology and is is is absorbing it. So
how then you know the question of we're
in an ecology
of issues
and and this this is this is an this is
why it's going to take ecological
understanding of movement. This is why
neoc colonial thinking is not going to
get us out of this because that's that's
what's perpetuating.
>> This is where I mean this is where I I
can get pessimistic and I don't want to.
All right. But if you look at the
history of humanity, it was the plague
which actually changed society.
Right now we are going to get a
biological plague sometime in the next 5
years because things are thoring out in
Siberia to which we got no natural
resistance in which we haven't got
antibiotics anymore. Yeah, I talked
about mass heat death. We are going to
see I mean if you want to get quasi
mystical about this guy has decided
she's had enough of us and is going to
do some culling. All right. So the
trouble is society has historically only
changed as a result of a catastrophe.
All right. And the thing I want to do,
that's why I want to do the children of
the world project. I want every child
gathering stories because young people
have, you know, they're not set in their
ways yet. And actually they have more
influence over adults than adults do.
>> We we did a big program on obesity which
was funded by Victoria Secrets which I
always find somewhat ironic. Right.
Everything in Ohio is funded by Victoria
Secrets. You get used to it. All right.
It's the west. But what we did is we
used children as journalists onto adult obesity.
obesity.
Uh and the goal was to change the
children's habits. Now that was using a
principle called oblquity. We got the
children to investigate a problem rather
than trying to educate them. Yeah. In
order not to be. But the fascinating
thing is then their adults did change
their behavior because their children
started to take responsibility for their
diet and they listened right
>> so I think and if you don't know the
great thing Wales did you know we have
the Senate which is our parliament is we
passed the future generations act don't
get me into the first commissioner I'll
do that over another drink but the
concept is the senate cannot pass legislation
legislation
which actually damages future generations
generations
and we've actually stopped motorways on
that basis and done all sorts of things.
So there are things you can start to do
but you've got to find ways to do them
at huge scale and to me the school
system is the way to do that. that
that's a universal education is there
people in there the most flexible we can
start to use the schools in terms of
education that's my mission that's my
hope that's what I wanted my legacy to
be all right to have set that up um and
there are other initiatives as well
people can think about but we got to
start to change to create things which
scale quickly which will produce
unexpected results
the other thing is and this is a key
principle on technology at the moment
U the biological principle of acceptation.
acceptation.
All right. So if you look at most of the
major changes in evolution happened when
something got repurposed. So dinosaurs
feathers evolved for sexual display but
then they exact for flight. Right? The
cerebellum evolved to manipulate muscles
and fingers. It exapts in humans to
manage grammar.
Right? Grammar is just too sophisticated
to evolve in a linear way. Microwave
ovens came when somebody noticed
realized the significance of a chocolate
bar melting in their pocket when they
were maintaining a radar.
>> Yeah. So, we got to start to think and
this is something else we're talking
about with University College San Diego
and we're really open to talking about
more people. We got to find ways in
which we can find existing technologies
and people capability and repurpose them
very quickly for things like climate
change. And those maneuvers will appear non-correlative.
non-correlative.
>> Yeah, that's exactly it.
>> Yeah. And and this is I think the big uh
uh
the big excitement. There's there's this
is a realm of possibility that's just waiting.
waiting.
>> And it relates to what we did talk we
might talk about yes last night when we
talked about this, which is abduction.
>> Yeah. I think we're we're supposed to
let the room in.
>> All right. Sorry. We'll stop there. Yes,
please. But just hint, we might be able
to talk about adduction if you ask the
right question, right?
>> Yeah, we're we're waiting for the right question.
question.
>> Yeah. Sorry, Robert.
>> Yeah. So, we did want to let the room
in. You are the room and
>> Was that the right question?
>> Yeah. Don't
>> I would love to hear reactions,
reflections, questions, comments.
I think I will see two things. One is
there's a lot of us.
>> Um be mindful of that.
The second thing is if you are very
comfortable speaking and you've spoken
before, maybe hold back a little bit.
And if you haven't spoken yet and you
feel a trepidation, that's fine.
>> And maybe you can't get your voice in,
put it into the sense maker thing they
showed you yesterday. Capture it as a story.
story.
>> And the sense maker will come up right
after this. So, it's all almost
designed, planned. Sorry. What call it?
>> Co-evolving. Thank you. >> Co-evolving.
>> Co-evolving.
>> I'm repurposing it.
>> Exactly. And you have the microphones in
front of you. They actually work. So, if
you press the button, you can talk into
them and everybody will hear, including
the people online. And then you press
Please. Yes.
I'll try the microphone. It work. Is
that okay? Um I just wanted to link two
things, maybe more than two things that
I think you said and I just hope that
you could unpack them. Um
one was that we are here for what was
it? We're here on behalf of the future.
And then another one was the Renaissance
was interested in the old as well as the
new which connected to something I heard
in one of the other groups about you
know institutions that are going through
transformation should decide what
they're going to change but also what
they preserve.
Um, and then we got to the sort of Jesuitical
Jesuitical
uh, give me a child until the age of 17
and they're mine for life and
>> I was a Jesuit briefly so I should be
careful here, right? >> Um,
>> Um,
I like to think that I'll be part of the
future as well. I'll, you know, when I'm
75, the world's going to be possibly
quite a horrible place. I hope I'll
still be part of making it better. I
have this hope that as we all age, we're
all going to keep building this society.
And I just wondered how you see this
work of
bringing in the old, bringing in the
new, becoming old,
keeping on. How do we ret
are we able to keep creating new things
as we age? And as society,
the old structures of our society age.
Can we keep rebirthing ourselves within
I I'll I'll just say something brief and
then I'll give it to you because there's
a lot of that Jesuit stuff that's yours. Um,
Um,
>> I could have been a Dominican, but >> so
I really
hope that we don't suffer any more decades,
decades,
years, moments, seminars
of innovation and creativity
>> because those things have been a disaster.
disaster.
So one of the spaces that can get really
twisted up is this idea of we have to
imagine a new way of living but the
imagination is sourcing from existing experiences.
experiences.
And so we have, you know, what we're
looking at right now in in in 25 is
several decades of conferences that both
of us have been to and several of you
have been to where this call for in
innovation and creativity has produced
brand new shiny words for the same old thing.
thing.
And um it comes in slightly different
shapes and sizes, but it's really
addictive processes in existing systems.
And so we have to be super careful that
if we are asking the question that
you're asking which is a good question
that we don't slide there and it's the
the vigilance that it takes to catch yourself
yourself
when you think oh this is a clever idea
this is going to be the new IT social
technology and then you think wait a
minute do we need another it social
techn technology because actually maybe
those are part of the problem.
So, so where are these ghosts lurking
that have the same principles and and
um familiar
aspects, appetites? What is it? What is
it? And when is it something new? And
can you tell the difference?
>> Okay, so let me throw out a couple of
examples. All right. One is Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is governed indirectly, not
directly. It has what are called
enabling constraints. So the only rules
are rules about behavior.
Yes. So I actually have some really good
friends on the far right in the US
because they know the rules and they
play by them. So we can get reasonable
articles out. Right. And it's not dealt
with directly. Nobody adjudicates the
content. It's human actors having to
work together within a constraint of
behavior. Right? And I say with the
famous compromise dair for the city,
London dairy for the county and there's
lots of others. Right? So this is what
I'm talking about. That's what the
future generations at which is now being
looked at by other European countries is
a change in the rules about interaction.
It's not a solution. >> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> Right. So change in the rules and change
in the interactions is the most likely
method. Yeah. In that context, education
has lost generalists.
I've been I mean I I designed a whole
master MBA in which everybody you know
you come on it for two years you would
do the universities
courses to retrain people who say
haven't done maths or haven't done
biology or hadn't done so those basic
courses and then at the end of it you'd
integrate all of that knowledge in a
thesis because we've lost generalists.
But when you say we have to change the interactions,
interactions,
what you're not saying is we have to
change the script.
>> No, because the script will emerge from
the change of the interactions. And
that's key.
>> That's right. Because it's it's not that
difficult to teach people new words and
have them say all the same things with them.
them.
>> So it's very important to to
>> and I think it's it's it's it's
everybody should start to understand
emergence because it's key. Now, another
example, let's take the Renaissance
thing. All right, so I've done a lot of
work with indigenous Australians over
the years, right? My first most
formative experience was when a mine
security guard literally blasted the
head off an indigenous person next to me
with a shotgun. And I went to the police
and they said, "It's only an abbo." If
you don't know the history of indigenous
Australia, you need to read it. They
weren't classified as human beings till
1960s. They were classified as flora and
fauna. No. Oh, yeah. No, I can tell you
lots of stories about that. You ever
gone with an indigenous group on a cold burn?
burn?
And I still don't know how they do it,
but they can burn shrubbery cold.
That's a technology we've lost, but we
desperately need. At the same time,
we've now started to identify bacteria
which can actually eat plastics.
Yeah. And we're now way past the point
where actually we're not going to have
to geo re-regineer. We know we're going
to have to geo re-engineer. The danger
is somebody like Musk decides he will do
it rather than some sort of control. So
there's this mixture of and and my big
point and I get really annoyed at
indigenous people being forced into a
western characteristic of wisdom. It's
why I don't use the word they're very scientific
scientific
very scientific in what they do and
there's stuff we can learn from on that
but then we have to learn how we apply
it in agricultural practice. But you
know herbal lays farmers are suddenly
realizing herbal lays are more economic.
>> All right. Than actually fertilizer.
Yeah. Cows and you know lambs in the UK
now are born later because it turns out
to be cheaper. All right. So there's a
mixture of old and new which is why I
said renaissance. But we keep thinking
we can redesign society which was the
enlightenment myth. And if you want the
worst example of the result of that is
the American constitution.
Yeah. Look what that did. Sorry, I'm
just being deliberately provocative there.
there.
>> Good. Let's open it up again, >> please.
>> Hello. Yes, this one works. Uh my
question is a quick one and I'm starting
with the assumption that you know this
concept. Uh the concept is sort
uh what do you think about sort as a way
>> Yeah,
>> this is a constant fight between Simon
Wardley and myself and I'm trying to get
him to realize he's wrong. Right.
Um, sort the problem with sort is first
of all it's too easy to manipulate.
>> You probably should say what it is.
>> Okay. So, sort is effectively government
is random. You you pick your members of
parliament at random from the
population. Yeah. Um, yeah. I mean, it's
probably as good as anything we do at
the moment, but it doesn't change the
underlying principle, right?
>> Um, I actually think I mean one of the
things we're now looking at is an
alternative on citizen assemblies. I
mean one is swarming behavior of bees.
So we've we've now just launched this.
I'll be talking about it on Tuesday. We
can actually involve the whole of a
country through its young people in a
single day in multiple iterations around
a subject because that's how bees find
an optimal space. They go backwards and
forwards at a micro level. None of them
know the whole. In fact, generally
anybody who use the words holistic
should be taken out and shot for the
sake of humanity
because for a start you can't think
holistically and if you try to you
distort the system based on your view of
what it should be. Yeah. So you miss
things you need to know. So yeah we I I
think we need to rethink the way we
engage people and we need to engage more
people not just have a different way of
selecting less. Yeah.
And by the way on citizen assembly you
can select by identity. So this group
may be diverse but it's not diverse in
terms of identity and we need to start
selecting we I mean we it's one of the
other things we've been working on is
how do you measure identity so you can
actually select for identity diversity
>> which is not to do with gender or race
or anything like that. It's attitudes.
>> Yeah. I would like to say on behalf of
Waves that the opinions of the speakers
Um I have a sense that maybe we take a
couple of voices and then we can
>> Okay, play with it. Yeah, good.
>> Yeah, please. >> Uh
>> Uh
sorry, it was impressive the sound. So I
was just wondering about um the
practical way you handle this dialogue
because I noticed that uh you
interrupted your partner Nora a lot and
I was wondering I myself interrupt a lot
people and I noticed it during um this
event that when we have pair discussions
it was really hard for me when I'm
enthusiastic to not stop the other
person speaking. So, how do you handle
the situation um when you're the person
interrupting? How do you prevent
yourself and leave space? And for the
other participant, how you how do you
keep your ground? And how do you speak
in a in an atmosphere where you feel
that sometimes you are a bit repressed
or you are someone who takes time to
think and need that space to express yourself.
So,
>> I can you can go first.
>> The thing is is that I first have to
ask, are you saying that I interrupted
Dave a lot? Because I know that I did. >> Um,
>> Um,
but Dave knows that I love him
>> and I can interrupt it. I can
>> And if I don't interrupt, he just keeps going.
going.
And and he knows that and I know that.
So, you know, this is the problem with
looking at rules for communication
instead of the relationship.
And I think you can probably all feel in
this room
that Dave wasn't offended when I
I just went away and cried quietly in a
corner. I mean, I want you to Yeah.
Yeah.
Go ahead. Go on. No, no. Oh, really?
>> Two things. One is
>> it's really it's it's your turn. I don't
want to silence.
>> If if if you put yourself forward as a
speaker, then you deserve everything you
get. Sorry. If you put yourself forward
as an authority, then your authority
will be challenged. You'll be
interrupted. You have to learn to cope
with it. Right? That's life. Um I almost
got divorced because my I didn't tell my
wife about the family habit of of
tearing people's ideas apart for fun.
And it's it's actually a Celtic habit.
We do it. All right. It's kind of like,
you know, put an idea forward. Let's all
beat everybody up for about an hour. You
learn more through argument than you do
by consensus. Consensus destroys
novelty. Right?
>> You can actually, we have a thing called
the triopticon which I'll happily send
you data on. It has three speakers. What
happens? You say, let's give an academic
example. You have three professors. They
each bring seven master students. This
is when we're doing transdicciplinary
stuff. Professor one speaks. Professors
two and three respond. Nobody's allowed
to have a conversation.
Yeah. Then all of each one from each of
the professors group goes away in a
group of three and has a conversation.
They come back and one of the three sits
in a circle with the others and talks
about what they've learned. We repeat
twice more
and then the seven groups of three
become three groups of seven. They do
the integration. Right? the professors
only get to speak once and respond twice
and we use more effectively the more
junior people to do the integration. Now
that's a process and this is the point I
try and this is the point Norah and I
both have done in our work. You don't
tell people how they should behave. You
will never see either of us talk about
ideal behavior. We both created
processes which are more likely to
generate that behavior. So that if you
want to actually hear voices in a way a
triopticon is a formal process which
ritualizes that exchange in the way you
do it. Ritual descent if you which is
another one is you present your ideas to
a group. You then put on a mask and the
group and that's critical. The group is
then instructed to tear your ideas apart.
apart.
Yeah. And Canadians are the worst at
this by the way because they're so
polite normally when you when you
legitimize it they can really go for
you. All right. But it's done to groups
in parallel and repeated basis. So it
it's process. Yeah. That that we need to
f focus. It's not about telling people
how they should behave. And this is what
institutions have traditionally done.
It's creating processes which are more
likely to generate that behavior.
>> The question of culture is really
important in this too. Um,
>> I my first husband was a a guy from New
York and I'm from California.
>> What could go wrong? So, so it's a
thing, you know, on the East Coast, as
it is in some other cultures as well,
that the way that you show that you're
paying attention and that you're engaged
in the conversation is by interrupting.
>> That's how you show you're in. Okay. But
I from California and in California, not
you wouldn't know it from this
conversation, but probably from the
conversation with Vanessa,
um that
the way that you show that you're
listening is that you stop and you
consider and you make a space. I'm
listening to you so there's quiet
between what someone says and what the
next person says. And that's how you
show respect. That's how you show that
you're actually considering it. So, we
divorced because it was impossible. I
mean, I was like, "You never you you're
not even listening to me. You won't even let me finish my sentence." And he was
let me finish my sentence." And he was like, "I just said something to you and
like, "I just said something to you and you don't even respond." I'm like, "I'm
you don't even respond." I'm like, "I'm thinking."
thinking." And so, we we like it was very difficult
And so, we we like it was very difficult to undo this. And this is where you have
to undo this. And this is where you have to be really really careful with
to be really really careful with thinking that you can actually
thinking that you can actually um oify the codes of communication
um oify the codes of communication because culture matters
because culture matters and relationship matters.
and relationship matters. Um and and so what is possible
Um and and so what is possible to say
to say is a whole different thing than what is
is a whole different thing than what is said.
said. Okay? You can look at a conversation,
Okay? You can look at a conversation, you can say, well, this is what is said
you can say, well, this is what is said and this is what happened.
and this is what happened. But what was possible in the
But what was possible in the relationship? What was possible? Okay,
relationship? What was possible? Okay, so when we're talking about a practice
so when we're talking about a practice of perceiving interreational,
of perceiving interreational, interconnectedness, interdependence, you
interconnectedness, interdependence, you know, ecological living, moving, alive,
know, ecological living, moving, alive, complex systems. This is what we're
complex systems. This is what we're talking about is paying attention to
talking about is paying attention to what's happening in the relationship.
what's happening in the relationship. And the thing is it might not look like
And the thing is it might not look like you think it should. Right? Case in
you think it should. Right? Case in point, right? I I remember doing some um
point, right? I I remember doing some um you know work with various groups of
you know work with various groups of people working on different kinds of
people working on different kinds of communication that were supposed to
communication that were supposed to deescalate
deescalate responses.
responses. >> Why would you do that? I was curious
>> Why would you do that? I was curious what they would say. I was curious. So,
what they would say. I was curious. So, so, but but they get they got all mixed
so, but but they get they got all mixed up because they were like, "Well, this
up because they were like, "Well, this is how you should say it."
is how you should say it." >> And then you think, "Yeah, but I mean,
>> there's plenty of people that I've met who say nothing at all and with a
who say nothing at all and with a slight,
slight, you know, batter of a eyelash, you have
you know, batter of a eyelash, you have been eviscerated."
been eviscerated." There's nothing on the transcript, but
There's nothing on the transcript, but you have been the floor has been wiped
you have been the floor has been wiped with your idea.
with your idea. So, what is non-violent communication?
So, what is non-violent communication? I mean, I know that's a particular term,
I mean, I know that's a particular term, but I'm just I'm just saying this is the
but I'm just I'm just saying this is the sort of practice of uh and attention to
sort of practice of uh and attention to relational movement that's necessary.
relational movement that's necessary. >> It's a it's a power play as well. That's
>> It's a it's a power play as well. That's the other trouble. I mean, you see
the other trouble. I mean, you see people use that sort of I my you're not
people use that sort of I my you're not mimicking my behavior as a way of
mimicking my behavior as a way of silencing people,
silencing people, right? And we need more disscent in
right? And we need more disscent in society at the moment. We need more
society at the moment. We need more argument. We need more ideas. We need
argument. We need more ideas. We need more challenge and homogenization is the
more challenge and homogenization is the most dangerous thing out for humanity.
most dangerous thing out for humanity. Yeah. I mean, there's a phrase I use a
Yeah. I mean, there's a phrase I use a lot which is coherent heterogeneity.
lot which is coherent heterogeneity. We need to be different and the same in
We need to be different and the same in different contexts. Right? And if you
different contexts. Right? And if you don't have that difference, you don't
don't have that difference, you don't get evolution. It's called a gradient in
get evolution. It's called a gradient in biology. Yeah. Without a gradient,
biology. Yeah. Without a gradient, evolution stops, right? And homogenizing
evolution stops, right? And homogenizing around a very particular North Atlantic
around a very particular North Atlantic values about how we should communicate
values about how we should communicate is not going to be good for humanity.
And I think it's also, you know, when you're with some friends, you're
you're with some friends, you're different than when you're with other
different than when you're with other people in your life. With some people,
people in your life. With some people, you're the funny one, and some people
you're the funny one, and some people you're the, you know, the one that's
you're the, you know, the one that's learning, and some people, you're the
learning, and some people, you're the one that's the know-it-all. And with
one that's the know-it-all. And with some people, you're the one that's,
some people, you're the one that's, you know, the cynic. And with other
you know, the cynic. And with other people, you're the one that's the the
people, you're the one that's the the woo person.
woo person. Who are you? Now, in each one of those
Who are you? Now, in each one of those cases, it's not that you're being
cases, it's not that you're being somehow inauthentic
somehow inauthentic and a chameleon.
and a chameleon. It's that you're responding to context.
It's that you're responding to context. You're responding to the relationship.
You're responding to the relationship. Who can I be in this relationship?
Who can I be in this relationship? That is
That is necessary.
necessary. >> I think it's respect as well. So, if if
>> I think it's respect as well. So, if if you Yeah. For example, if you get
you Yeah. For example, if you get somebody really young comes in, you're
somebody really young comes in, you're going to listen to them without
going to listen to them without interrupting. If you got somebody an
interrupting. If you got somebody an event like this, well, you're going to
event like this, well, you're going to interrupt if you think it it makes
interrupt if you think it it makes sense. All right? And then we can work
sense. All right? And then we can work around that because I mean, you and I
around that because I mean, you and I have done this and we said, "Hang on a
have done this and we said, "Hang on a minute. I just want to go back to that."
minute. I just want to go back to that." I think trust comes trust is the ability
I think trust comes trust is the ability to communicate in whatever is natural to
to communicate in whatever is natural to you. But you have to respect the context
you. But you have to respect the context in the person. For some people, you
in the person. For some people, you can't do that. Other people, you can.
can't do that. Other people, you can. Yeah.
Yeah. But events like this, come on guys, you
But events like this, come on guys, you came together to create a different
came together to create a different world.
world. >> We're not going to create a different
>> We're not going to create a different world if we all if we all use clean
world if we all if we all use clean language. Sorry. Going to have to have
language. Sorry. Going to have to have some bloody dirty language to change
some bloody dirty language to change this world at the moment.
>> No, I can try.
I can try. Looks like the front row isn't working.
Looks like the front row isn't working. >> I'll speak loud. Um, I find myself
>> I'll speak loud. Um, I find myself wishing that Vanessa was here as well.
wishing that Vanessa was here as well. >> And I love
>> And I love it's about foundations.
it's about foundations. So, what does it mean to be a human
So, what does it mean to be a human being?
being? And the assumptions of modernity
And the assumptions of modernity are what are failing. And they're not
are what are failing. And they're not the only assumptions.
the only assumptions. I'm curious about that. And you've had
I'm curious about that. And you've had extensive experience with indigenous
extensive experience with indigenous folks. They come at the world in a very
folks. They come at the world in a very different way.
>> So do the Fins. >> Part of place.
>> Part of place. >> All the people in all the culture of the
>> All the people in all the culture of the world come at it in a different way. I
world come at it in a different way. I wouldn't privilege anyone over another.
wouldn't privilege anyone over another. >> Absolutely. except what I'm trying to
>> Absolutely. except what I'm trying to point to.
point to. Um,
okay. So, that's the >> it's it's about the land. It's about the
>> it's it's about the land. It's about the land relationship. It's about the more
land relationship. It's about the more than human kin. It it's those kinds of
than human kin. It it's those kinds of things. And I'm not erodite enough to be
things. And I'm not erodite enough to be able to articulate.
able to articulate. >> I can take you to some farmers. My
>> I can take you to some farmers. My ancestors my ancestors are from Scotland
ancestors my ancestors are from Scotland and Ireland. And I know that if I go
and Ireland. And I know that if I go back far enough, like there was that
back far enough, like there was that right relationship
right relationship and modernity doesn't have it. And so if
and modernity doesn't have it. And so if we're talking about solutions and it's
we're talking about solutions and it's still based on the broken assumptions,
still based on the broken assumptions, then it doesn't matter what brilliant
then it doesn't matter what brilliant ideas we come up with, it's not going to
ideas we come up with, it's not going to work in a good way.
work in a good way. >> Okay. Firstly, I love a lot of what is
>> Okay. Firstly, I love a lot of what is in Vanessa's book, but her use of
in Vanessa's book, but her use of modernity is a straw man. Anything she
modernity is a straw man. Anything she doesn't like, she says that's modernity,
doesn't like, she says that's modernity, right? And that to me is problematic. I
right? And that to me is problematic. I mean, she might as well say sin and then
mean, she might as well say sin and then then it would be better. Modernity, we
then it would be better. Modernity, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for
wouldn't be here if it wasn't for modernity,
modernity, right? The solutions to climate change
right? The solutions to climate change are going to come from modernity as it's
are going to come from modernity as it's created the problems. And we've got to
created the problems. And we've got to stop trying to privilege or romanticize
stop trying to privilege or romanticize things. As I say, I grew up in a farming
things. As I say, I grew up in a farming environment. Right? The the farmers I
environment. Right? The the farmers I knew had a relationship with their land
knew had a relationship with their land is called that's where canving comes
is called that's where canving comes from in Welsh. The sheep know where to
from in Welsh. The sheep know where to go. Right? So we can't go back to a
go. Right? So we can't go back to a rural idil. All cultures have that. We
rural idil. All cultures have that. We got to find different solutions and we
got to find different solutions and we shouldn't demonize anything. Modernity,
