Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: What is 5G, how is it different from previous mobile network generations, and why does it stir up as much fear as fascination? In Room #870 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into radiation fears versus network dreams, filter bubbles and shifting discourse, the “bekloppt” controversy, and why speed — not complexity itself — may be what’s overwhelming us. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A wonderful good morning to you all. Today we’re talking about the fifth generation of mobile networks, so 5G. What is 5G? What’s the difference to previous generations? And what does all of this mean for us? That’s what we want to get into today, in an exchange about it. And each of us has certainly heard something about it already, maybe followed one thing or another, maybe even dug into the details somewhere. Or maybe you already have it in your area, so it’s accessible to you. And accordingly, let’s just take a look. It came up in one of the rooms, in the context where we talked about the Internet of Things. And I already said then, thanks again to Ismail, who brought that up, and I said it would be a shame if we just touched on it in passing. I think it’s far too important. We didn’t have it in the room planning among the topics, and that’s why we’ve now added it, and today it’s about giving 5G the room it deserves, in my view, to get into an exchange about it. And 5G in particular is a topic that’s been discussed a lot in various places, and often gets linked, among other things, to health topics and so on. So I’m really, really curious what you’ve picked up, what you’ve followed, what your attitude toward it might be. And here, just like with the other technologies and developments we’ve looked at, let’s choose various ways of approaching it, without necessarily being an expert yourself, but taking a closer look through the information you had access to, and opening up different perspectives, so we can then look together at where the room develops from there, sort our thoughts for ourselves, and then also generate insights from that. And with that, you’re all very warmly invited to join in, like every morning, to share your experiences, impulses, thoughts, and then, just a quick reminder, that the room is being recorded for the entire hour and will also be published afterward. Anyone who joins automatically agrees to that. And we have three small room rules. First, a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or wants to stay anonymous, is welcome to use the chat to add thoughts, questions, or comments, which we can pick up at one point or another when it fits. Right, and with that I’d like to warmly welcome Layla at my side this morning. What do you say about this topic? What have you been following, and what are your thoughts?
A wonderful good morning. Well, first of all, thank you for taking a bit of the fear away from us. From me too, because this really is an important topic. It’s a topic that affects all of us, and yet you have this feeling — I do, anyway — am I even allowed to have a say here, because I’m not an expert. But I do have a phone, and I often don’t have reception. And that’s why I’m actually looking forward to 5G, but I’ve also been to events about it, and that’s also why I was a little afraid, because on one hand I’m not an expert, and on the other, you don’t want to immediately get put in the tinfoil-hat corner if you say, well, electrosmog — no, I don’t wear a tinfoil hat. I was at an MS support meeting, a very official one, when I got my diagnosis. There, they actually talked about things like Wi-Fi and 5G too. They said it could be an additional burden. And I thought to myself internally, well, I don’t know, how is that actually? I don’t know — I think you all know this — there are people who go around with dowsing rods looking for electrosmog. But if we’re being completely honest, it is the case — what do they recommend? Turn off all electronic devices in the bedroom. And we’re simply going to get more masts, because they’re necessary, and we don’t have a particularly great network in Germany. That frequencies have an effect on us — I don’t know if science agrees on that. In any case, it is a topic — otherwise you wouldn’t see all this stuff on YouTube, “listen to alpha waves, do this and that,” or believe in the law of attraction. And still, I can’t judge it. I don’t have a crystal ball. I can only say for myself that it does me good when I turn off my electronic devices. I don’t want to live directly under a mast, but somebody has to live directly under a mast. And I want good internet. So, Yasemin, now I don’t know — hopefully I don’t sound like I’m wearing a tinfoil hat and come across as incompetent. And you notice, you have to have a say. It affects you after all.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Tinfoil hat or not, I think these are quite legitimate questions that everyone is allowed to ask themselves in the first place. Because, as you said, it affects all of us, and it’s also difficult, even as a user, so to speak, who doesn’t have expertise in the technology, to really be able to judge whether it might be harmful, whether I should be for or against it, in inverted commas — because even if I hear various things, I possibly don’t have the expertise in that context either, which is similar with the other topics too, to really be able to judge. So either I need to dive relatively deeply into the research myself to form an “opinion” and a judgment for myself, so to speak, or I just follow along with it. But then it also becomes difficult to talk about it, because I can only ever address worries and hopes without really being able to take a real position, because it’s simply not that easy. And whether there’s agreement, as in many places in science — there are certain results here too that don’t necessarily all point the same way. But the question is, here too you have to look at it in a differentiated way — what exactly are they looking at, and what exactly do the results refer to? And that’s exactly where we tend, not just in this context but in others too, to jump relatively quickly into generalizations, or to transfer things that maybe can’t be transferred. And so this requires the same mindfulness in dealing with this topic, in my view, as with all the other topics too. And yes, I’d like to bring in Marc now, and then I’ve also brought a few keywords, and then we can gladly make some cross-connections too. A wonderful good morning, dear Marc. What do you say about this topic?
Good morning to the round, wonderful to be here and with you all again. Yes, I’ll gladly bring in the entrepreneurial angle again — I spoke on the phone yesterday with a client of mine who works at Bosch, and she told me about 5G — and this is never a judgment on my part, just what’s coming, what can be done — 5G is going to become the central nervous system of the factory of the future, and they’re already working on 6G, and once we have 6G, video cameras and video feeds will be added, and I’m a total layperson in this field, but what I did understand is that the systems will be able to react even faster in the future, in milliseconds, upgrading video footage, and that could, for example, mean that if the kit gets built into airplanes, collisions will no longer happen, because the computer notices faster — faster than a human ever could — that two vehicles are about to collide, and the whole thing then gets transmitted with real-time video footage. And right now we’re talking about 5G, and it’s going to become the central nervous system of the factory of the future because this 5G technology has a very, very high safety aspect — because, for example, if you’re in a large factory, and you know that dangerous machines have an off switch, in the future that will be done by radio, and it’ll need to happen really fast. If I see that an employee or a colleague is in danger, I won’t have to run to the machine anymore and hit the button by hand to stop it — instead that’ll happen within seconds, even milliseconds, by pressing a button, by radio, or when working with crane systems and so on. And that’s why I don’t worry about it at all. Of course I’ve also heard what kind of effects radiation can have and what all can happen. But since entrepreneurs are working on a topic like this, and you can make money with it — with anything you can make money with, it’ll catch on. And when Layla was talking, it occurred to me — well, if there had ever been a study on what cigarettes can do, or alcohol, there would never have been any tobacco consent, and no alcohol company at all, because that also has horrendous effects on our healthcare system. But for me the main question is always, what does it bring us? Can you make money with it? And if someone decides, yes, I can save money with this, I can make money with this, it’ll catch on.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And there we can add in Jürgen’s classic question too — on one hand, what does it bring us, and what’s it actually for? And I also found this aspect you brought up really interesting, about what ultimately catches on. And historically there have always been developments like this in the past too. And with one topic or another I ask myself — because it happens quite often, especially on alternative channels, so to speak, groups form and there’s discussion, especially on channels like Telegram. And it’s interesting to be part of these groups too — I actually quite like doing that, just to follow certain things and so on, to stay up to date. And on one hand there’s quite a lot in there that might just be nonsense, in inverted commas, but also genuinely interesting findings from research or similar, where of course you always have to filter and check what’s actually just some piece of information that might not be true, and on the other hand what’s valuable news that you might not classically be able to follow in the regular news elsewhere, because it’s simply not being made into a topic, in inverted commas. And I do ask myself that question when I look at everything that gets discussed there. So at first it was all about the whole Corona measures and Corona-related topics — though you might fairly say that one thing or another has actually turned out to be true, if you look at what scientific studies are coming out now and so on. So it wasn’t all just unjustified worry, in inverted commas. I think that’s important to say in this context too. At the same time it keeps going, whether that’s about the climate, other topics, or this 5G context, where there’s a lot of discussion too. And I do ask myself the same question there — if we went back in history, say, to when the internet came along, there weren’t all these channels back then, of course. But I could imagine that if these intensive possibilities had already existed at that time, there probably would have been mega-discussions about something like the internet coming along too, in various Telegram groups. And the question is always, looking back in hindsight — and I find this really important too, Marc, you mentioned this once, we had Dr. Mario Herger with us, who also takes this historical view, all the way to what the reactions were, or what people feared, when the mirror was invented — the question really is, here we always have to look very critically at what’s now, to some extent, possibly just exaggerated human worry, because something new is coming and we don’t know it yet and don’t know exactly what it means, and what’s actually legitimate, in inverted commas, because there are already valid research findings, for example, that might justify looking at one thing or another critically too — so staying in a healthy balance. And in general — I’d like to bring in Sascha in a moment too — I’d like to add one more impulse. We talked about the Internet of Things, and, very simplified, that was about connecting the physical world with the internet. And in that context we also talked about smart technologies, for example. And in that vein, quite classically, and this has already been touched on, we could bring up smart phones, smartphones — the word “smart” is already right there in the name — which can rely on 5G, and for us the result, simply put, is faster, fewer delays, more stable networks. That means this is also tied, to some extent, to our expectations. So, basically, whether that’s good or bad, you can judge that individually, but basically we have this aspect in a lot of places — higher, faster, better. And now I could say, well, that of course can bring certain downsides, but on the other hand, try taking a phone away from a young person for five minutes — and I think you know what I mean when I bring that up. Yes, here too we can judge however we want. But 5G, for example, plays right into exactly that. And whether I look at it from an entrepreneurial angle, an individual angle, or however — we know this from ourselves too. Imagine you’re having a conversation and the network isn’t working properly. You get annoyed, in inverted commas, if it happens for the fifth time. Or you’re in a Zoom meeting and notice the transmission isn’t working properly. You might be forced to turn off your camera so the audio still gets transmitted properly, and so on. And from that perspective, you’d say, well, 5G is obviously pretty cool at that point, because then certain things just go faster for me. There are fewer delays, more stable networks for me. And that has something to do with comfort at that point too. So that means I can use it more optimally than is the case today. And at the same time we also have to point out — first of all, 5G isn’t available everywhere, and it’s not just that 5G isn’t available everywhere — even if you look at how far along we are in certain areas, even within Germany. There are countless areas that are still far away from 5G. We’re not even at the point where the predecessor technology works properly there. And so I think it’s also worth bringing up and opening up these kinds of aspects, and taking them into account in this discussion too. Sascha, would you like to bring in your thoughts too? I’m really curious what you’ll add.
A wonderful good morning. Yes, I have to admit, I’m not really a pro when it comes to 5G either. I’ve just made my own personal experiences by now, from various angles. First of all, I have to say, I already have 5G in Munich. I also got a relatively new smartphone a few months ago. It’s actually gotten to the point where I sometimes disconnect from the Wi-Fi I’m logged into, just so I can work faster. So on the topic of getting used to a certain speed and a certain quality very quickly, of course. Yes, exactly, you get disappointed so quickly when it doesn’t work as fast as you’re actually used to, or as fast as you’d like. Then there’s the aspect I’ve also noticed here in the Munich area — I run a digital trades business and travel a lot to the outer areas, where the wealthier clients tend to be, bigger properties, more like villas, in the Munich area — and there the cell reception is actually quite bad. So I thought to myself, that also makes me wonder — why don’t they have more transmission masts there? Because probably nobody wants them there, or because — I don’t want to say they know more, but maybe because of their work, since a lot of them are executives or company owners, or people on a different level, let’s say, who live there — maybe they’ve looked into it or have information — that made me wonder back then, and still makes me wonder, why reception there is always relatively bad. Then I also have another client — this is a big media company, TV and radio, here in Munich. The year before last they had an attack, and not for the first time, on their transmission mast, by people described as 5G opponents. So we drove out there, because the attack had also damaged trees in the process, which we then had to cut down so they could repair the tower. So there’s already serious action being taken against it. That’s also something that makes me think, where I go, okay, I mean, I know there are always radicals, and sometimes what they do isn’t really all that sensible, but if actual attacks are being carried out, where in some cases human lives are being put at risk — because if you carry out an attack on a tower like that, and it becomes structurally unstable, then you also have to accept that people could get injured or even killed. And as I was told, this wasn’t the first time either — it had apparently happened several times, and the entire control unit that was on the ground got completely destroyed too. But funnily enough, it only took an hour and a half — then Vodafone showed up with a big truck and had the deficit balanced out again right away. So they’re already prepared for that, and apparently know they have replacement vehicles stationed across Germany that can substitute for these radio towers. Right, and what else did I want to say? I think that was it for now — those are my personal experiences with this whole 5G story, where I’d say, personally I don’t know much more, because I don’t really want to get that deeply involved with these topics. Oh right, one more thing I wanted to bring up, this is my own personal experience, though it goes back quite a long time — because you mentioned earlier that a lot of people used to be afraid of things that have become completely normal by now too. We used to have one of the first cordless phones at home, and there were friends or acquaintances who basically condemned my mother for having it, because they thought we’d all die of cancer. So far nobody in my family has died of cancer. So that phone definitely gave off radiation too. And we had a microwave, one of the first ones too. Whenever we used it a lot, it caused the ivy that stood near it in our kitchen to wilt. Because it was one of the first devices, and we really did notice this, and every time we didn’t use the microwave for a while, the ivy would grow back normally, turn green again — that of course gave us something to think about. But my mother still has that ivy plant, it never fully died, and she still has a microwave too, and she still uses today’s microwave and nothing happens to the ivy. So I think the technology has probably improved too, in terms of radiation protection in general — that’s at least what I’ve noticed. I just wanted to throw that out there.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. There were a lot of aspects in there too. First, with the opponents at that point — I think we can at least try to bring in a certain neutralization there too, in the sense that we also hear pretty vehement opposing voices on other topics sometimes. If you take wind turbines, for example — if you did a bit of research online, you’d also find a lot of opposing voices who look at that critically too. There was a huge hype around Corona and Corona vaccinations recently too, which was also at times very, very vehement — if you think back to the images shown in the media in front of government buildings and so on. And right now we have climate activists, who are sometimes also quite rigid with their “I’ll glue myself to a car” or “to the street” or similar. And that of course raises the question, to some extent — sure, you could say there are attacks in one case, and you’d have to research how that is on the other side, whether that happens there too in that context, just that you don’t hear about it if you don’t follow it more closely yourself. That means we have these kinds of movements around various topics, and to some extent the media landscape plays a role here too, in how we even perceive that, or how we look at it ourselves, how much of it we hear about or don’t hear about, and how it ultimately gets portrayed. That means, basically, we can first note that whenever new things come along, or whenever various things get made into a topic, they often get looked at in a very controversial way, and movements emerge that are for or against it. And one of the phenomena that’s maybe partly caused by the internet and so on, or the media landscapes we have today, possibilities we didn’t have before, with all the algorithms working in the background and so on, is that we increasingly get shown more of what we’re already interested in. That’s one factor, for example. That means at some point you end up in quite a strong bubble, if you don’t specifically counteract it, seeing more and more of these things, and accordingly getting more and more of a feeling that there are 10 million, 100 million people out there who think exactly like you — without realizing that, basically, you might just be in a bubble right now, getting pulled, to some extent, by these algorithms into a kind of undertow, in inverted commas, or a certain point of view. And that’s exactly why sensitive handling of this is needed too. I found what you said about the microwave really interesting. And the first thought that comes to mind, which I’d like to add as an impulse, is — we’ve been looking at various technologies these past few days, and we said we always need to look at this in this interconnected way, or similar, and especially with something like nutrition topics too. I think this is a nice example to make that clear too. Usually it’s not the case that some unhealthy food — if we take sugar as an example — sugar isn’t inherently that harmful to the body if I don’t consume it in excessive amounts. The body can handle certain things up to a certain degree. And that’s no different in nature. That means we have certain toxins everywhere, so to speak, and those toxins, taken by themselves or alone, aren’t necessarily always the problem. But if I look at how many substances come together — in food we might have food coloring, then we have sugar, then we have gluten, and so on — and if you look at that cumulatively, so to speak, in total, and the body constantly has to process, let’s say, over 100 percent toxins, so to speak, and doesn’t get anything healthy left to process anymore, then at some point the balance tips. And we can look at all these technologies in a similar way here, basically — that maybe the microwave alone, in inverted commas, isn’t the problem yet, or a wind turbine alone isn’t the problem yet, or blockchain alone isn’t a problem, AI alone isn’t a problem, but then, when all the systems start working together and so on, a completely different kind of intensification arises, both in terms of health and on the technological level, with competition and so on, chain reactions get triggered, and then at some point, in one place or another, in one context or another, it can actually tip over. So we should take this quantity ratio and this interplay into account here too, and not leave it unconsidered in these assessments. I think that’s another really important aspect or point we should bring in here. And with that I’d like to welcome Sabine into the round too. A wonderful good morning, and afterward we’ll make the cross-connections in all the other directions too.
Yes, good morning, exciting topic. I wanted to give a few examples too. I actually just went down to the basement to start the washing machine, and my landline phone lost signal again, because we have concrete walls in some parts. So I think that’s just something you have to accept, that exists. I have no idea, well, I don’t have much of a clue about it, but I know, for example, when I’m driving on the A5 and at certain points my phone signal just disappears. And if I’m on the phone with a client right then, it’s just annoying, and then when I go to Thailand, to the most remote island, and you have perfect Wi-Fi or a perfect connection, however that happens, then I already see our competitive disadvantage if we don’t step on the gas here. I have another example — a man at a company, someone who was an absolute opponent of radiation, complained that he couldn’t sit in the double office anymore, because the person across from him kept playing on his phone, and that was a problem for him. They looked into it a bit, and it turned out he also had an anti-radiation initiative in his town, and then it came out that he had a “Faraday bed” hanging in his own room. He’s no longer with the company by now, he was let go with a severance. So what I want to say with that is, there are people who no longer differentiate between what’s necessary and what isn’t, but are simply against everything. And that becomes quite serious when you don’t really educate yourself anymore. Someone who belongs to that group is also someone in our own family. We’re currently getting 5G laid everywhere where we live. My husband is trying to get the connection right away. And they say, we’re not that far yet, we’re laying the cable around first, and the houses will be connected later. I find that annoying, since they’re currently digging everything up at our place — why can’t they just lay the short connection to the door now too? But well, they’re moving fast, and we’re assuming it’ll go quickly. So, yes, I’m in favor, even though I don’t know that much about it — the values that get thrown around, the words that float around in the room, go a bit beyond the horizon of an average person, you have to admit that. But — my husband had an older phone until recently, and my daughter made sure he got the newest one. And he had a real “aha” moment, how fast everything suddenly was. What far better photos he could take. He’s actually gotten into photography since then. So what I want to say is, it’s also an “aha” experience when you move up to the next level and can fully participate in everything again. That was my contribution.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And yes, with the concrete walls at our place, it’s the same — they do block one thing or another quite effectively too. At the same time, you could say that also has something good about it, in inverted commas, because it also acts as protection at the same time. And the question is always this balancing act, where do I actually need it, at what intensity, and where do I maybe not need it? And maybe it’s not even an either-or thing, but maybe in one place or another we also need options to retreat, so to speak, where this radiation doesn’t reach — so that you also have the option, for example, when sleeping or something like that. We also talked about blue light and things like that once, where you really do have the option to consciously withdraw from it. Maybe that would be a good thing too, that it’s not just either-or movements, but that we design different spaces here too, so to speak. And especially with this either-or thing, we come back to this concept of extremes, and that’s independent of whether we’re talking about technology, politics, or anything else. We already touched on these extremes before too — that’s this either-or thing. These are extremes that get presented. We have a lot of areas in between, and in most cases you can say and hold onto the fact that every extreme, in inverted commas, isn’t good. Because being extreme means, essentially, I no longer allow anything else. And in a world where competition plays a role, where progress plays a role, and so on, I do need certain things, up to a certain degree. That’s why it makes sense to keep looking at things in a differentiated way, and to keep making decisions by weighing things up, and not to demonize or glorify something outright, per se, whether that’s technology, nutrition, or whatever else we’re talking about, but instead to look at it from these differentiated points of view, with different perspectives, and depending on the context, to make differentiated, and sometimes differing, decisions. And I’d also like to point out that extreme doesn’t necessarily mean, just because you used this one gentleman as an example, that it has to be “right-wing” — we also have “extreme” toward the left. So there too, especially with all these activists and what’s happening right now, if you look closely, you can observe these extreme traits in a lot of places too. I find that really, really interesting in this context. Marc had raised his hand, and then I saw that Layla had also glanced over — in that order then, go ahead, Marc.
Yes, I think it’s always really interesting to observe, as soon as emotions come into play, a discussion, and which direction it goes in. And I’d like to say something on the topic again — 5G is, first of all, just a wireless infrastructure. And it just occurred to me — all of us here in the room, I’m looking around the room, and I don’t think I can spot a single factory owner. So all of us are looking at this as private individuals. And if I say it again, completely neutrally, completely without emotion, that 5G is a wireless infrastructure, then my contact at Bosch told me yesterday that in the future, when building factories, the only thing that stays fixed is the floor and the walls. And that offers incredibly new possibilities for organizing a factory — in terms of technology, in terms of safety, because people, machines, and equipment can be networked together in a completely new way. That means the arrangement of the machines will be new, the safety aspects will be new, the production processes will be new, and we recently talked about data glasses too — that’ll be new as well, that they get information in real time. And then it’s always interesting with this topic too, to look at how I see it as an entrepreneur — what does it bring me, how will production change in the future, how will the setup of a factory change — or to look at myself as a private individual, if someone asks me whether I need 5G. I don’t need it. I live in the Ruhr area now. I’m lucky, I always have signal, and I make phone calls. I need the phone so my clients can reach me, and when I’m off work, I’m actually happy if nobody can reach me anymore — then I don’t actually want to be on the phone anymore either. So I’m quite satisfied with the network in North Rhine-Westphalia. That’s angle number two. That’s also a way of looking at it, where I focus. Emotionally neutral, 5G is, first of all, a wireless infrastructure meant to simplify the connection and communication between people, machines, and equipment. Nothing more.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much, Marc. There’s one more aspect to consider here though, because this distinction between private individuals and companies, or industrial companies, is something we can still make today. In the future, though, that’ll look different. We talked about IoT and things like that — and that’s about the networking of devices too, as you put it very aptly. That means entirely new worlds are emerging here, which require a certain infrastructure. And especially against the backdrop of the other technologies we’ve looked at in the past few days, you can already sense which direction this is heading. That means in the future we’ll have a whole lot of smart devices that increasingly — we’ve also touched on and talked about smart cities and things like that — that means we’ll increasingly experience these networked connections, once the infrastructure is there, that don’t have much relevance for us today in a lot of places, simply because the networking isn’t even possible yet. So the moment the infrastructure is in place and there’s a push forward, we’ll see this in a lot of places. Whether that’s a tram I use that can, say, drive autonomously and also uses these technologies, or a lawnmower in my garden that gets told when the ground isn’t too wet, when it’s raining, when it’s dry, when the optimal time is to start up and mow the lawn, or, or, or — or maybe my coffee machine, which notices there isn’t enough coffee left and reorders coffee, and so on. And then these devices start communicating not just in isolation, but with each other too, so to speak, and need this data and information. And if we look at it from this perspective, our world — even the private world, in inverted commas — will change quite drastically too, once the infrastructure is there and we suddenly experience this and use it for ourselves. And a lot of that won’t even be — today it’s partly the case that we specifically look for smart devices that we need or want to use. In the future, if developments keep going this way, it’ll eventually get to the point where it’s completely normal to order smart devices — you won’t even need to differentiate, can this thing do it or not, but with a lot of things this will already be built in, that the functionality is simply there. And then we get into this comfort zone, where we notice, oh, this is actually pretty cool, I don’t even really need to worry about it anymore. The washing machine knows exactly what time is best, say, with cheaper electricity rates, to run itself, and so on. That means we’ll experience a push here too, even in this private context, so to speak. It’s just not that strongly noticeable for us yet, simply because the infrastructure isn’t built out yet. And here too, in these discussions, let’s not forget — we already touched on this recently — that we’re allowed to open up the comparison here too, in terms of not just looking at Germany, or just the EU, but looking globally too — what developments are happening where, and what might be necessary in terms of competition and so on, so this competitive angle comes in too. And at the same time, though, looking at it globally, or from a societal perspective — and we’ll get to that discussion on certain days too — do we even want this? What for? And so on. Can it be stopped? Could a country like Germany decide differently? And so on and so forth. And those are all relevant aspects too. Before I switch over to Layla — Marc, you’d like to add something else? Then let’s do that, since it probably ties in directly with what I just said.
Exactly, just one more thing. While you were talking, Yasemin, I was already thinking ahead to the future. Imagine we’re driving somewhere, and this networking with cars — you’ve all heard of traffic jams and accidents happening, say, when a truck drives into the back of a traffic jam. If this networking and the technology get even faster, that won’t happen anymore in the future. Because if the information that an accident has happened gets passed on to the navigation systems, then a truck driver might not even be able to accelerate anymore in the future — the brakes get activated automatically, so that, for example, accidents in the traffic system get prevented, because these computers react faster than a human. And if we imagine that, nobody will have anything against the technology anymore. You’ll think, oh, that’s actually really useful, because it can prevent accidents. And that only works with really, really fast technology. And when the devices are networked with each other — that’s what came to mind for me on the topic of networking. Thanks for letting me add that.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And conversely, of course, it could also be the case in the future that information doesn’t just get sent out centrally, so to speak, to prevent traffic jams or something like that, but if we think about the fact that in the future we might not even have our own cars anymore, and instead use autonomous systems that get us from A to B, then of course this information and the transmission of relevant data, a continuous, uninterrupted functioning of the whole structure, so to speak, becomes essential too — because otherwise certain things could happen again that need to be avoided, against the backdrop of, say, information not being transmitted fast enough. So this reversal is really important here too. Layla, thank you for your patience.
It’s all good. I’ve just been getting a little more depressed, not because I wasn’t called on, but simply because I notice how complex the world is, and how hard it’s become for the individual to judge it. And not because they’re stupid or don’t have the ability to, but simply because there’s so, so much information you have to have these days. And what you all just said — with these extremes — I thought, well, how do extreme movements come about? How do extreme factions come about? We simplify the world. We give the world a simple picture that everyone recognizes again. It’s not so complex anymore. I got really depressed watching the show with Mr. Lanz, where Mr. Korte from the AfD denied climate change and said there are other opinions about it. What he was referencing — I mean, that was really a good climate scientist who was there, and there is scientific consensus on it. And nowadays you can just say, no, there are other opinions on that. And we have this kind of alternative facts thing going on, and we can shift the discourse. That’s not really the individual’s fault anymore, because it’s also down to the complexity. And that’s where we go looking for solutions. And of course it bothers me if — I don’t know, I don’t know how much it bothers extreme right-wing people, but I do know how much it bothers extreme left-wing people if, for example, I classify people who defend the climate as extreme left, and I can’t get to work because of them. But yes, I don’t know what gets made of that. I just think this discourse — I really think we very often have a shifting of the discourse here. We just have statements being made. We have an escalating process in the argumentation. Our chancellor recently told a group of students that he finds the climate activists “nuts.” Nobody really talked about that in the media, honestly. He used the word “nuts.” And apparently you’re just allowed to say that now. You’re apparently just allowed to say, well, there are other opinions on that. You’re apparently just allowed to deny climate change now, even though science has reached a consensus on it. And yes, I do think it’s very complex. I hope education is the solution, that we just keep informing ourselves more and more — because, for example, when we look at wind turbines, they’re great. Janice Jacatz, who wrote a book about her ocean crossing, once told me that it gets very loud underwater because of them, and that’s not good for the fish. And now of course you could say, I don’t care whether the fish has to deal with the noise or not. No — but if that’s a food source, and it disappears, and then the wildlife disappears, then at some point it does become my problem too. Just like the microplastics that are in my cosmetics products. I believe in Switzerland, in the wastewater treatment plants, as far as I know — please double check that — I always think it’s really important that they try to filter that back out. And with us, it’s just in there. And it ends up in humans at some point, if it was in fish, or in the groundwater. And these are things that just keep getting more and more complex. And I watched that dialogue, and I thought, well, surely everyone notices that this line of argument doesn’t hold up. Surely everyone notices that here we have a Nobel Prize winner who predicted something that then actually happened exactly as predicted, and it’s now just being denied. And apparently you can now just say, well, that’s my opinion. And, well, I don’t know — my opinion versus a scientist. Of course there are different opinions, and of course there’s maybe no consensus yet on a lot of things. But on some things we do have a consensus. So right now, if we look at climate change — and regardless of whether it bothers me, and you also have to look at the specific cases — I looked into whether it bothers me that someone threw mashed potatoes at a painting, which by the way had a glass pane in front of it, or whether it bothers me that someone spray-painted the constitution black. And by the way, what they did to the SPD headquarters, that got called “nuts” after it happened too. And I also thought, that spokesperson could’ve spared herself from calling it “nuts” at the press conference too — I wouldn’t have done that. But that’s the discourse as it is today, and that’s something that’s just accepted and left standing. And let’s slowly wrap this up a bit. Layla, because we still have two more guests who need to speak too.
Yes, sorry, you’re completely right. No, look, I’ve been waiting for a while, so a lot of thoughts came up. I hope it wasn’t too much, but really honestly, this leaves me shocked. That’s why I talked for so long. Sorry.
It’s all good. And this is what Marc already said earlier — emotions come into play here too, to some extent, and that’s totally human too. Before I get to Stefan and Stefan — we have two Stefans one after another — let me just briefly pick up one or two things again, because I think it’s important to go into the differentiation here too. I know the show you’re talking about, and I watched a bit of it myself too, to get a sense of it, and I can actually understand your thoughts on it, because there wasn’t really anything solid as an argument there, in the context of this climate topic — it was just kind of thrown out there, and that of course can’t be supported as valid. If I make statements like that, especially in certain roles, I need to be able to say more than just state an opinion. I think that’s important, I’m totally with you on that. At the same time, I’d like to point out briefly, along the lines of “science has agreed” or “reached consensus” — that doesn’t exist like that. So we do need to be a bit careful here. You brought up the term “consensus” yourself, which I think is really important in this context. There are, in fact, various consensuses we could bring up here, along the lines of — there might be scientists from various fields who share a main direction in their thinking, or something like that. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that can’t be overturned if, for example, corresponding new findings come along. So what does science actually do? It puts forward hypotheses, and then certain things get investigated, and then it gets verified or falsified, and so on. And we talked once about how this keeps developing further. That means, first of all, we’re always only talking about the current state of knowledge we have, that we’re talking about right now. That means tomorrow, with a groundbreaking new finding coming out of science, the whole thing could be viewed completely differently again. That’s one thing. So we’re allowed to keep some doors open here too, in one place or another. And then there’s a second aspect we should take into account, because you also brought up complexity — science shouldn’t be seen as a single unit, but we have a lot of interdisciplinary fields. That means I can look at a topic, for example, in terms of what effect it has on the individual, which comes from the psychological angle, and I get completely different findings on this topic than if I look at what developments it has on society — then I might look at it from sociology. That doesn’t mean the results from psychology are wrong, and it doesn’t mean the results from sociology are wrong either — they need to be layered on top of each other, to some extent, in this interdisciplinary view. And that makes it clear too how complex these topics are. So it’s not “science” that says something, even though the climate topic, for example, gets looked at from different disciplines, so to speak. And it’s important here to keep bringing these findings back together and looking at them from different perspectives. And again and again, that brings us back to “what’s it for? Why am I doing it?” and so on. And depending on which angle I’m looking from when I pick up findings from the various fields of science, I might come to different results in the discussion, in terms of my own position. And that’s something to be distinguished, absolutely, from a pure opinion, along the lines of “I think that’s good” or “I don’t think that’s good,” without having looked at any scientific findings on it at all, but simply expressing my opinion against the backdrop of how I personally feel about the topic emotionally — and that’s something you’re absolutely allowed to differentiate as well. So, with that I’ll hand over to Stefan now, and, keeping an eye on the time, I’d ask that the contributions be kept to the essentials, but still formulated briefly, so we can wrap up reasonably on time, because afterward we still have our closing round, and there we’ll gladly have the chance to make even more cross-connections and highlight things for ourselves. So let’s say Stefan One, to avoid saying the last name, in inverted commas, because of the recording — and then Stefan Two — your thoughts and impulses on the topic, please. A wonderful good morning, Stefan One.
Yes, a wonderful good morning, Yasemin and everyone in the room. And I’ll keep it short too — and don’t worry, Stefan and Stefan aren’t going to start singing some duet here. It was really just that I had this addition, from when Marc was talking about autonomous driving, because we also have a project phase working on autonomous driving, and we have two situations that are actually very typical for our country, and where I think, in the long run, we need to make sure we don’t keep holding each other back. What I mean by that is the big advantage of 5G, when you use it across all data levels, because it becomes such a complex system, which it already is, and the four current providers have already created the corresponding technical prerequisites. And I wanted to say, the big advantage of 5G is this thing called network slicing — that I can split up all this data volume into virtual network levels. That means, when large amounts of data are being sent through the network at high speed, or in large volume, quite literally, that there actually won’t be delays, when, in a millisecond, my autonomous vehicle, or my autonomously operated vehicle, needs to make decisions in that moment that affect my life and the lives of others. So it’s definitely a very, very interesting technology. And the aspect I wanted to bring in with that is that, legally speaking, we’re always being held back. Whether it’s data protection, or some other restrictions, including around testing levels. Here in the Bergisches Land region, autonomous driving is being practiced by various large companies too, there are test tracks here. And so it’s a very interesting topic. I just wanted to say, there were also discussions, for example, about how to bring speeders to their senses — say, if young people rent fast cars from Sixt or wherever, so they don’t get the idea to suddenly drive 150 km/h down a shopping street somewhere in the city and endanger people’s lives — that you could build in a restriction. But that’s actually forbidden, for example, and you have to ask yourself why that’s forbidden. Well, it’s tied to data protection, it’s tied to intervening with the engine, and so on and so forth. So, ultimately I think you should definitely engage with 5G, if you have any touchpoints with smart products in any way, or use smart products yourself, in your own home for example, or at work. It’s a really nice, interesting topic. And one last note, since you brought it up too — yes, it’s all getting very, very complex, but we have to try to keep a cool head, even in discussions. I also caught that thing about “nuts” with Mr. Schulz. And yes, I think he probably meant it more, and this is how I understood it from his further remarks, in terms of how the whole thing is being run in the background by the so-called climate glue-ers or the Last Generation. I think that word was more aimed at the organizational structure behind it, not that it was about climate change itself.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And we can definitely pick up aspects like this in the rooms about topics like climate activists and so on too. And by the way, maybe a general note too — terms like tinfoil hat, or climate glue-ers, and so on, of course carry a certain connotation too. And with these terms too, we should be quite careful about which contexts we actually pick up which terms in, and use them, ourselves, regardless of how we feel about it, because we’re also sending corresponding signals with that, completely independent of how we view and judge these developments that are happening — that we always pay attention, really, to staying at eye level and respectful with each other. And I think that in one place or another we sometimes actually adopt things without even being aware that there are corresponding connotations built in, that create stigmatization and so on, and that this often happens without any bad intent, but that we’re allowed to keep making ourselves aware of this, in this exchange too, so we can even set it straight again, in inverted commas, because we simply adopt it unquestioningly, sometimes. Maybe worth mentioning briefly in this context too. That’s why, for example, in one of the rooms, I think, we discussed and then deliberately didn’t say climate glue-ers, but spoke of climate activists instead, quite deliberately, to neutralize it a bit at that point, and to look at the topic with an open mind. Right. But that’s all totally human. So that thing with “nuts” is pretty intense. But we do that in a lot of other places too. And here too, looking a bit more closely at our own language, in a lot of other contexts too, where we simply adopt things, and it’s often not even conscious to us. By the way, this can also often be observed in figures of speech, and so on. Sometimes the hair on the back of my neck really stands up when I hear certain expressions — if you look at where they historically came from, it really gives you a different feeling. And there too, with figures of speech and so on, there are a lot of examples we could open up in language, really to raise awareness there too — but that’s just a side note, and with that, gladly over to Stefan Two, a wonderful good morning, and thank you too for your patience.
Good morning, and thank you so much for this wonderful, differentiated room — it’s really a pleasure to listen to you all. I’d like to briefly address the topic too. Here’s the thing — I think it’s been said once or twice that the world is getting more complex. I’d like to offer a counter-thesis. I think the world has always been complex. What’s happening in the world right now is that the speed is increasing. That we have technologies, to name 5G, or others, that keep making the speed higher and higher, faster and faster. And I think that creates the impression of complexity, as if the complexity itself were higher. Now I’d like to — this is a bit of a generalization, my approach here — I’d like to differentiate between people, namely conservative and progressive. And as neutral terms. So there’s the kind of person who’s more conservative, and there’s the kind of person who’s more progressive. A progressive person wants to develop, can’t get enough of news and innovations. A progressive person — sorry, I mean a conservative person — needs more security, wants things to stay stable and safe. And if you look at these two poles in this generalized way, then it becomes logical what’s happening in society right now, because of the speed at which innovations are coming, or the innovations that are also being presented — you’re aware that change has to happen at a much greater speed too. That naturally makes conservative people nervous and worried, and I can understand that to some extent, because they need security, and I think we can’t stop change, and shouldn’t and mustn’t stop it either — but much more time needs to be taken to say, look, there isn’t just the one type of person you only need to convince rationally or whatever, but I think you need to reach people equally at certain points, and give the conservative person a sense of security. And that’s why I liked what Marc said earlier, that you should also show what the safety-relevant topics actually are, or what actually improves for you in your basic needs, Mr. Conservative, to put it in a generalized way. And I think more needs to be done there. Then we’ll manage to make sure the polarization doesn’t happen so strongly. Because, let’s take this heating law, for example — you can see how the public discussion is, and then if you actually read what’s written on the page, you notice there’s a huge difference. And where does that come from? I think because of the speed at which information spreads, people simply no longer take the time to engage with it, and engage with it more deeply. And that’s how it goes with a whole lot of topics that have come up today too. If you look back afterward, you notice we’ve simply been overrun by our own speed, and should have taken a minute or two more to engage with the topics — especially if you want to bring along people who tend to be more conservative.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. There were a lot of aspects in there too. We should still be a little careful with these typecasting though, because the basic needs you mentioned are of course present, and it may well be that one type of person is maybe a bit more security-oriented at their core, and the other leans more toward development. But it’s always context-dependent too, per se. That means someone who might rely on security in one context might be the other type in a different context. So there are differentiations here too, and nonetheless these basic needs are present in all of us. And with these basic needs too, a balance always needs to be established again and again, to serve them accordingly. And so it’s always worth looking at it in a context-dependent way. I also found this statement interesting — that the world, in your view, has always been complex. Would I go along with that? Yes, absolutely. Still, independent of the speed — the speed of course intensifies certain things — we also have, to some extent, an intensification in complexity itself, because with newer technologies and so on, we can nicely look at the stages of industrialization, for example — developments that happened in the past, if you look at Industrialization 1.0, 2.0, and so on — and there, speed of course plays a role — the developments that took place there were great developments too, but they took a span of, say, 100 years or something, and now all of that happens much faster. That means speed plays a really significant role in this context, I’m totally with you on that. And at the same time, though, we also have, on top of that, various other aspects that increase the complexity further, because certain technologies simply didn’t exist, say, 500 years ago. There were other things back then, and now all these technologies come along with this speed aspect on top of it. That means we have various factors adding up, which increase this complexity on one hand, and then combined with this speed too, which pushes the whole thing to an almost immeasurable degree, so to speak. And we’ve talked really often in various rooms about how the human brain simply isn’t able to process this magnitude, because we’re more wired to think, say, linearly in a lot of places. And that’s why, if we haven’t experienced it yet ourselves, for example with all these smart technologies, some of us who don’t use it privately yet might not even be able to imagine what it’ll look like later, once, say, 5G is rolled out everywhere, once it works, and what that means for end devices, and so on. And only once we actually experience it — and you saw this really nicely with the example of ChatGPT, for example — AI has existed for a long time, and there’s been research on it for a long time, and a lot of people couldn’t imagine it, well, but people, it’ll always get better anyway, I don’t know, a lot of general statements, so to speak, and then suddenly a tool like ChatGPT comes along, gets made freely accessible at first — of course you can then pay for the pro version and use it even faster, and so on — but then a system like that comes onto the market, and suddenly, a tool like that leads to huge discussions, because it’s the first time that people, looking at the broad masses, suddenly have access to it and get a feel for what’s actually happening there. And that’s worrying at first, because it’s also something foreign. And there we’re back at these human traits again — what happens in our brain. The question we ask ourselves at that point is, again, the first, the relevant question — does this threaten my existence? And the second question is, what do I get out of it? And whether it’s 5G now or the other topics, we can always come back to this core, these are always the two questions, and a lot of the judgments we make within milliseconds are tied to our prior experiences that we’ve had with other things, where we go into judgment against the backdrop of these two questions. And that’s why it’s always interesting to become aware of this again, and, knowing how our brain functions at its basic structure, to consciously neutralize one thing or another too, rather than just letting the emotion-free process run its course. I think that’s nice — let’s wrap it up here now. Thank you, thank you so much for these great contributions. It was very, very exciting again today. And then I’d like to move into the closing round. In the order Layla, Marc, Sabine, Stefan and Stefan. And if you have anything else you’d like to tie back to, feel free to bring it in during the closing round too. We’ll take the time for it now, even though we’re already almost ten minutes over. And of course you’re also welcome to highlight one thing from the room, or underline something you’d like to point out once more. Layla.
So my highlight is really that I realized how important education is becoming, regardless of whether the world is getting more complex or whether it’s just getting faster. And we need to inform people, and we need to make sure they actually understand this information too. That means we not only need to make it accessible, but also make it understandable. I think that’s really important. The thing about language was also really important to me today, because if you were in school, you know what a narrative is, whether you call it a story or a narrative. And then you know how important words are. And that was another highlight for me today, because that’s exactly what it’s about — if we put our feelings into language and no longer go into a discourse that’s not just led by emotions, where we try to generate emotions in the other person to reach our goals, in whatever form — I think that’s a really important point. Because it’s nice that I like alliteration, and that’s why I use the word “climate glue-ers,” but “climate activist” is simply the right term. It’s probably also wrong to compare climate activists to the RAF — I’m almost certain of that. Comparisons like that keep getting made. I think we should seek out discourse and talk openly about things. I thought this was a good space for that today. I am a bit depressed, because I got emotional too, Yasemin. I got depressed because I thought, where am I even allowed to have a say and where not. And then I thought, well, if it affects me, then yes. And still I should inform myself, and not just leave my opinion standing there and say things like “surely I’m still allowed to say that.” And there are other voices about that too — no, I’m also allowed to research it, and I’m also allowed to cite sources. With that, thanks for listening.
Wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. Marc?
I’d like to say goodbye in keeping with the room title, with my five G’s: ask good questions, research thoroughly, rethink the fundamentals, examine your beliefs, become more at ease. Have a wonderful weekend, all of you.
Wonderful, thank you so much, Marc. Stefan One.
Yes, well, I think we should all engage with this topic more closely, definitely, because it’s going to affect us in a lot of ways. And it’s a really, really exciting topic too, I have to say. What stuck with me most is all these so-called health risks, in inverted commas, where of course people are also afraid. There I can only recommend the federal government’s website — there’s actually the option to look up exactly where electromagnetic fields might be a problem for someone, where which masts are in your area. Because 5G uses the same radiation, or has the same radiation levels, as 4G, so fortunately nothing new is being added there for now — but it is a topic worth mentioning, I’ve looked into it myself too. You can definitely look at the EMF values. But that’s ultimately just one small aspect — but it’s always on people’s minds, because I’d say, in our public buildings, masts are installed everywhere. So it’s a topic for a lot of people. I also find it incredibly interesting, in dealing with something like ChatGPT, which was also mentioned again — and 5G, all these possibilities that arise from it — that’ll definitely be another impact for all of us. And yes, let’s all stay open to these complex topics, no matter what speed things keep accelerating to. It stays interesting, and in rooms like this we have the chance to exchange ideas. And we’re also allowed to get emotional now and then, why not?
Absolutely, that’s human too. Thank you, Stefan. Stefan Two.
Yes, well, if there’s one thing I know, it’s that I know nothing. That’s kind of my principle, but I trust that my specialist knowledge is just one contribution to a much bigger pond. And my trust comes from the fact that there are so, so, so, so many of us people. And there will always be someone who knows a lot, really well, about the one topic or another that I myself don’t know much about. And that’s where my trust in this development comes from. And that we take the negative along with everything new that comes, of course. But I always focus on the positive things, which usually end up outweighing it anyway.
Yes, that’s wonderful, thank you, thank you so much, Stefan Two, that you’re bringing up this quote too, which actually originates with Socrates — “The more I know, the more I know that I don’t know.” In the translation — Jürgen pointed this out once in one of the rooms — it’s often translated as “the more I know that I know nothing,” but that’s actually not the original meaning, it’s “I don’t know,” and above all this comes down to the fact that this is about wisdom, not about knowledge. So worth differentiating here too. That means, the more we — and this brings us back to this topic of education, which was also brought up again today — the more we get into these topics, the more we’ll realize that it is complex, that there isn’t just one way to look at it, that it needs to be looked at in a differentiated way, that our choice of words plays a role, that we shouldn’t just create pro and con camps here, but really take into account all these facets, all the shades of gray and color in between, so to speak, and then also establish that context. And the more we engage with these topics, whether that’s 5G or the other topics, we’ll discover that it’s not just complex, but that it also needs to be looked at in a differentiated way. And that’s where this concept, or this idea of wisdom, comes into play. That doesn’t mean that the more knowledge I’ve acquired, so to speak, the more wisdom I’ve gained by the spoonful — quite the opposite. Then I’m able to see things in a differentiated way, and also to say, well, it’s not something you can answer in a blanket way, but we’re allowed to look at it from different perspectives, keep going back into an assessment based on the context, after doing an analysis, and so on. And that’s the idea behind this Socrates quote, which I find great, that we get the chance to make these connections here too, because it underlines and clarifies one thing or another once more. So, thank you, thank you so much for these connections, which brought us back to education once again, and to this quote, and gave us the chance to open up this differentiation between knowledge and wisdom in this context too. I find that really, really valuable. And I think it was a really exciting room, and I’m totally with Stefan One on the aspect that we’re also allowed to be emotional sometimes — we’re allowed to be emotional regularly, we’re allowed to, we can’t even switch it off, that’s part of who we are, that’s our human trait, so to speak, and that’s really important too, it makes us relatable, it lets us experience pain and joy too, so here too these different shades, and they’re really important, it lets us gather experiences, it lets us store them accordingly. And at the same time, we’re also allowed to be very mindful about how certain things get processed and stored in our brain, so that we’re not simply always at the mercy of these processes, these biochemical processes running in the background in our brain that produce certain cocktails. We’re absolutely allowed to experience that and express it too, and at the same time, in the sense of emotional regulation, in the interest of the matter, we’re also allowed to look at things reflectively once more, in one place or another, to get back into neutralization, into emotional regulation, to consciously steer one thing or another with our reason, so to speak. And that brings us back to this concept of education again. Self-determination works through self-efficacy too, and I can create this self-efficacy, to some extent, if I’m not just passive and reacting to whatever emotions are there, but instead give them room to breathe too. That’s really important and human, and it makes us relatable too, and that’s allowed and needs to be that way, in my view. But then, in a shared reflection, or in self-reflection, to look at one thing or another more closely again, and ask yourself, is this feeling actually justified? So, where does this feeling come from, is it justified, or is it maybe just that something is kicking in here, like fear, for example, that’s causing it. And my brain is currently checking whether my existence might be at risk. And in a lot of places, if we approach it with this view and these questions, we’ll find that one thing or another might actually be unfounded too. And then we’re allowed to move into self-regulation accordingly. With other things, we’re allowed to simply keep experiencing the feeling and enjoy it too. Yes, thank you, thank you so much. It was a wonderful room, and tomorrow we continue with our digital campfire, again at 8am in Deep Talk. I’m already really looking forward to it. That means there’ll be candid stories at the digital campfire, from and with me, so to speak, on the overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with Brain. We’ll have two episodes — tomorrow is the first episode, where I’ll chat candidly, straight from the heart, so to speak, about this topic of Pioneering Spirit with Brain, and I’m really curious, once hands go up and you join in, what thoughts and impulses come up for you, and what exchange we get into, and what develops from it. So you’re all very welcome to join tomorrow morning at 8. I’m really looking forward to it. And then there’ll be another focus, again under this overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with Brain. But that’s not until two weeks from now — in between we’ll have an author joining us, and I’ll announce that separately for next Sunday morning too. So you can look forward to enjoying this digital campfire tomorrow in its first round on the overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with Brain, with different areas of focus, first just listening in, and then, gladly, gladly, gladly, once hands go up, getting into the exchange, and seeing together what develops out of this room. With that, I wish you all a wonderful Saturday, whatever you have planned, and I’m really looking forward to getting started again with you tomorrow morning at eight. Until then, ciao!
