Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: How does technology change power structures and dynamics? That’s the question we explore in Room #940 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Power & Violence.” 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 very warm good morning to you. Today we continue with the topic “the power of technology,” and the question we want to engage with today is “how does technology change power structures and dynamics?” In the sense of a reflection room, you’re invited again today too, to join for the dialogue and share first impulses, thoughts, maybe also bring in examples, so we can see, first approaches, first thoughts, where the room leads us together today. I’m totally curious about the topic “the power of technology,” and yes, we have a recording running in the background, just as a reminder, that means anyone who joins automatically agrees that the whole thing gets published too. And we have three small room rules, a profile photo where you’re recognizable, last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Anyone who doesn’t agree with that, or wants to remain anonymous, can’t speak right now, of course also has, as always, the option to use our chat, and then I can gladly pick up one thing or another in the course of the dialogue here and embed it, provided it fits well into the context. Yes, and with that I’m curious who’d like to join first this morning, the power of technology, how does technology change power structures and dynamics, what are your first thoughts, impulses, associations on that? Feel free to join in, to step into the exchange and open the reflection room together today. With that I’ll gladly mute myself first and see who’d like to join.
A very warm good morning, dear Jürgen. What are your first thoughts on the topic?
Good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning to everyone in the room. My first thought is actually a question. A question derived once again from your subtitle. How, technologies, power structures and dynamics. And my question is, how do we approach this topic? There are definitely two possibilities, and I personally see it that way too. How do I get closer to this topic in connection with our overall theme, the overarching theme of power. On one hand I could approach it from the side of technology, and simply ask which technologies are currently the pacemakers for us on the market, what pops up almost daily in various publications. On the other hand, I could also approach it from what we’ve already worked out regarding power and our understanding of power, and the different manifestations of power, by asking which power components we see as essential. I’m thinking, for example, of what we have as a topic here, judiciary, legislature, executive, or also the fourth power, or fourth estate, the press. And a bit pedantically, there’s also a third possibility, namely to focus on the verb, “change,” and to reflect on “change” too, as a first step, to say, what’s actually changing right now for us, in our environment, in my environment, in our entire social environment right now. And can a connection be made between technology and power there. That would be my first thought, and my initial point, just to show which three different, well, feeding times, so to speak, I would approach this topic from, to then clarify which one you’d like, which one you’ll take now. And which side do we tackle the topic from? That should be an initial point for today. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And I think it’s nice that you formulated it as a question, but those are exactly the components that are there for you first, so to speak, as impulses, that you can look at the topic on different levels. I’d actually say, let’s gladly pick up all three levels you mentioned. Especially if we look from the level of technologies, as you said, so which technologies, I could imagine that we could then, in derivation so to speak, also build bridges to these power components, because the technologies might also offer the approach, like a kind of concrete example, to bring in here too, and then also pick up this component of change, so the connection between technology and power, and look at these dynamics too. So I think it makes sense to not even say that we now go to one of the levels and exclusively look at that level, but gladly, from my perspective, to pick up these different levels and actually look at it from the different levels. And then let’s see how the dynamic of the room develops accordingly, who might join in too, to then dock on accordingly and continue at the points we’ve opened up.
Jürgen, what do you say to that?
Wonderful, I find that really good. Following the motto, let’s keep the degrees of freedom open. I don’t want to abstain from setting an initial point either, from two perspectives. What’s certainly very dominant in recent months, maybe even in the last two or three years, is the dominance in the sudden and rapid development of technology, especially AI. We’ve had this topic often too, and in connection with power and power concentration increasingly, especially with those who provide and have available the data-based foundation at all for today’s development of artificial intelligence. That’s certainly a really essential point. Regarding power relations, but there I’ll say again, to my understanding we’ve already had this topic in an expert talk too, what effects that could have. That’s one side I’d like to bring in. And the other, I think, is also a topic in connection with the overarching theme of power in the near future. That’s the economy, which of course is currently also, under essential influence of technological, but not only technological, influences, clearly changing power relations across the economy and continentally shifting them. And the extreme scenario is increasingly heading toward a scenario that could possibly even be defined as an economic war. But mind you, that’s my personal opinion. And for me, the connection to the economy in this regard is because the change in technologies and core competencies in technologies between individual countries and also between continents has clearly shifted in recent years. And today we have a tripolar world, at first glance tripolar, I’ll say. We have Europe on one hand, America and Asia on the other hand, and I don’t want to let this fall by the wayside, we have a position, positioning, called Africa, and this new polarization, and so also power shifts regarding the economy are, from my point of view, essentially grounded in and will further develop through quite conscious technological components. I’ll lean out on this now. So, in summary, one is the economy, and one is the perspective of technological development regarding artificial intelligence. Thank you for listening.
Yes, great, thank you so much. And with that we’ve essentially picked up the aspects from the past rooms again too. And I find it really important to bring that in as a reminder too. And if you remember, we also addressed, for example, these data collections by certain companies etc., that this makes an essential difference regarding something like monopoly formation, for example, which results from how much data certain companies have already collected over the past years, through these technologies that come together here and can also be used. And the companies that recognized this relatively quickly, let’s say, and started early with data collection, of course have a clear head start compared to other companies who might just be starting now, because maybe they’ve only just been shaken awake at one point or another, let’s call it that.
And with that I’d like to welcome Marc in the round too. A very warm good morning, dear Marc. What are your first thoughts, or where would you like to dock onto Jürgen’s already?
My first thoughts are first of all good morning from the car. I’m using the power of technology today, because that’s technology too, on my way to meet Sabine for breakfast. And the power of technology is at least also the power that today we can both work and talk to each other through technology. And that’s a completely different perspective. Good morning to the round first.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And I can actually agree with that right now too. Just like probably different people are sitting in different cities or even countries too. I’m currently in Turkey, so I’m dialing in from Turkey right now. And these are also possibilities opened up to us through the technological aspects we can use, through the technologies we can employ, that it becomes increasingly possible to connect from the most various places in the world and step into the exchange, which in the past simply wasn’t possible in this form. And what’s self-evident for us today would have been unimaginable a few years ago for one person or another. So maybe to underline that too, I find that great, thank you so much.
Jürgen, Marc, would you like to add to this too? Marc, you wanted to say something too.
Yes, I said this is such an exciting topic, besides Yasemin, that I wouldn’t even know where to start and stop. I could probably talk about this topic alone for two hours. I agree here with the tech. I see it exactly that way too, technology and future technology, that will influence us, will influence our work, our prosperity, and the news is coming at us at such speed. Yesterday, for example, the news came that the Americans decided that quantum technology, quantum technology is the next leap, where our children will maybe shake their heads at what kind of computers we worked with, they were far too slow, and in the future the USA is considering whether companies investing in China need approval, because there’s really fear. People have learned from the past few years that technology gets copied, that we lose competitive advantages. In Germany that would be solar energy, and also that we completely, well, the solar energy topic, we squandered that, wind energy, electric cars, and if we’re on the second topic, or an important topic block, our future cars will be computers. What do computers need? Software. And I talked with Jürgen on the phone this week, because I read an article in the business news about a map manufacturer, a company here, that somehow can’t quite get its map material to work properly. I hope we don’t get sued now. At least there seem to be difficulties. And if we use this technology, so if we have self-driving cars, then we have to be aware that these self-driving cars need a technology. And one of the technologies is the mapping, where the computer can orient itself, our map system. And a big automotive company in the Stuttgart area is now moving to, even though they’re involved with Audi and BMW in this map system, which doesn’t work though, use Google instead. Though the goal of the German automotive industry is clearly to get Google out of the cockpit, and that’s just one of very, very many points. Also, navigation of course includes our satellite navigation. We also don’t yet have our own satellite navigation system that works, and just hypothetically assume we had a fight with the Americans and simply said, our best friends are the Chinese now, we won’t do anything with the Americans anymore, then they could degrade us back to the Stone Age at the push of a button, without any rocket having to fly to Germany, because without a navigation system no plane flies here anymore, no phone works anymore, nothing at all, traffic grinds to a halt and so on and so forth. And these are partly dependencies that you don’t really think about in normal life, because just like I’m using the phone right now talking to you, that’s become a matter of course, without questioning and understanding, what technology do I need, and what happens in my life, how does it affect me, if this technology were to fail completely overnight?
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And that illustrates the urgency of the topic overall too, because many probably don’t currently think about what dependencies arise here at all. That’s not just between countries, so the examples you opened up here, Marc, I found them wonderful, but of course also dependencies, for example, within a country, so also the population. Let’s take Germany as an example, the population, which is of course in a certain dependency here too. That means we can pick up various aspects, and we’ve felt that quite well in all these discussions right now about energy and the dependencies that exist here too, in the discussions and debates. Following the motto, what actually happens if there isn’t enough electricity, not enough energy and so on. And chain reactions get triggered really, really quickly if you just play through such scenarios, what that would actually mean. And if we just look at how much technology is already in use everywhere, not just with cars, everywhere, even at home for example. What would that concretely mean if, for example, power went out here? Many might think, well, I could maybe not do this or that for a few days. But if you look more closely, even flushing a toilet already has corresponding, there really are chain reactions you might not think of at first glance. So that plays a really, really big role, regardless of whether we’re talking about very, very advanced technologies or the simplest things. And that’s now of course increasing further through this massive technologization, development in technologization.
The question that derives from all this for me is though, this, well, that there are individual automotive companies with certain plans, I can understand that. But regarding something like, well, should you maybe regulate that, especially when it comes to competition with other countries, that if companies invest abroad and do something there, that you have some kind of framework conditions for that. That sounds to me a bit like the conventional discussions again, where it’s always about, well, we have to make sure nothing gets copied or similar. There the question arises for me whether that’s the right approach here, or, and now we’re thinking in the direction of future skills and things like that, don’t we as humans have to accept to some extent that copying is part of life, and maybe look at other solutions instead of saying I have to prevent anything from being copied here.
Jürgen, you wanted to add to this.
Yes, I don’t want to be a contrarian, but my dears, today, in my view, if you understood that correctly, we’re not talking about dependencies or emerging or necessary regulations, but today we’re talking about the influence of technology on power structures. And I’ll gladly pick up what Marc gave as an example. Just the term quantum computer is such a saving example for me, of how power relations, I won’t consciously go back into the definition of power now, or I’ll consciously not go into the definition of power again now and assume a shared understanding, that exactly this term quantum computer, and the development from the computer through quantum technology to a quantum computer, is a prime example of how technological power relations have shifted on our globe. The computer, and quantum technology, or rather the theory, was developed in Europe, and essentially developed in Germany and in Austria. And already in the beginning of the 70s it was foreseeable that competence regarding computer technology, back then still based on Zuse machines with punch cards, and then in further development, would definitely move away from Germany across the Atlantic. And with quantum technology we now have a shift of scientific power relations, due to exactly this technology, away from Europe, partly to America and largely to China. And that’s for me, thank you so much, that’s such a position for me where the circle, or the coherence, in our topic today comes together for me. I hope I’m not seeing this wrong.
Thank you so much. I’d like to broaden that a bit against the background that I know which topics still await us, and how we’re positioned thematically in the overall constellation, whenever I know that we have topics where we’ll treat certain aspects separately again, I like to point out that we stay within the framework set as the room topic, to make sure we don’t have too many repetitions, or rather that at the corresponding point, when it goes into depth, we can then deepen that further from this perspective again. Such a room doesn’t exist regarding these dependency relations, and that’s why I’d like to pick that up here. Because through the examples Marc just brought in too, it becomes really, really clear how these chains connect, so to speak, and what effects that has. And I’d like to look at this aspect of how to handle it too, because I think it becomes more tangible that way, because otherwise we’d stay too abstract on too abstract a level.
Marc, gladly.
I just want to, dear Yasemin, please excuse me, briefly follow up on Jürgen, I’ll make it quick, exactly on the topic of copying or not. Solar technology came from Germany. There’s only one European, or even worldwide, manufacturer left besides Asia doing that, and this German manufacturer explained the technology went, well, that was exactly the argument, we both made money, so solar energy went to China, and we made money from that, and now it’s like, regarding copying, the Chinese are so good at solar energy that they’ve banned the machines needed to build solar technology, which come from Germany, they were improved by the Chinese, and now the Chinese are considering that the machines, the improved machines needed to build solar energy, no longer, so as I said, the origin of the technology is Germany, may no longer be exported to Germany, because there too there’s fear of copying and they want to keep this competitive advantage. That just came to mind quickly regarding copying.
And then the second thing on the topic, dear Yasemin, you remember when we talked about self-driving cars. Whoever watched the news yesterday certainly noticed that in San Francisco robot taxis are now being approved. That means no more humans, they’re allowed to drive autonomously in San Francisco with a license. I also found a Spiegel article from 1921 — sorry, from 2021, wait no I mean earlier — where Spiegel wrote that this company, I can’t pronounce it right, Waymo, has been working on this for twelve years, and Spiegel wrote they’ll still need a very, very long time until this technology is market-ready. Today and yesterday came the news that robot taxis will drive without humans in the future, licensed as a test area throughout San Francisco, 2021. Now we’re in 2023.
Yes, thank you so much. Yes, Waymo is the name of the company, and they’ve actually been researching and testing for a really, really long time. Not just in San Francisco by the way, there are also areas in other countries and cities, also in Germany, especially in Hamburg, where test routes and so on are actually being used too, where, for example, buses are in use as self-driving vehicles, where various information gets collected, to see how well the technology is already being used. I hadn’t heard, Marc, that this had now been approved in San Francisco, completely. I find it great that you bring this news in here too. It’s really, really fascinating too.
Jürgen, would you like to add to this too?
No, I don’t have a point to add right now. Thank you.
But Marc has one.
Gladly. Yes, the power of technology. Today I read in the news, it’s really bizarre, that you have to discuss something like this. The Americans are currently discussing, depending on who wins the next election, whether they’ll continue supporting Ukraine in the future, because they say we actually need every cartridge for Taiwan. Should there be a disagreement between China and America, then every military missile is really needed, so much so that they’re really discussing to what extent, with the technology we have, it still makes sense to invest in Europe. The background of all this isn’t inhumanity, but the world economy is simply more dependent on China than on Russia or Ukraine. And in this context they wrote, if the Taiwan Strait, which is one of the busiest waterways in the world, if this strait is blocked, if no more ships can sail there, then a scenario is assumed where the entire world trade really collapses, because no more containers would reach us at all. That’s only indirectly the power of technology, but you can see what thoughts and strategic games are happening there. And we only learn about many things through a small newspaper ad or through a marginal note. Through this global networking, as an individual you no longer have any overview at all of what’s running in the background, which interests, which geopolitical interests are at play and so on.
Wonderful, thank you so much. I’d also asked ChatGPT beforehand, and brought you a few keywords too, or rather, I can gladly read that to you, what ChatGPT contributed as further approaches or connecting points. We’ve already brought in some of them, others maybe not yet. And so here too, to see what we might want to pick up, or where we want to dock onto again. I’d asked ChatGPT exactly with this question, what exactly could be considered under this topic. And ChatGPT answered: digital surveillance, the possibilities of modern technologies to monitor people, from simple cookies on the internet to facial recognition and big data analyses. Second, social media, their role in influencing public opinion, spreading information and disinformation, and their power in political campaigns. Artificial intelligence, ethics and possibilities of AI, especially regarding automated decision processes that can directly affect people’s lives. Economic dominance, big tech companies and their market-dominating position, which influence other industries, cultures, and even governments. Job market and automation, how technology displaces or changes jobs and what social and economic effects this has. Digital dependency, the psychological effects of technology, especially regarding smartphones, social media, and the phenomenon of digital addiction. Seventh, data as currency, the way companies collect, use, and monetize data, and the resulting privacy concerns. Cybersecurity, the power and potential of cyberattacks, whether by hackers, states, or other organizations. Societal change, how technology influences our communication, relationships, and everyday lifestyle. Education and technology, how technology changes the education system and the way we learn. Health technology, the use of technology in healthcare, from telemedicine to advanced diagnostic tools, and their influence on patient care and safety. Regulation and legislation, how states and international bodies try to regulate and control the power of technology. Sustainability, the role of technology in addressing or worsening environmental problems and climate change. And the last point, digital access, the digital divide between those who have access to modern technology and those who don’t, the social, economic, and educational-policy effects. I find the aspects brought in here quite exciting too. As I said, we’ve already picked up some. Jürgen, Marc, would you like to dock onto these points too?
Gladly, Jürgen, then Marc.
Can you please specify which question you asked ChatGPT?
Gladly. I gave it the topic. Please give me a few keywords on this topic and the question, so I know what you mean and where I can start in the show, and then completely inserted this room with all the flags and everything according to that. And also the sub-line of your subtitle, namely the concrete relationship between power structures and dynamics toward technologies? I didn’t give that along, but it has to do with the context, because ChatGPT originally suggested for us the room titles and also the subheadlines, and so ChatGPT knows the subheadline from that history too.
Okay, okay. Understood. Yes, if I may set my personal big bracket in understanding, also between the connection of power and technology. I already mentioned this a while ago, not least reinforced by this, now you have to help me again, dear Yasemin, with Mr. Wolf, this expert talk we had, that I see three positions as essential anchor points for today’s topic, the connection between technology and power. Namely, one, for me, is the big data vacuum cleaners, so the future essential pacemakers who possess a huge amount, or the necessary amount, of data to be able to conduct the necessary, valuable tests for a corresponding AI. The second is the instance that makes information out of data. That’s the fourth estate. So the whole environment of media processing, increasingly of course regarding social media. And the third part, all of that, because everything has to be paid for. That’s the finance industry, which, also through technology, we haven’t had this so far but have had it several times in other rooms, through blockchain technology, through the introduction of digital “currencies,” is also facing an enormous technological and power-related rupture, namely the consequence especially in the last area, in finance, will be, from my point of view, where I always explicitly make quite clear, because it’s recorded, this is my personal opinion, not a well-founded scientific opinion, that it will substantially transfer the power relations in the finance industry from the private banking sector to the central banking sector. So these three positions would be the big anchor for me, and basically subsume, and here I’ll close the circle to the positions you just outlined for us via ChatGPT on the next level, practically. Thank you for that.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much. And the question arises for me in this context too, because we’ve also said in other rooms that power isn’t per se something negative, but here too maybe to pick up the positive side of this development quite specifically again and look at it. We can do that in a moment, if you feel like it. First I’d like to give Marc the opportunity to dock onto the preceding too.
Marc.
I had one more example, though this one isn’t positive, just to show how far technology has come, how power gets used in a political context too, based on technology. Namely, the Chinese have also developed software that’s now used in Iran, where we’re always discussing whether cameras make our life in the city safer or not. And you might get the idea, well, if I don’t want to be seen, I’ll just cover my face in the future, then I won’t be afraid of anyone filming me. But you have to tell people, the technology is much, much further along, namely there’s now software that makes it possible to recognize, scan people from the front and back, up to a distance of 100 meters, and I no longer need a face, but I filter people out just by their gait. How the technology works, I can’t explain to you, that’s probably stored somewhere at some point. But the software makes it possible to recognize me, Jürgen, and Yasemin, just by our gait, even if we’re totally covered. That did scare me a bit, how far the technology already is in some cases. And in Iran it’s now being used to be able to further track women, if they don’t wear their headscarves as prescribed, you can find them through this identification of people. And you know what that can mean.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much. And here we’ve arrived at this point again. We’ve noticed this often in the past, that it’s not per se the subject, in this case technology, that’s positive or negative, but wherever we use various things, it can be used and abused for something good or something bad, in quotation marks. So always keep that in mind too. That means, it’s not the technology that’s per se good or bad, but basically it’s the human being who makes something good or something bad out of it, and possibly abuses power here too. So that underlines that once more here.
And to switch or redirect to these positive aspects now, I’d like to pick up a contribution from the chat here too. Namely, it says here, I’m anti-technology, or rather an enemy of technology, since the industrial revolution. Technology harms people more than it benefits them. Dependency on technology is common. The topic is covered well by Ted K. in his book. How does that look then? If we just look at it from the industrial revolution onward, in a kind of mental fast-forward, so to speak, can we let that stand, that technology harms people more than it benefits us? Jürgen, Marc, what do you say to that?
Well, I think that makes everyone’s personal view of values and preferences obvious, only to then determine the whole thing basically brought us little. So the first thing that comes to my mind is that the entire economic welfare function, globally, has clearly changed in the last 150 years, and clearly improved, in a positive sense, for the overall balance sheet on our globe, item two, also not to be neglected, the accompanying medical development and the extension of lifespan on this planet. That might not be positive for one person or another either, but for me it is. I’ll take that out for myself now. But as I said, that’s, I think, everyone’s own business. And sorry if I move a bit away from your input about seeing the good now. The essential thing, actually in search of the meta-level, the essential thing for me in this development, is change. And it’s something inherent to us humans. Man lives as long as he strives, and man strives as long as he lives. It’s in us, to change ourselves. And on the other hand, the necessity, which we also keep addressing, of this consistent questioning, not welcoming something more or less tech-affine now with open arms and calling it all wonderful and great, but also looking behind it and asking, where’s an advantage? Is there also a disadvantage? Apt example. Marc’s last example. He named it himself in one sentence. What was dominant was the negative view, that someone can be identified under the condition of a political restriction or ideological restriction. On the other hand though, and Marc, you addressed it, that’s a really essential point regarding the need for protection we have, and the feeling of being protected. So that’s basically the essential message from this room for me too. I think, to put it in a nutshell, humans stop being human when they stop changing. And from this change, positive and negative result. And it’s given to us, based on our reason, to decide which way we let the pendulum swing, more toward the positive or the negative. And finally a really essential point you addressed earlier. Whenever we talk about technologies, whatever it is, whether it’s AI or autonomous driving, there are people behind it. Still people, and not a technology. A tool. Tool is a fool.
Thank you. “Tool is a fool” is good, yes, wonderful, thank you. Yes, maybe just briefly as a note, the contribution I picked up from the chat, I didn’t pick it up to evaluate it, so to speak, or anything like that, but really to build this bridge in the sense of a neutralization too, of further perspectives, namely, how can it also be seen or looked at positively? And you connected to that directly, dear Jürgen, thank you for that.
And with that I’d like to bring in Erik too. A very warm good morning, dear Erik. What do you say to that?
Yes, good morning. “A fool with a tool is still a fool.” That came to mind for me regarding that sentence. Otherwise I wanted to follow up on the development of technologies and so on. And also a bit, what actually is technology? So of course we first think of AI and self-driving cars, because that’s our topics today. But basically, if you go really far back, the first technology was maybe sharpening a stick, to maybe hunt with it or defend yourself. Or you sharpened stones, or, um, discovered and used fire and so on. Basically everything, whether that’s clothing or clean water. Everything is technology, which wasn’t suddenly there in a certain scope, but that developed over time. Building on that, ever new technologies were then developed. And that’s why I find it difficult to set the boundary, like from such-and-such revolution at such a point in time technology existed, from then on people made technology and that was all bad, but it’s actually a fluid story. And technology also has, well, I mean, you can see what power it has. Just if you look at life expectancy, I don’t know how that looked 300,000 years ago with the first Homo sapiens, whether you got to be 10, 15 years old maybe, and today 100 and more. And that’s ultimately a development that arose from ever more technologies building on each other. And I also assume that we’re not at the end today or in ten years, that we say, well, that was it, all development is over now, but it’ll continue just the same. Jürgen also made that nicely clear with human nature. And that’s why I find it difficult to draw a boundary there first. And then of course there’s also, whoever has the new technologies of course also has a possibility, a power over those who don’t have them. So if I’m the first to have shoes, for example, everyone else still walks barefoot, then I have an advantage in certain situations, and I can use that well or badly. I can either hunt longer and supply those without shoes with it, or I can hunt those without shoes and then oppress them. And that applies to all technologies, if I’m now the first to have a firearm and then fight people who don’t have that yet, who maybe shoot with bows and arrows or throw spears and things like that. And that runs through everything. Whoever is early in using new technologies always has the choice of which direction they do that in. And then of course there’s also a cat-and-mouse game. That when I then reach a certain point at some point — or, let’s say, the internet exists, and then I use it to sell goods through it, then retail eventually has a problem and has to adapt out of necessity. And that’s why I also find it difficult when you go into bans. Because they usually have a bit of a background too, to maintain certain power structures. For as long as possible, that you say technologies get banned. For example, free access to the internet or something is then only allowed for the state. You can think up all sorts of things like that, or read about them. And then there’s a one-sided use of technology that possibly doesn’t happen in a good sense, depending on how you evaluate good and bad. And so I find it important here too that you look exactly at the positive things too, and stick with really using technologies, when they’re new, in a positive sense too, to maintain a certain balance of power between good and evil, though of course evaluating good and evil is nearly impossible, probably depending on how far you go with it. But exactly, so that was basically my point. Actually everything is technology, and looking at the sum, I’d say technology has definitely produced positive results for humans, let’s say. Whether you see that for the planet regarding climate change and so on, that’s also debatable, but that’s always the question too, where you set your good and evil and so on.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so much, and I’d like to underline and highlight these two aspects again, to be able to follow up or let others follow up. So on one hand, the aspect that bans are sometimes also there to maintain power structures. I find that a really interesting thesis at this point. We can look at that again, what bans in connection with power structures — so it’s not just following the motto, I regulate something because I somehow want to make sure I’m not disadvantaged, or we have to secure ourselves, but to flip this perspective around. Bans to maintain power structures already present, in brackets. I think that opens up a completely different perspective in this thinking cycle too, possibly. And then I also found it nice with the shoes as an example, what you opened up, to say everything is basically a technology, or rather maybe additionally the result of technology. And whenever I use certain things, advantages and disadvantages result from that, depending on how it’s used. And that you don’t just think from the purely technological, things like automation, electrification and so on, but can also pick up the really simple, everyday, relatively banal objects here too, which happened in the context of a certain progress or development — whether that was progress, you can argue about that in evaluation — but which happened, so to speak, in the context of a development, and here too you can open up many examples, both in one direction and the other. So I’d like to underline that again.
Marc, you wanted to dock on here again, and then gladly Jürgen too, if Jürgen would like to.
Yes, I have another example, which is also quite current, namely in Brazil there are now more influencers than doctors or academics. Elections get won with influencers, and yesterday, current on this topic, came, where the power of technology, the AfD, I didn’t want to say the name, sorry, but now I’ve said it, the AfD currently has, on TikTok, they’re the only party using this new medium. And I read yesterday that they have over 600,000 followers. And they specifically address young people there. And they have more followers than all the other established parties combined. And that’s why it’s also important that I, and we, engage with these new technologies and use these new technologies. Because other people use them too. And it’s not about whether we find something good or not good, or are tech-friendly or not, but we have to make sure we don’t miss the boat, don’t miss the train, and know where these technologies are used, why they’re used, where that can lead. And to give a positive example again, I’m deeply convinced that technology and computers will lead to us having completely, completely different cancer therapies and cancer treatment options in the future than before, because through this quantum technology, things will simply be possible that we can’t even imagine today. And that’s, for me, if you can save people, that’s a really, really positive aspect again for me. Though, Yasemin, I remember, even as I’m speaking now, well, if we save people, then they also live longer, then they also have to be provided with a pension again. There we’re back at what Jürgen said, you find something positive everywhere or also something negative. So every new technological development has two kinds of effects. I’m glad, to get back to the chat about this tech-hostility, I’m glad that the technology I’m using right now exists, because it enables a much freer life for me, and if I imagine that I can earn my money with a phone, or with digital media too, then that’s much more pleasant for me as a person than if I were standing in a field today without a horse, without flight, and had to do things by hand. So I feel protected from the rain in the car, the car is technology too, protection from rain is technology. I’m totally glad to get to live in this millennium. I already wish you a nice weekend at this point too. Our houses are also a protection at this point. So there are quite a lot of examples we can open up. So really. I’m curious what maybe gets sanctified in the closing round too.
In a moment I’d like to first give Jürgen the opportunity though. But Jürgen, if you’d like, you can dock on directly and then also add your closing word for today right away.
Yes, I have to laugh right now. Our houses are our protection. That’s what spontaneously came to me. Unless you have an Alexa standing in your living room, and then it uses you. But that might be a bit too sharp, I think. Yes, I wanted to briefly reference the topic of bans once more, though on a rather elevated level now, and say that every system, and thus also a system equipped with power, defines itself via two positions, namely via commands and prohibitions. So the prompting to do something quite specific, or to refrain from something, and just the demarcation of the system, of the power structure, let’s take the example of us in the Federal Republic of Germany, our constitution and our nation, that’s defined already just by who’s allowed to count as a citizen and must be defined or considered as a citizen, as a command, if they have quite specific characteristics. So that’s for me, dear Yasemin, also a position with always two faces. Unfortunately the word “ban” is, in my view, always the same, or not always the same, please strike that, but very often explicitly connotated negatively, but also has, like everything in life, its two sides. I just wanted to add that, and thank you all sincerely for this room today, for everyone who actively participated and passively listened, and I wish you a nice sunny weekend too. Ciao, take care.
Wonderful, thank you so much. Erik.
Yes, then I’ll gladly follow up. I found especially your statement good and important, Jürgen, that humans don’t stand still. It’s in his nature to keep going and learning, and to develop new technologies as a result, and also to use them, one way or another. So the question isn’t whether you should stop at some point or something, but there’ll always be new technologies, which of course get used, quite naturally, to maintain power and also to gain power, and also for power shifts and so on. And there, as a society, you should basically know where it should go and set the corresponding framework conditions, insofar as that’s then possible. I’ll add my nice weekend wishes too, and thanks for the room.
Yes, great, thank you so much, dear ones. I think really great aspects have come together again, starting from different levels all the way to different examples we opened up, then bringing in ChatGPT here for further impulses etc. So I found this, I’ll call it symbiosis between human and machine, quite interesting too at this point, we do that again and again now, to show what’s possible on one hand, and on the other hand also look at it critically, and at the same time also use and show these positive aspects, how a room design, for example, here on the meta-level, incorporating technologies like ChatGPT, can also be used to give impulses, further impulses, for the exchange, for the dialogue. And there I also found this aspect, “tool is a fool,” quite funny from Jürgen too, that also has a lot to do with how I use technologies, and technologies can also be used representatively for developments in general as a term, how I use developments, so to speak, use them, use them for myself, use them against others, use them directed against myself, if we think toward the planet or something. So this aspect of the human in the background keeps coming up again and again. Maybe as a reminder, we’ve picked up really, really many aspects and technologies here too under this overarching theme, which we’ve engaged with over several weeks. We called it “pioneering spirit with brains” as the overarching theme, and we have quite a lot of podcast episodes, so to speak, from these individual shows. I think great aspects have come together here too, from this individual look at individual technologies we picked up, to then also show the overall connections, and always paying attention to open up both positive and negative aspects too, and look at what that actually means, and in which direction the whole thing develops. And here too we kept coming to this result, that it has a lot to do with the human being, at the end of the day, what gets made and shaped out of it. That means, the human is the shaper, in quotation marks, to pick up this term of shaping again here too. And I think, if we really look at it historically, that was mentioned today too, there are very, very many developments that are simply there now, we can’t imagine today without them anymore. And that was also palpable at the author’s breakfast with Ernst Wolf, and he said that too, we also can’t now somehow completely boycott certain things and say I won’t participate in that at all. So if individuals were to say, I don’t use an email system, I don’t have an email inbox or something, you could do that, or I completely boycott Amazon or something, you could do that, but the question is, if we start boycotting everything possible that arose in development, which brings both positive and negative aspects with it, on one hand we’ll somehow end up back in the Stone Age. So I don’t think that’s desirable either, but what should basically be the goal is that we commit ourselves to handling developments, technologies responsibly — and I think responsibility plays a really big role in this context — and not just regarding ourselves, but also in groups, in teams, in the workplace, extended to societies, nationally and internationally, to handle it with a certain responsibility. I think that should possibly be an aspiration here at this point, instead of always hitting it with a club and saying we now have to ban this and that and everything. We have this discussion on a small scale as well as a large scale. I’ll just remind you, in school there’s more discussion about, in quotation marks, preventing, so to speak, ChatGPT from being used, because you can no longer check whether it’s your own contribution, well then we have to adapt. Then we simply need a different kind of performance assessment, so to speak, than what we’ve known so far. We won’t be able to prevent it, but we can handle it differently. And I think that’s an important process of rethinking here too. So not always saying we have to ban this and that, but looking at how we may now handle certain developments differently in the future. Here again and again rethinking, and we’re back at a process of change, which Jürgen already addressed earlier, to say, how may we change again now. And there I’m quite optimistic, because humans, with their frontal lobe at the front, which is so pronounced, are able to actually adapt here too, adapt again and again. That’s an ability we have really, really strongly developed in us. That means, just as resistance gets created, we’re also able to quite consciously steer and go into the changes and make adaptations, be it rethinking, be it handling it differently than before, discovering new paths. And there the research drive, the developer drive and so on helps us again too, to discover with curiosity, open new doors, and here accordingly be able to walk new paths with responsibility. In that spirit I thank you all really, really warmly. I found it really stimulating and exciting. Tomorrow we continue with our digital campfire part 3 on power and violence. Just let yourselves be surprised. Tomorrow morning at 8 o’clock it starts again at Deep Talk, and I look forward to welcoming you here again tomorrow at 8. In that spirit, a nice weekend, and see you tomorrow morning. Ciao!
