Hallo Du!
Bevor du loslegst den Talk zu transkribieren, sieh dir bitte noch einmal unseren Style Guide an: https://wiki.c3subtitles.de/de:styleguide. Solltest du Fragen haben, dann kannst du uns gerne direkt fragen oder unter https://webirc.hackint.org/#irc://hackint.org/#subtitles oder https://rocket.events.ccc.de/channel/subtitles oder https://chat.rc3.world/channel/subtitles erreichen.
Bitte vergiss nicht deinen Fortschritt im Fortschrittsbalken auf der Seite des Talks einzutragen.
Vielen Dank für dein Engagement!

Hey you!
Prior to transcribing, please look at your style guide: https://wiki.c3subtitles.de/en:styleguide. If you have some questions you can either ask us personally or write us at https://webirc.hackint.org/#irc://hackint.org/#subtitles or https://rocket.events.ccc.de/channel/subtitles or https://chat.rc3.world/channel/subtitles .
Please don't forget to mark your progress in the progress bar at the talk's website.
Thank you very much for your commitment!




======================================================================






[Music]
 uh this is about techn fixes techn fixes and techn fixes beware is being presented to you by R and Rina and I give the stage to you um hi uh and Welcome to our talk techn fixes beware Tech fictions as replacement for social and political change we are delighted that you're all here with us um I'm R I'm a policy advisor at friend of the earth one of the biggest environmental noos in Germany also known as bndd and I'm an economist climate activist and also a proud member of the bits and boy Network and I'm here here with rer hello my name is Riner um I'm co-chair of the um Forum computer Professionals for peace and Society responsibility also happy member of the bits and bumer network I have a background in computer science and philosophy and my working areas of sustainability and also Tech narratives which which brings us directly to the point um we both work at the intersection of sustainability and Technology and in our political work we noticed that there's something wrong about the way we talk about tech in the context of global crisis especially es especially environmental and human rights issues um so this talk is based on our daily experience with the tech discourse in politics and science um and just firstly of course there's a lot of potential in technology and Innovation but many times Tech is overestimated as a a solution for social and environmental challenges um these misconceptions might seem random but we and other smart colleagues and activists found patterns over time in the misuse of tech narratives so this talk is a working definition um with the goal to help you spot techn fixes and not be distracted from real solutions so what will we do will we do now first we'll talk about the back ground and the problem of technology for sustainability uh talk about patterns of misleading Tech promises uh then give some examples and analyze them and then we want to explain what we think are reasons for this um and then conclude with talking about actual Solut
ions or actual usages um and conclude with a little mental tool for spotting techn fixes okay so what is the problem we're trying to fix um um I'm sure in the past Years everybody of you heard about the mult multiple crises often referring to different difficult situations in World politics and one thing seems to be sure we Face multiple environmental social and political challenges that are closely interconnected uh in my work and also in rina's work at bitson BMA um the most impending crisis of course is the climate cat climate catastrophe um we just experiened the hottest July and the wetest December ever recorded the European climate agency even states that in July uh it hasn't been this warm in July for the last 120,000 years um and that shows us or that emphasizes that we are on a very good path to a climate catastrophe our current warming is 1.1 de um and we're on a good path to reach 3° and and that's really bad because if we surpass two or 1.5° warming we will reach so-called tipping points which are irreversible changes in the earth system um and this can lead to many different incidences um one of the worst things are extreme weather incidences like floods as we saw them in Pakistan in two 2022 or droughts as we experienced in Kenya this year of forest fires like in rodos or Maui um but the climate crisis is also intertwined closely with other ecological crisis like the rapid biodiversity loss or a crisis of resources like water metals or soil which leads to conflict and exploitation of Nature and of course um social crisis are also on the rise each year there are less countries with de with Democratic systems and we experience two financial crisis in the past 15 years and with the pandemic and the current Global conflicts inequality is rising faster than ever before so this seems bad and hopeless but what if technology could save us so what if tech could save us exactly could all those crisises be solved um usually we hear about Technical Innovations and
 also new companies trying this and hopefully succeeding so we talk about new technologies and new toys but also new ways of working and dealing with this at least this is what investors innovators technologists uh also billionaires and also political actors like political parties tell us and um quickly we often talk about blockchain AI carbon capture and storage or carbon air capture we will now look into this more closely into the promises but before we start we just want to briefly outline some core Notions uh two core Notions to know what's the foundation for our talk how we operate um in this talk now first talking about fictions well we are not all experts well maybe we are but uh Society wide not all experts in all areas also not technology so we need stories about the abilities and narratives about the functioning and fictions are special stories with imaginary or unreal elements so now the question is are the tech abilities can they unfold in the present or in the future or are they only promises so if they have a large imaginary part you could say they are it's pretty sure we talk about techn fixes and if the imaginary part or the unreal part is rather small we talk about at least approaches solution is a problematic term uh so the question is is an approach a solution for a given problem at the same time uh the second notion is sustainability which is a goal while technology usually is a tool not only it's complex uh sustainability as a goal and just to to briefly outline it is the ability to fulfill one's needs not once once but needs uh without impeding uh the present and future Generations ability to solve them so this implies inter and intragenerational uh justice as well as Global Justice and as we heard from R um change is necessary uh we live in a definitely crazily unstain unsustainable world and with unsustainable Lifestyles not individually but collectively um and this is just to stress it not only nature protection this is a question of our own
 livelihoods okay let's get to uh the misleading Tech promises in the sustainability discourse as ra mentioned we talk about uh we recognize there are some patterns how technology is being talked about and we found that two types and both are fictions both are somehow distinct uh both distract uh but they distract in different ways and that's why it's important to make this distinction we have we just call them type A which is um a discussing D fictional technology when there's real technology available for the same problem even commercially available so we talk about unsuitable technology when there is suitable technology type B uh type B is discussing fictional technology when the problem in itself is not a technically solvable problem when this is a political or social problem so this is an another way of misleading uh Tech discourse and we want to talk about this now more concretely coming to type a of the tech discourse misuse just to give one give two examples to make this clear why we are talking about this first example is automated driving and or electric cars in uh inner cities there's a promise of fossil less uh Mobility with fossiles engines um less emissions and also more space on the city on the city streets however and the technology of course is electrical engines um then computers on Wheels you could say uh with a lot of cameras and sensors uh and automatic navigation and that's kind of what we what we're heading for if we want to have automated driving um or electric cars however in reality we have many many problems and fundamental problems the autonomy is a big problem if we've SE as we've seen with a lot of um chaotic accidents or near accidents in inner cities this is exactly the the the focus here um usually the city environment is very chaotic uh there's a lot of people a lot of then weather comes in you know construction sites all those things so in order this to work we have would have to entirely rebuild uh the the city um streets and ther
e's of course also errors in those systems um sometimes the cones create errors for you you who have read about it blocking streets and in the end as shown in the in the picture the size of an electric car usually is the same size of an of a fossil driven car uh fueled car so in this sense it's not much of a solution um however what could be a solution we in type A well we can of course talk about public transport we can talk about uh multimodal Mobility um we can talk about some kinds of architectures of cities of short ways um so if we're looking to have a vehicle where you don't have to drive yourself of course you go to the next bus stop so this is a driverless from this the point of view but the question is now we're talking about the discourse misuse who profits from this kind of narrative of course the big corporations who build and do research on this kind of uh on this kind of topics like Google Uber Tesla and also old carmers uh who jump onto this train um quite late okay the second case is nuclear power or fusion power what is the promise well it's the promise of unlimited clean and free energy for everyone the technology is quite simple um well nuclear power uh comes from a splitting large atoms fusion power comes from merging really small atoms um and there we go but however in reality it is a really really expensive technology both are really expensive ter Technologies both can only be done in a in a centralized uh in a centralized ways um the fuel usually comes from dictatorships but okay and uh in terms of fusion they're not even commercially available for the next uh decades so the centralized aspect um um is like we would like to p a stress here so what could be a solution well a solution for uh unlimited clean energy well of course wind water renewable energy solar power some call it remote fusion um this is already commercially available and it could be employed right now but who profits from talking about nuclear power and fusion of course the b
ig uh energy corporations because they know they are the only ones who can employ this kind of Technology um and also political actors who really enjoy delaying the discussion about actual transitions so we have Placebo changes for a change of placebos kind of and um the delay of politics um yeah so this is this is the aspect of nuclear power and fusion now we get to the type B um um Tech discourse misuses by um the other type we identified in our political work is the proposal of tech as a distraction from necessary societal and political change we also brought two examples one is GMOs and the other one is AI for environmental issues um GM o are a very old example that a lot of you may be familiar with um and the basic idea is Tech as a solution to world hunger specifically higher productivity through the usage of genetically modified seeds and herbicides and pesticides um the idea is we end world hunger and improve crop yields um and if you want to understand how it works glat for example is a good uh good example it's a so-called total herbicide which means it kills all plants except certain genetically modified varieties these genetic mod genetically modified varieties and the corresponding herbicides are provided by just a few company worldwide mainly Monsanto baa da dupon Dao and senta they have long names because they all merged in the past years um these three companies own over 60% of the seed Market um and the reality the reality is uh the discussion around GMOs Dat Back even before I was born in 1994 and by now we know that it did not in fact end world hunger although 15 to 20% of the global agriculture um is provided by GMOs and although the usage of genetically modified plants and herbicides improves crop yields in the short short term in the long term it has severely negative impact biodiversity it erodes soils and soils are no longer usable for the cultivation of other varieties for a long time um also studies show that uh the usage severely impacts i
nsect populations and the W suggests that glos might cause cancer and local communities especially in the global Sal repeatedly report increasing Health complications uh in communities that are in close contact with with herbicides um and furthermore furthermore we have a lot of dependency on these uh big seed and herbicide providers so what would be a good solution the first thing to state is hunger is not a technical problem because food is not scars and has never been there is enough food to feed the world the problem is distribution access to land and heavily leveraged food markets and large scale export oriented farming um and the majority of the world is still fed by small farmers and subsistence subsistence farming and so-called local food webs which is also more eco-friendly and sustainable than industrial farming but does not offer uh as big of financial profits so who profits from GMOs well the biggest AGR business companies of course um and the second example uh for Tech as a distraction is something we all read about more than enough this year which is AI um beforehand of this talk I looked up some topics we work on at at FR of the Earth for example circular economy uh oceans or rainforests and right now you will find a policy paper or an article how all these issues can be solved by artificial intelligence and if we believe Silicon Valley or the liberal party in Germany AI can save the rainforest free the oceans from plastic and recycle almost everything uh and this narrative around AI is a very typical technofix um because it implies that all complicated problems that politicians NOS Civil Society or people like you are working on uh for years can be solved by large language models in a few months um and I don't I don't think I have to explain to you that AI can't recycle anything but data or colle collect Plastics from the oceans and in the best case scenario AI provides information and new knowledge by processing for example environmental data and it
 has been used in this way for a long time um but what the narrative like AI can free the oceans from plastic do is distracting us from complicated policy measures like regulating the Plastic industry or switch to reusable um to reusable packaging instead of using single-use plastic um but this way time and resources are invested in Ai and climate Solutions uh and in the best case we gain information but uh but maybe without implementing as any measures and it's very important to State our main problem in environmentalism is not the lack of knowledge um we need good science and but for the most of the environmental policy we know everything we need to know um and it's impressive to measure for example how pollution increases Glaciers are melting or rainforests are lost but this is not news infog Gathering especially with AI without action is a very typical technofix um and of course there are many other examples of big solutions for social environmental problems with the same patterns for example the implementation of cryptocurrencies instead of transforming or regulating our current Financial system or is CCS as the talk by my colleagues um explained before H but now the question is why do these techn fixes work so well yes uh why yeah why do does the distraction work so well well we see um two underlying causes or two underlying reasons and those two reasons are first the ones who spread the uh those kind of narra narratives uh they have the main motivation of staying in power they usually the incumbents um in those given markets but also in the in the given intellectual space um there are the olop Pooles in the part markets um but this is also true for people in the political space who just want to stay where they are when they're in a powerful position um the second one uh is a wrong understanding of Technology of society and the of the context so one could say the first one is is the cause of evil and the second one is incompetence maybe the The Duality uh is t
he common Duality and um maybe it's important to say that maybe the the second one might not be Mal meaning but it support often the first one and the other way around as well so this is more an analytical distinction but they often go times go hand in hand um now um R will explain the first of those reasons and I will explain the second afterwards um a recurring theme that we found is that so-called techn fixes are proposed by companies that already yield a lot of Market power we call that uh new tech old players and we have again to example um AGR business and Mining Supply chains um because if we look closer at the proposed Solutions especially regarding digital Tech many players that drive Innovation or rule Supply chains have been around for decades um a good example is again digital agriculture at first glance plants might see might not seem very technical but Agri business corporations have always been tech companies the development of GMOs pesticides and fertilizers uh were always technological processes um and with the rise of digital agriculture Tech these companies seek to maintain their monopolies by buying Tech startups and implementing digital Tech into their business Fields um our friends at the ETC group even state every sector of the industrial food chain is in the process to transforming into a digital Enterprise and so drones or robots or new GMO might seem very futuristic but in the end they are provided by old companies like B Monsanto or BF who want to keep their Monopoly on the food chain similarly um the prod C of digital Hardware can be considered fairly new maybe uh like apple Microsoft sap um but the supply and extraction of the materials that are needed for the production such as Metals minerals or other resources is operated by the same companies and Supply chains that already provided these materials for example the car or the chemical industry for almost centuries um and the resources are mostly extracted from the global South to be us
ed in the global North and these Supply chains have been established since colonial times and are maintained by trade agreements and international institutions until today um our colleagues at for example attack have very good work on this um but for example the extraction of cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo or the mining of leum in Latin America is not very new also the stories of human rights violations or ecological harms are not new but the production of tech itself intensified the demand for these resources and here we can see again the tech might be new but the supply chain is built on very old Power structures yeah oh God yeah and uh the second thing we see is um the promise of tech actors to be different but behaving in the same way established companies do uh we call that new players all systems um a great example of course is Elon Musk and Tesla um maybe this is a good uh moment to mention the great work of the journalist Paris marks um we can only recommend his book and his podcast if you're interested in these uh themes and of course we all know that Elon Musk is not like the other billionaires um and he wants to be uh humans to be a multiplanetary species and fight uh important Wars Against anti-white Racism on Twitter um and this might seem funny but in the past two decades he has been a very good example um for this type of a Visionary Tech billionaire who is respected by politics and journalists for Innovations and with Tesla for example he greatly profited from this idea of electrification as a climate solution um and the idea for electric cars have also been around for a very long time the last German Emperor even owned electric cars um but Tesla defined in our time that these cars need to fulfill an image of a very masculine mob Mobility maybe which means being heavy and big um and the business model is basically offering an electric car that feels like it's it is fuel by gasoline um and this of course make Teslas the opposite of susta
inable um they require large batteries and these require a lot of resources and have a high demand for energy to move around and the electric cars that would really support the ecological transformation would in the best case be buses for example but in any case would be very smaller and fewer and not the primary primary source of Mobility for people um and another very good example for tech companies um that are new players but work in Old systems uh amadon and leando for example both own like shiny headquarters in Berlin and Hamburg for example the Amazon Tower uh and promote uh ideals of new work and Innovation um but still have business models that are based on very classic models of of exploitation of cheap labor for profits um I think it's very telling that in 2022 Jeff basos earned around $8 million per hour while employees in delivery in Germany for Amazon earned around 15 an hour so although technology and emerging companies seem futuristic and new um in many cases the technology only renews the power of old players or the new new emerging players are built on the same destructive systems as the old ones and now we come to the second of the two reasons we found um which we described wrong understanding of tech and Society the incompetence argument maybe one could say well often times uh technology does not deliver on on its promises let's for example uh say the Revolutionary um uh Endeavor for let's say uh cryptocurrencies because quite often there are inappropriate concepts of the technology and of the society and of the context underlying so one could say um there are two kinds and their interest two types and they're intertwined somehow um so the first one is the understanding of the functionality of the technology itself we all heard the talk about immutability and the distribution and the trustless and when we once we look at the techn techology it is of course mutable and it is very little distributed and you need a lot of trust um for this to work th
e same is true for the AI uh Technologies where often times um journalists and sometimes even the technological proponents uh proponents don't even understand how it's really working and just dig into the promises same was true let's say 10 years ago about uh Big Data um and the Wonders that can be done with uh with the new kinds of uh new kinds of data the second aspect is a reduced understanding of humans and society as it works um common misunderstandings there are humans are just just computers you know they mainly work like this the brain is nothing else than a processing like in data processing unit but uh just in meat um however if we look at the uh all kinds of social sciences uh this is exactly not how it works um at the same time there's a lot of belief of society mainly beliefs of transactions um meaning uh that all is basically Game Theory and so all human interactions can be framed like this um and trust between humans is uh it's a bug and of course when I have this kind of assum assumption and I see human beings and Bane as mainly economic interactors then I can apply technology that models exactly this and that is being able to model exactly this however that's why often times this goes wrong because Society doesn't work like this and human interaction also doesn't work like this so in the end this kind of application goes wrong does not help with the solution uh does not help with the problems we've been proposing and often times it also creates a lot of harm not only because it takes up discussion space and also funding but because people who invested that could be money could be time could be hope into this um of course uh a lose um and of course often times to the bigger players in the field so the framework conditions and the embedding of the technology itself the social embedding is is key in this misunderstanding however there are a lot of Solutions in context in the context what have we have talked about and of course we don't want Al don't on
ly want to talk about tech fix fix techn fixes and how everything is bad but we have a lot of solutions and this I think is a really good news especially for our uh chaos family here um we have a lot of well-known working Tech and a lot of it is low Tech that can be maintained understood uh shared and learned including all the the wonders of skill sharing and free software and all such things but this of course has to be implemented um but also apart from the digital aspects I mean we all have heard the terms of a bike City or public trans transport as mentioned before of the 20h hour week of smaller cars um but also small scale agriculture which actually works uh or nonprofit Food Markets uh down to plant-based food uh or renewable energy uh as we all know that um uh for example solar power is not a very complex technology hopefully uh luckily anymore so what's necessary of course is reform of markets and the econ economy with ideas of degrowth or circular economy which of course is very very hard but it is necessary we cannot refrain from doing the right thing because other things seem easier because they just don't work uh I think maybe some of you might think of the person looking for the car keys under the light although having lost them somewhere else but it's easier to search under the light um so we have to talk about financial system democratization and all those things are hard um um uh to do and the key aspect as always is not so much talking about the technological implementation but also about the social transition implied by this so we have to talk about something like climate money from CO2 taxes about financial support for econom the economically uh weak uh within Society but also about increasing taxes I mean if we know that the average like rich person's tax is like 1% I guess all of us if we look at our pay slip this is this is uh actually a narrative um um that shows how much uh how much inequality there is and of course the transition will need 
some effort um but this can all be done as as we say there's a lot of the technological uh uh Solutions already there and we have to focus more on Collective Social Security than into individual safety and the question is always in at around the corner what is it that makes us happy of course we should we like to Tinker with technology hack stuff build stuff but equally important it is the time we spend with with each other and the time learning understanding something and sharing that we've just understood something so sharing this with our with the um chaos family with our community uh with our friends and partners so there is such thing as social wealth this is something to strive for or time wealth that there's enough time to do all those things and also time to for regeneration uh and for um taking care of each other uh in darker times so we can later on hack together again so saying this the sustainable future is a great future to conclude so we hope we made a case a briefcase although uh that techn techn fixes distract our minds and slow down the necessary change and as maybe um promised this is like a little cognitive tool to to spot a technno fix or to ask the right questions some of you might know the uh the viten bomb test it's kind of the analogous to the touring test maybe look it up if you're interested the questions we would ask to propose to spot a technofix is who proposes it what is the supply chain what are the actors who are not in the front but in the back so follow where the things come from and where the parts come from literally but also symbolically but also what is the def of the problem so make people who suggest a certain uh a certain solution what can you say a little bit more what the problem is you try to fix before you start um fountaining the solution you have um or maybe explain a little bit more or talk about the the societal background the context and also the social embedding of it because always when we Design Technology we desi
gn social practice and this is key so if someone proposes a certain technological solution but cannot answer how this would be embedded in existing practices or how new practices could look like I mean there's um good ideas everywhere then this is already an indicator so uh we would like to conclude with uh like the call let's talk about usable technology and apply it uh we have to unlock the real potential um and then we're good for the golden future um and those are some references if you're curious about this come to us later on and then thanks a lot for your attention thank
[Applause]
[Music]
 you um and of course this talk uh and nearly all work we do in in our noos or at activists um is a team effort this includes the bits and BMA crew of course our colleagues uh incredible activists many individual researchers and of course the Angels here the content team and the vog so Applause for them thank you thank you R and Briana so if you have questions uh don't be afraid to line up at the microphones and uh or participate online I'm having a look at this signal Angel is there anything from the internet nothing from the internet but from microphone 2 please hello thank you thank you for the talk um so maybe maybe I had a bit of confusion but um so you would proposed for example uh instead of electric cars try to push buses but you know coming from the US uh how would you solve the issue that you're trying to propose something that maybe the greater population doesn't want and my thinking was when you propose that the first politician that tries to force that down is going to be the first politician that loses their job in record time so and and you know you you talked about Tesla as well Tesla didn't form in a vacuum right there there's context as to how they ended up the way they are right nobody else was really pushing you like You' mentioned electric cars have been around for longer than gasoline cars it's true but yeah I mean nobody else has really pushed it until they they they made it popularized so how would you propose that actual fundamental issue of like okay you're pushing against what people want or what they perceive that they want right thank you um I can I mean I'm not a specialist on Transportation in the US I can highly recommend the book by Paris Marx on transportation and Silicon Valley and I think um it's true that the transformation process politically is hard but I think uh the future of having for example walkable cities um and good public transportation is something that is very attractive to a lot of people um and I think with our tal
k what we want to say is not uh necessarily this or maybe it's not a manual what a a politician can do tomorrow but the way we have to look at Tech to find real solutions and if we want to tackle the climate crisis and if we want to do it in a way um that um allows people to live in community we need Concepts like walkable cities public transport um like we saw on the picture you had on your slide um so and I think what what is what the thing with Tesla is Tesla is answering the questions how we should transform Transportation with big electric cars and that's not the answer yeah and I would like to add um I think all your points are really valid and really important um however we cannot mix fundamental Democratic problems with this issues we have been discussing here because um from my knowledge I'm also not being an expert on us transportation there is a lot of support for this kind of transitioning but the Democratic process do not does not reflect this and this is maybe this is a much much bigger issue and um the the second point is we focused that's why we focused on inner cities um of course there are a lot of use cases where big cars and you know all those are actually necessary but the first thing would be how about the inner cities where there's a space problem where there's a lot of uh lot of INF infrastructure that is built around cars and usually um I mean especially in the US people need cars because there's no public transportation so it's somehow a circular uh circular question and I think what I've known from New York there at least some some small plants growing maybe pushing back cars a little bit it is a really really heavy process um so this is yeah but this doesn't change to at least derive from knowing where we should go what would be the actual political next steps so those things uh those levels exist at the same time and with Tesla uh maybe one comment as well um I would like to discuss maybe not now but how much like from the outcome I mean
 the conser the the um the narrative space has been filled up by this but how much did it did those actions activities really uh pay into solving this the problems we mentioned because it seems like it did but I would say in numbers in emissions in um let's say um affordability all those questions you know I'm I'm I'm think I would say that the Tesla narrative takes much more space than it actually has solved on the ground um yeah maybe that was helpful thank you microphone for please be concise we're running out of time unfortunately okay um thank you for for your presentation I have quite similar question as the last one but I don't have um as much an I don't know the word in English sorry um let's just say how do we get the message across um to the conservative side or the economic liberal side of society also some some some um some factions of left to Center also like yeah we need to grow hack the um take take take our out out of the problem like like I mean even if they disagree we you I think you should this talk should be like yeah you should put put CDU members FTP members like into the whole um and all the seats and like so they don't can pretend they they ignore it yeah you want to start no you can start okay um this is also I think a really good uh uh really good remark um this is maybe kind of the the mental preparation to see where we're at and once we talk with different people um the question is how to how to approach and um I mean the first step is always uh try to not be the useful idiot I mean you know that's that means me and us as well like uh implicitly taking the talking points but concretely I mean if I talk to Christians and I say how about protecting God's creation when I talk to liberals how about The Liberation energy which makes us independent from dictatorships um you know there's I think there's a there's there could be a story to tell and um but I think besides all the talk from narratives I think we still have to remember this is a po
wer struggle it's it's nice to have the narratives and uh to talk about people but always to keep in mind this is a power struggle we have to talk about things but also organize and go interaction uh get political this is really some people cannot be convinced because they have their vested interest in this so this would be maybe my answer but R you wanted to say something as well I would say the same thing I think I don't know if we can convince uh people in the liberal party or in the conservative party that um we should invest in ideas that don't yield as much profit um I don't think this is a good strategy I think uh what we know from experience and I'm not just an historian on movements but every time like a technology was pushed back it was with a lot of Street effort a lot of activism a lot of protest and when we think about nuclear power that that that's an achievement of a big movement the same thing with um we talked about GMOs and we don't use GMOs in Germany and Europe for example and that's also a win by a movement so um if we want to push back Technologies it's a fight I would say and also if especially if we talk about Mobility Mobility is something we do for ourself we do for our livelihoods we do to be close to the people we like to transform cities and Landscapes and that's something we have to fight for and um I think that's why you need good activism and that's why we need places like this here because I mean you all are activists for the things um that are moved by the T right yeah and this is also what I would like to add um sorry I have to uh remind you yeah just one sentence um uh some people say those kind of Utopias this is just you know imaginary fantasies and once you wake up you have the hard world I think what we all show here for the four days and then afterwards everywhere building things that actually do work we sit here with thousands of people and people you know get their water electricity internet and on every stand there are peo
ple who build such things so this is Utopia is not a dream it's the it's the kind of the the starting point for the things that exist as parallel options for people to choose and then even maybe the hardcore conservative would say really you did this and it worked and everyone you know you had those talks and they're all online oh okay maybe maybe there's something to think about it's not just you know crazy ideas or they don't have a voice yeah
[Applause]
[Music]
 maybe