Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: How is the future of mobility taking shape, and are cars and trains really the eco-friendly choice we assume them to be? In Room #869 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into the physics of efficient mobility, the overlooked needs of wheelchair users and families, hydrogen versus electric, and why Germany may be lagging behind other countries. 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 all of you. Today we’re talking about the future of mobility. How is the future of our mobility changing? What’s actually happening there, and what examples do we have? We can talk about developments in the market and take a closer look, for example, at electric cars, maybe various regulations that are being put in place in this context too. But not just in terms of today — if we look toward the future, well, what else is out there? Are there alternatives? Alternative technological developments that we’ve been following or have heard about, all the way to things like Hyperloop or other things. So there’s quite a lot we can open up here and look at in terms of mobility, and above all, not just think about individual means of transport, but also maybe public transit and so on. So here too, let’s take a look at what else is out there — what’s happening with a tram, or a train, or something similar. And I think there are a lot of aspects we can open up here — we can look at buses, so mobility in general, all the way up to, potentially, the whole backdrop of the climate discussion. We’ll have other rooms specifically about climate aspects, but of course with the topic of mobility we also have these themes involved, in terms of developments possibly toward airplanes and so on. And we’ll also look at space travel separately at some point. Right, so those are maybe the first impulses to get us started. And then I’m really curious what comes together today. What’s the first thing that comes to your mind? And what perspectives can we open up on these technologies that are in the background there — it’s not at all about being an expert in the field, but first about picking up what we’re each following, spinning it further, and seeing which direction the room develops in together today, in a shared exchange, so we can sort our thoughts again and gain new insights through this reflection. So you’re all very warmly invited to join in and share your thoughts too. And with that, just a quick reminder again — the room is being recorded the whole time and will be published later. So anyone who joins automatically agrees to that. And then we have three small room rules for anyone joining for the first time today — a reminder that you need a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, your last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or can’t speak right now, also has the option to use the chat to add thoughts, questions, and so on. Right, and with that I’ll mute myself for now and see who wants to start the round with me this morning.
A wonderful good morning, dear Erdal. Can you hear me — I’ve only got one bar of signal right now, does that work?
Then I’ll just stay standing right here. The first point I wanted to bring in would be what we learned during Corona — that the future of mobility might mean rethinking the actual need for mobility. If you consider how much you can get done from home, in terms of work, and if you find a good balance with your employer, then the need for and volume of mobile movement, and accordingly the environmental impact and use of resources — if you factor all of that in, you can reduce it drastically. And that was one of the bigger insights of recent times — that things don’t actually grind to a halt if not everyone gets into a two-ton car every morning and drives to work alone. And that would be the first thing I find really interesting — that mobility has to happen, yes, but in the right place.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And yes, there really are always outside influences that can lead to, or do lead to, rethinking one thing or another. On the one hand we have discussions like, well, do I really need an SUV or something else — all these discussions, debates that take place, that you can also question for yourself, these trains of thought, because a certain awareness gets created. And on the other hand there’s also the question of whether it necessarily means you’re less mobile if you also make use of other means — so also more toward public transport, for instance, collective transport options. On the one hand, and for shorter distances maybe a bicycle or e-bike. That’s ultimately also one of the forms of mobility, the e-bike too. Maybe that’s an option as well — there’s already quite a lot out there in that space by now. I know someone in my circle of friends who has, for example, a trailer and so on for their e-bikes, and that means you can basically transport the whole family with it. I find that really interesting too — that you can then, if it’s a mother and father, in this case it is a mother and father, and they have three kids, they have the option in the trailers to split the kids up and then get from A to B together. I find that really exciting, and it’s possible that these kinds of mobility also benefit the climate. I said “possible” quite deliberately, because here too there are always discussions or negative aspects that get raised. And with that, I’d like to warmly welcome Jürgen. What aspects come to mind for you right away?
Good morning, dear Yasemin. Thank you for the floor. Good morning, Erdal, and everyone else in the room. Well, how could it be otherwise — the term itself, and also the initial thought I had from Erdal’s remarks and your response to them, namely that we need to think, and think toward the future. And connecting that to the term “mobility” — I’d say that 99 percent of the time, when people talk about mobility somewhere, they mean physical mobility. But there’s also a mental mobility. And mental mobility — namely adopting different attitudes based on different circumstances, and changing your behavior and how you act — I think that’s especially important in this topic. And I’d justify that by putting, from my point of view, three positions on the table that are directly connected to mobility. On one hand we have efficiency, which is of course the hype topic right now, has been for quite a while, tied to the CO2 buzzword. But there’s also availability, and there’s convenience — and convenience can also be replaced by the word acceptance. So in the whole discussion of whether to go by train, car, plane, or ship, to name the four main carriers, it’s worth noting to what extent each respective medium for mobility is actually available. To what extent is there acceptance? And then you get to the efficiency of the individual positions. I don’t want to bore you with this — I looked into this topic recently because it’s quite essential for me right now in terms of my activities, getting from A to B. And that’s why it interested me and I looked into it. And when you get to efficiency, you very quickly end up, oh wonder, at physics. And here’s what I learned, which I’d like to briefly offer you as a kind of mental hook to think about. A physicist looks at mobility under three or four key aspects, namely: what mass needs to be moved, with what medium, at what utilization rate. In parentheses — a car normally has five seats, but in Germany it’s used at an average occupancy of 1.5 seats, and that for one hour out of 24 possible hours. Just as a mental hook. The second component after mass is the acceleration process. That’s especially important in the discussion, or the contrast, between air travel versus car and rail. A plane has to accelerate once, at takeoff, then usually moves into a stable horizontal position, and then into descent. A car or a train has to accelerate dozens of times over the course of a route. And acceleration is in a disproportionate relationship to energy expenditure. And the third is lift work, if I remember correctly. Lift work — significant for a plane, of course, which may need to be lifted up to 9,000 meters, something that’s often left unmentioned or overlooked. On a car trip from Munich to Berlin, I’d need — I don’t remember exactly, but roughly three to three and a half thousand meters of cumulative elevation gain, and correspondingly more energy expended for that. Well. All in all, that’s the perspective — and I find this quite interesting — of a physicist trying to establish a priority ranking based on efficiency criteria. And to my knowledge, the current ranking is such that car and rail are quite certainly not the preferred and future-proof positions and mobility paths going forward. I found that really interesting — I would never have thought that, given the limited prior knowledge I had before I looked into everything that’s actually involved. And last but not least, let me add one more thing — a really important factor. I looked with sharp eyes at how this ecological mobility gets sold in various publications. What barely gets mentioned is the infrastructure that’s actually necessary to ensure this mobility in the first place — meaning, for a car I need roads, but let’s look to the future, Yasemin, your future-oriented topic — then we won’t need ordinary paved roads anymore, we’ll need electrified roads. And with such a highly praised ecological option as rail travel, it really opened my eyes when I read — I can’t recall the exact figure anymore — how much cement is needed for the rail ties to build a railway line, how much steel gets built in, and for the overhead line, how much copper wire is needed. So, now I’ll come to a close. I understand all of this under the overarching meta-level principle of holistic thinking. Quick fixes, especially ones that are politically and ideologically motivated, don’t help us with this topic. And in particular, insight is also necessary to gain acceptance — broad acceptance. All of us need not just holistic thinking, but also a lot of patience and understanding that something like this can’t be pushed through overnight with brute force. That’s my opinion on it. Thank you very much for listening this long. Sorry.
Wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. There were a lot of aspects in there too, and I’d like to add to them further. Especially when we think of something like mobility, we naturally think, classically shaped as we are by the mainstream media, of certain transport options, so to speak — and you brought up something like infrastructure too, and especially with infrastructure I think we’re also allowed to think about certain situations, for example a family with kids who might be out and about with a stroller or something similar, all the way to people who are limited by a disability, a physical disability, where mobility plays a very particular role. That means here, for example, we can also think, in terms of the mobility idea, toward someone in a wheelchair or similar. So that means we have further aspects here too that should also be taken into consideration, or are, but often aren’t really looked at, because we focus on the — well, on the big, the directly visible thing, maybe also because, especially with the aspect of people with disabilities, it doesn’t affect everyone, but possibly only a minority. That’s why aspects like this often tip into the background. But families aren’t necessarily a minority either, that we’re talking about here. And still, in terms of mobility, there are some pretty significant challenges that you maybe only realize once you have a family yourself and face the challenge of getting from A to B yourself — and it’s always when we have personal experience with something, because we’re affected by it in some way, that awareness is actually created that there are really quite massive challenges here. So I can say, from my own personal experience as a mother on one hand, one thing or another in the past, where — I think there are a lot of things, even before we get anywhere near a highly technological area, that aren’t really solved well, in terms of infrastructure and so on. Even today, where there’s a huge gap in many places, from my point of view, that would first need to be closed somehow. And then, if you also have someone with a physical disability in your circle, or among your friends, then you pick up quite a bit from their life too. And you notice how a lot of everyday things that we take for granted, because we’re physically fit and can, for example, walk and climb stairs and so on, become a massive challenge for a person with a disability, because the infrastructure alone often isn’t there, and not enough is being done. And, in inverted commas, to also develop an awareness here that when we talk about mobility, or the future of mobility, we’re not just thinking about the ordinary, run-of-the-mill stuff in these discussions or in this exchange, but also taking into account special groups who are affected in a particular way and are also dependent on mobility — to bring in this concept of education again, to even be able to lead a self-determined life, and that we don’t restrict them in one place or another simply because we haven’t given it enough, or any, thought. Yes, Erdal, Jürgen, would you like to follow up on that? Go ahead, Jürgen.
Yes, thank you, Yasemin. A really important point, the example you brought up. Actually the meta level, the hyper-meta level I was getting at, is really about every human behavior. That means answering the question “what for?” And that’s the point you raised. In my view, mobility is looked at far too little through this lens of differentiation — exclamation mark — holistic thinking, which was actually the conclusion I was getting at with this topic of acceptance. Namely — I don’t want to make a value judgment here, but behind the “what for” is, for me, the individual assessment of what you actually need mobility for. And I deliberately don’t want to make a judgment here, but it opens your eyes when I say: if I take away a wheelchair user’s, a physically limited person’s, ability to make contact with their family, with their friends, or to get out of their apartment, then that kind of mobility, and the restriction or non-fulfillment of that mobility need, is on a completely different level than if, say, we’re forced in the future to give up our domestic flights within Germany and take some other means of transport instead, whatever that may be. So answering the question “what for” on this topic has a lot of individual dimensions to it, and makes the topic — not just this topic — once again, from my point of view, hyper-complex. Thank you.
Yes, there’s our term “complexity” again, and here too it becomes clear relatively quickly, on closer inspection, that in many places, if you keep looking at it — not just with this differentiation we’ve just made, but quite generally, as with these topics always — that on one hand it takes a closer look, it takes differentiation, and it becomes clear relatively quickly with these topics that there’s complexity behind them. And that also shows very nicely that it’s therefore not possible to give blanket answers, but that it’s necessary to look at things here in a differentiated way, from different perspectives, and always, weighing different considerations, to then also arrive at your own assessment afterward, after reflection and analysis for yourself, and to also enter into dialogue on these various levels, to even make them visible in the first place — because I think in a lot of places, because of what we consume through media or similar, we get steered a bit in terms of our focus, to see certain things in the foreground on certain topics, and to possibly stop thinking as intensively about other things, because through repetition we keep getting a very particular focus on certain topics, and don’t perceive other aspects in the discussion at all anymore, and possibly they simply slip our minds, because we ourselves don’t think of them either. So it’s all the more important to create awareness again in this exchange that the topics are considerably broader, and also more complex, and need to be looked at in a more differentiated way than what we might pick up from the mainstream. Erdal, would you like to follow up here too? Do you have further thoughts?
I’d like to go back to the beginning and break down the overall arc a bit. So what I’ve taken away so far is the questioning of mobility as a need in the first place — so saying, where is it appropriate, where is it avoidable — and then we move seamlessly into efficiency, which you introduced again, not just in terms of optimizing mobility as such, but the networking of it, meaning both including different groups, and also making sure that they — I understood it like a kind of supply chain — that if mobility is supposed to work with its alternative options, then these need to mesh with each other and be coordinated with each other so that it actually works. And efficiency is about completely rethinking what the right use of resources is, to say, how ultimately efficient can I make mobility.
Then there’s, I called it earlier my alien comparison — if you want to be as objective as possible about it, imagine how it would be if you had to explain it to someone who isn’t from this planet at all, and they came here, and you had to explain that you move an average of 80 kilos of human being with two tons. And the question is, why — is that the best way? And if you introduce, for example, the e-bike, you get a considerably more efficient outcome — that’s the purely physical side of the story. And then there are things like, looking into the future, what completely different alternatives are there. And finally, the question of whether I’m even heading in the right direction in the first place, if I take on the whole line of thinking the way the mainstream currently frames it — saying, how can I make mobility efficient? Is that even the right topic for our discussion, since I’ve supposedly always taken it for granted? I don’t even know if that’s actually a given. At this point I’d like to hand it back to Jürgen right away if he’d like to continue — and not “but,” but “and” — bring in another point to raise the complexity even further, which we’ve basically already opened up. Because on one hand we can discuss from the perspective of looking at Germany and talking about that — we’ve opened up global aspects too, but what we haven’t opened up yet is the comparison of, for example, how far along is Germany compared to other countries when it comes to mobility. And I find that really fascinating, because just a few days ago someone from my circle of friends came back from a three-month trip — they regularly spend part of their time in different countries. And among other places they were in Australia, which I found really exciting — I haven’t been to Australia myself yet. They reported, for example, that in the various major cities they visited, the transit network is so extensively built out that in cities where they want to motivate people to leave their cars at home more and use public transport instead, not only is the network incredibly extensive, but trains come every four minutes — so there’s no rush or stress, because every four minutes the train rolls back in to pick up the next passengers — and on top of that, the trains run without a driver, so this autonomous driving aspect is clearly visible there too, or recognizable, all the way to the point where public transport can even be used free of charge, because it’s about that motivation, to say, this costs nothing, and it makes sense that maybe you don’t even need a car anymore, because you have these options available. That means the city, the country, bears and covers those costs at that point. So really exciting setups too, especially seen in comparison. And there was a statement they made that I found really interesting, and I’d like to share it. In Germany we always think, in inverted commas, that we’re pretty far along. But when you see it in comparison like that, it becomes clear once you come back that we’ve somehow gotten stuck somewhere, and even though we have a lot, a lot of discussions, in comparison with other countries it becomes clear that we have a massive gap here, and we should first take a look at how we can close that gap. And I find that really interesting. Then I’d like to pick something up from the chat — Ulle contributed a few comments too. One was that physical mobility determines the choice of transportation. And relatedly, that supply determines the choice of transportation, was a comment. So, for example, a bike if you’re physically fit, and public transit if the bus comes at least every 20 minutes, with a question mark. And there we’re back at this time factor again. And Selene noted here that “mainstream media” is already a critical term in itself — either differentiate, or just use “media.” I’m happy to clarify what I mean by mainstream media — I mean the classic media that’s mainly used. And yes, then there are also alternative media. Alternative media doesn’t get used by everyone, and by alternative media I specifically mean media where someone really has to actively engage themselves to look at one thing or another from a different perspective. And for me, honestly, mainstream media — I’m not evaluating that negatively or anything — those are simply the main media channels we know classically from TV or from the internet, where a whole lot of information is accessible. So, that as a note on that, and then I’d like to look — Erdal, Jürgen, do you want to follow up on that? I’d like to start with Jürgen, since Erdal, you just brought something in. Jürgen, do you have further thoughts you’d like to add here?
Yes, thank you very much, and thank you, Erdal, for your remarks. It reinforced me on this meta level — sorry if I come back to it again — that this meta level, answering the question “what for,” and with that we’re back to the examples you brought up, Yasemin, in your last summary, namely the solution approach and the stage of development in Germany versus the development in the rest of the world. Even when thinking holistically about the question of what we’ll need mobility for in the future, it will definitely become clear that individual personal transport, in the form of a cargo bike or e-bike, taken into account, is only one part that holds together our whole — connecting back to holistic thinking — namely our economy. So this looking beyond one’s own horizon, not just in terms of modes of mobility, but also in terms of locality — where do our German solutions actually apply? In my view, that’s a highly complex challenge, because you can see it in the example of our energy policy right now too — I’ll say my personal opinion here — I simply can’t, in our day and age, in our globalization and internationalization, stop my thinking at the borders of our country anymore, not even at the border of the EU, the so-called EU. I deliberately don’t say Europe, I say the EU — because it’s exactly this alignment, Yasemin, that you touched on, that the current stage of development forces, practically demands, a coordinated approach worldwide, because what good does it do us to have a mobility concept that ends at the border to, let’s say, Poland, or Estonia, Latvia, and then is supposed to turn into a completely different approach there. And anyone who knows a bit about IT knows that what requires the most brainpower and energy are interfaces — interfaces that have to convert a well-intentioned path into, I don’t want to make a value judgment, another path. And so I’ll say it again — this is a highly complex problem and challenge, but not just for us, for all of us. And by that I basically mean the global community. All of us. That was important for me to point out again.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much for bringing that up too. We’ll have further rooms on this going forward too, where we’ll approach these aspects on a higher level as well — not just from a mobility standpoint, but quite generally in the direction of globalization, deglobalization, and then aspects like centralization, decentralization, and so on, and go deeper into that. And these are really important aspects that have already been brought into this context here today. And I think it’s good too, because it shows that these are relevant aspects that deserve to be thought about and discussed. And now that we’ve gone through these individual topic areas under this umbrella of ours, Pioneering Spirit with Brain, with various angles and technologies, so to speak — starting with things like blockchain, then artificial intelligence, and many, many other areas — today we’re talking about the future of mobility, and toward the end we’ll have enough time to look at all these aspects again in combination, and also consider, well, what actually happens here with, on one hand, technology, and then the topic of rethinking, the topic of discourse, and also making decisions — and not doing that within certain boundaries like a Germany or an EU, as you mentioned, but also thinking globally here, and the tensions that arise from that. So on one hand it’s important and right that this happens, but on the other hand this in turn creates other challenges that have effects, or possible effects, as a consequence. And here we’re also allowed to discuss, for example, political systems and so on — what does this actually do to our democracy? Is this even still a form of democracy the way we’ve had it in the past, or what efforts are underway here, what discussions are being opened up — and here, well, that makes the complexity clear again at this point too. So we’ll definitely take a closer look at all of that, and I’m glad it’s already come up here. Erdal, do you have further thoughts you’d like to add?
Generally, not really anymore. I’d say that individual sub-aspects like networking, efficiency, resources, combinations of resources, and resources we haven’t even thought of yet, and so on — even the effects, conceptually, of how big this needs to be tackled — if you say efficiency in terms of climate is a global issue, then it also needs to be thought globally, or rather — is there even a recognizable conceptual approach politically? So, has anyone even recognized that this task exists in the first place? Or is politics currently only dealing with individual aspects, and doesn’t even have on its radar that this is a much bigger movement than, say, just swapping a combustion engine car for an electric one? For me, I’d say every one of these sub-areas has the potential for at least one full session on its own.
Sorry, could you repeat that last sentence, please?
Every major area we’ve just touched on has the potential to be discussed exclusively for at least one whole session. So whether that’s resources, networking, efficiency, future-oriented political concepts and approaches — all of that, I’d want discussed in detail, and it has the potential for at least an hour, if not multiple hours.
Yes, absolutely. And let’s take a look at that too, in terms of technologies. I mean, in a lot of the discussions we have, the conversation often focuses exclusively on e-mobility. Are there actually any alternatives to that? Could this develop differently somehow, or is that being blocked and the discussion only steered in one direction? What are your observations, experiences, thoughts on that? Maybe we can look at this again from a purely technological angle. Do you have certain observations you’re making or following?
Yes, gladly. Jürgen, go ahead.
Yes, I have to admit I only have rudimentary knowledge here, admittedly, driven by interests stemming from what I said earlier. But I have to be honest — I can’t really form a final judgment right now on electromobility versus, say, alternative hydrogen, because I simply lack the expertise for it. I’ll just note what surprised me a bit — that recently, Mr. Diess, the former CEO of VW, used his platform on the Lanz talk show to dismiss the hydrogen solution as absurd within five minutes. On the other side of the globe, in Asia especially, but also very much in America, they’re pushing this technology forward with a vengeance. They also have solution approaches, for example, to cover the enormous electricity demand that’s needed for it — that’s certainly a valid point. There are also thoughts and approaches in the German automotive and technology space — there’s a cooperation project between Porsche and, I believe, Fiat, if I’m informed correctly, to generate power in Patagonia, because there’s a lot of wind there, and use it there, not here, to produce hydrogen technology and hydrogen. So, all in all, for me the topic isn’t settled yet, that e-mobility will be the technology of the future. But I can’t allow myself a judgment on whether the pendulum is swinging more toward e-mobility or toward hydrogen. There’s a third point that’s currently rather sacrosanct — that’s the continued use of nuclear energy. And there too, as you may know, there are completely new approaches. But since our Minister of Economic Affairs decided to cut funding for all research areas in the nuclear field, not just nuclear fusion but also nuclear fission, we’ve decided to decouple ourselves from that development. Thanks for listening.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And here too the complexity becomes clear again, because one thing is intertwined with the other. So if we open up the aspect of mobility with electricity, the way we started, then we also need to consider where we’re actually getting that electricity from to use it here — it’s a precondition. It can’t be, in inverted commas, that we just draw on normal available electricity the way we’ve used it so far — then not much is really gained. That means we also need to think in terms of different alternatives here, and as a consequence, that also means expanding in various other places — where can priorities be set here too. And here too new discussions come up. We’ll pick up renewable energy and so on as topics too, just to touch on it here already. Even with topics like wind power, there are critical views too, because at first glance everything looks great, in inverted commas, and I’m not an expert in that field either, able to judge it — but if you look at documentaries and so on about it, you find that apparently there are aspects there too that need to be looked at critically, that might even do more harm to our environment, possibly, because we’re not advanced enough yet in one place or another. This also needs to be set in motion — various substances and materials get used for it, and those in turn are supposed to be very, very harmful to the environment too. And there’s already discussion about whether that isn’t, in the end, even more harmful than what we already know, and whether that isn’t just eyewash being carried out. And I don’t want to judge that, because I can’t judge it. I just want to raise awareness that what might look great or seem great at first can, on closer inspection, turn out to be worth looking at critically too. And here too this complexity becomes clear again, and it’s necessary to really look at these topics with various experts from different fields, maybe scientific findings and so on — really with different lenses on these topics, and not just directly assume something as “this is the solution now,” but the complexity requires thinking things through in sequence at many points. So how things connect to each other in sequence, the chain reactions that get triggered, and looking at things from different perspectives again and again, weighing things up, and then we also have, as mentioned earlier, this aspect of not just thinking for Germany, but if we look at this exclusively from a German or EU perspective, we represent a relatively small spot on the earth. And what impact does that even have? That’s a question you’re rightfully allowed to ask too, I think. That’s not meant to say we shouldn’t start somewhere, but it does make clear that we won’t solve this problem alone, in inverted commas. And so cooperation, collaboration, is necessary here too, if something sustainable is really supposed to be achieved or accomplished. Erdal, do you have anything else you’d like to add? And if so, go ahead — and then afterward we can move straight into the closing round for today.
Yes, with the alternative to electromobility, it’s important, the way you framed it, to look at it holistically, and to say — not the way it was partly done with cars, where you only look at it once it’s standing in the dealership, but rather cradle to grave, the whole life story from the very beginning to the very end — and that results in a fairly long chain. If you say you need to factor in energy generation all the way through transport to the point of use, including the point of use and the technology of use, then you very quickly arrive at several branches. So, for example, with hydrogen — is it legitimate, or is it a legitimate candidate to be used directly in mobile vehicles? I don’t think so, except in individual cases like ships, or maybe trucks. For smaller things I don’t think so. But on the other hand, there’s an overwhelming need for energy storage, because especially when you work with alternative forms of energy generation, it’s harder to control, because you’re dependent on natural conditions. And those don’t wait around according to our habits — they’re either there or they’re not. And that also needs to be taken into account — I find it easy to say that something like hydrogen isn’t super efficient. But if I otherwise throw the energy away, because I say, I don’t have any need for it right now, but there happens to be wind, and I switch off the wind turbine, then it would still be better to use that thing to generate hydrogen as a form of storage, rather than letting the passing wind energy, in this case just as an example, go to waste completely. So you see there too, it’s a huge field and an enormously long chain that needs to be taken into account. That’s why it’s a complex topic there too.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. If we move into the closing round for today — we started with the room topic “future of mobility.” What aspects would you like to highlight or underline to close out? And then tomorrow we’ll continue with 5G. That came up in between as an aspect connected to IoT — we had that briefly in the chat. Ismail brought that up, and I thought that was great, and said we’ll make sure to pick that up again as a separate topic, because I think the topic is too important for us to just touch on it briefly on the sidelines within the context of another room. So we’ve not only picked up that topic, but also revised the order accordingly, in inverted commas, in terms of how we’re setting this up dramaturgically. And tomorrow’s the day we’ll take a closer look at the topic of 5G, the fifth generation of mobile networks. So what is 5G, what’s the difference to the previous generation, and what does that mean for us? That’s the question we’ll be dealing with starting at 8am tomorrow. I’m really excited about that too, and I think it fits really well to move into the wireless space after the mobility topic, before we open up further aspects next week. And on Sunday, I’d also like to announce this here — we have a digital campfire. I’m not promoting the digital campfire heavily elsewhere, on LinkedIn or wherever, so it’s important that I place it here too, so you all hear about it. So on Sunday morning at 8am, under the umbrella theme Pioneering Spirit with Brain, I’ll share and talk about some of my own experiences on the topic. We’ve set and defined two digital campfires in total, with different areas of focus, and this Sunday is the first part. Then in between we’ll have an author join us, and after that we’ll continue into the second part, again with a different focus, “Under the Umbrella — Pioneering Spirit with Brain,” part two, so to speak. So that’ll be exciting too. So you’re all warmly invited to join us on Sunday as well. Right, closing words, thoughts, highlights — Erdal, would you like to start, and then Jürgen after?
What I’ve learned, which you could maybe already sense beforehand if you’d engaged with it, is that it’s an incredibly broad arc, and you need quite a lot of approaches and time to get this topic sorted out for yourself — and even then you’re nowhere near a solution, just have the landscape sorted. Still, it’s a topic I’m glad about.
Yes, great, thank you, thank you so much. Jürgen.
Building on that remark from Erdal, I’ll gladly add to it — an expansion of the understanding of complexity, check, understood — and one more thing, and here I’ll draw on my professional expertise, or core competency, if I may call it that. What’s the answer to complexity? The answer to complexity is integration. That means, for me, I’d wish that very soon, for immediate reasons, on this topic that’s really going to be defining for us over the coming decades, this integrative way of thinking takes hold, especially in politics and in the media — namely, to focus objectively on the facts, to clearly and comprehensibly identify the advantages and disadvantages, and to reach an agreement through synthesis that, in the end, is also accepted by all of us. And with that we’re back to what you said earlier, the potential dangers to democracy. I see those too, dear Yasemin. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And yes, so I think we still have a lot to look at here — first, opening up further rooms on different focus topics, so that in bringing it all together, on one hand, we can make ourselves aware again of the overall complexity in the bigger picture, and on the other hand, against the backdrop of all these different perspectives we’ve opened up, also pick up political topics again, get into exchange on that too, to sort out our own thoughts, and then afterward also get into aspects like globalization, deglobalization, centralization, decentralization, and all the way to draft legislation that’s actually being prepared, some of it already pushed through, or coming in the next days and weeks, in preparation for 2024/25 and beyond. What does that mean as a consequence, how are we allowed to look at that, what potential and what dangers does all of this carry, what comes along with it — and here, really through a differentiated view, to get the chance for each of us, on one hand, to be a bit more sensitized, and on the other hand, to think for ourselves about where we personally stand on it. And what’s all tied up with that, because these aren’t just isolated, purely technological developments, or purely societal developments in a general sense, but also political ones here. So it’s not something to think about in isolation, but it will always play out in interaction, and come at a price. And what price are we willing to pay, in inverted commas, is just as legitimate a question — what price should we even be willing to pay, perhaps. So it makes sense to get clear on one thing or another for ourselves through exchange and discourse, and I hope that over the coming weeks we’ll manage to bring these topics back together, and that it becomes clear that this isn’t just important from a technology standpoint, to develop and educate ourselves further, in inverted commas, but also to develop new thoughts through discourse, to possibly discover new attitudes, to develop them for ourselves. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have wrong attitudes or opinions on certain topics, but it makes sense to look at the topics from different perspectives, to open up the chance to look at discussions with new perspectives too, and to see for yourself where that connects with you, what you take away from it, and how you personally want to handle that, or where you personally stand on it. And that’s legitimate too, to make that assessment individually for yourself again. But that requires that we first — not just to make the complexity clear, but also to shine a light on all these basic topics, in inverted commas, from different perspectives first, so that we can then consciously arrive at attitudes, decisions, and so on for ourselves, in a shared discourse. And I’m really curious what results will come out of this for you, and for me too. So it stays exciting. And you’re all very, very warmly invited to join tomorrow for 5G, the fifth generation of mobile networks, when we open up another room from another perspective. With that, I wish you all a wonderful day, and I’m looking forward to tomorrow. Ciao!
