 Sehr geehrte... Mit dieser Lektionsserie, wir wollen, dass wir immer interessante, interessante und dünne Spiele, die uns reden, über die aktuellen, die jüngste und die Zukunft, aufgrund der Technologien in unserer Gesellschaft, zu tun. Und zusammen diskutieren wir sie. Und wir diskutieren auch, wie die Gesellschaft gegen eine digitale Gesellschaft entwickelt. Und wir diskutieren auch, wie die Kraft in der Gesellschaft verursacht. Wir sehen eine Stärkung der Verteidigung und der sozialen Bewegung. Und wir diskutieren auch die Herausforderungen der Kontrollmechanismen und anderen Mechanismen der digitale Technologien. Ich wünsche Ihnen einen interessanten, eindrücklichen Abend. Und auf dieser Note würde ich auch sagen, dass ich heute Abend dieses Kollegen, die heute Abend heute organisiert haben. Vielen Dank, für so viel Arbeit in dieser Heat hier schon. Bitte einen Applaus. Und damit übergeben. Und mit dem Wort, ich würde jetzt den Flur zu unserem Moderator Tobi Müller geben. Vielen Dank, für das Institut für Internet und Society für giving me the opportunity to be your host tonight. Diejenigen, die Deutsch nicht verstehen, können sich gerne Kopfhörer holen, um die Verdarmung zu hören. This is our third such lecture that is taking place with more than 30 degrees outside. We were here in June in July and now it is still more than 30 degrees. And some men are still attending here in suits and closed leather shoes. And that is one problem that I also hope that digitalisation will solve in the future. I already discussed this with Miss Dijk who complained about the high heels. But maybe we can see a change in this in the future. I would now like to talk about our guest briefly and afterwards we will hear his lecture and then we can have some questions after a brief discussion that I will have with him. We also use a hashtag digital societies that you can see up front which allows you to ask questions through Twitter and this also holds true for everyone attending online because we are being streamed. And you will then be able to see the recording of this session later on online as well. During this lecture series we sometimes hear negative tones when our guests talk about machine learning about artificial intelligence or predictive algorithms about platforms and our continuous everlasting relationship with them and we hear a bit more of a positive tone when we talk about leeways from a European perspective at least at times in July I quoted her already gave this a rather positive attitude this negative and this opaque as something algorithms need to learn how to calculate with uncertainties in order to not produce such closed and excluding profiles and world views. We often talk about instability more than about stability. We discuss the phenomenon of liquidization and we talk more about what is new and not what is old. It's a bit different with Dirk Becker but he is a system theorist just like our guest today he is a so called happy skepticist, if I may say so. Our guest today has a bit of a different methodological approach than many of the speakers in our lecture series you already see this in his title of his speech what problem does digitalization solve he will explain the shift in a few minutes so I do not need to pre-empt this however I would like to say that it's a project that sees a modernity as the basis of digitalization one could say modernity calls and says we have a problem in digitalization then picks up the phone and says I'm on it today his already widely adopted book is being published the title translates to patterns theory of the digital society it's another book in his series of his previous work but since this is not a book launch we are all the more proud that he came from Munich to Berlin he has a book a presentation here and a language that is not necessarily a matter of course and that differentiates his work from many others he also uses the word I at times which is also another differentiation some people might sweat when hearing this even the editorial department of the speaker for instance might hearing this angle sex an a word but he is such a rarity that we could call him a public intellectual he has different kinds of registers also in his new book this patterns one this is why in 2012 he received the outstanding achievements award for sociology from the German sociological association and this was the case although there are always two terms coming up when talking about him which he sometimes even laughs about himself namely complexity and perspective difference so it's not only about simplifying with him he studied in Münster in Tagen he studied educational science philosophy in sociology and fast forward now to 1998 University in Munich quite significant for him was the system theory of Niklas Luhmann I was very glad about his introduction into Luhmann's thinking from the university handbooks in 1993 which made my approach to this theory much easier than if I had used another one in addition to the classical sociological focuses such as published in 2011 in his book Societies of the Present our guest also deals with empirical ethic research religious sociology and also other topics such as assisted dying since 2012 he is the editor of the cultural journal Kursbuch together with Peter Felixberger founded in 1965 by Hans Magnus Hansensberger he talks about problems and examples and we'll do so now as well a warm welcome die Alternativen wurden schon gemacht the alternatives were changed so was was was was was was was was was was was was was well the alternatives were already mentioned just now either this or that I would okay both I'm happy to be here tonight and to be able to talk to you about digitalization I focused on a theory on digitalization and digitality and that focuses not so much more than I know about which is the following question what does digitalization have to do with society in an empirical sense and how these two things change society this is a discourse that happens in social sciences in the general public etc our society is preparing for something that it constantly this would be disruptive in its form and society is also trying to adapt to these phenomena and it tries to tackle these disruptions that interests me as well but what interests me more is this what do we talk about when we talk about digitalization and the digital character of things I need to mention these two terms digitalization means a process towards more digital life and I'm focused more on this digitality if you will but I don't want to split hairs here now so the term that usually is used here is disturbance disturbances in the labor market disturbances with regard to the fact that there is hardly any communication that would leave a trace that was intended in the communication itself information overload our concerns that we could get to an end of theory if you will corruption of all things scientific because we can all now handle large amounts of data about the question that the original can no longer be distinguished from the copy or the imitation and maybe the fact that there is no real distinction even anymore the concentration of data and capital is also happening in a parallel way and that has an influence on economic potency this also leads to the question what does property mean non-human decision making tools are also an important aspect but these are all secondary what I care about is that question what problem does digitalization solve and so you can see from the title that I'm not really in chapter 1 this is chapter minus 1 you want to put it that way so you may wonder what kind of a weird question is that the question is not what problems does digitalization cause the question is not how can you tackle digitalization and it's also not can we control digitalization or does digitalization control us all these questions are highly interesting but my question is different what problem does digitalization solve so you may wonder now how can you even come up with such a weird question you come up with such a weird question if you're a sociologist who does not just have an interest in theories or systems theories all these terrible things but if you also conduct empirical social research and if you do that in a way that social scientists can encounter phenomena that they can observe I don't want to talk about how we observe them you can spend several evenings on that but we see that something is going on and we observe that in a methodologically controlled manner and then we I need to understand them and I try to understand that in a functionalistic way and here's what I understand if something is persistent i.e. if something happens in a repetitive manner and gets a structural value and it happens in a longer period of time it seems to have proven itself something that proves itself is not necessarily a good thing also terrible things can persist and prove themselves or stand the test i.e. if an actor in society picks up on something and lets something persist then it seems to be the case that whatever happened whatever event you were able to observe seems to be solving a problem I would like to cite a very simple example now I am standing in front of you now in a bright light you can see it on my very wonderful haircut the light is reflecting from here you are sitting in the dark I can hardly see you but you can see me I have a microphone you don't have a microphone yet I have 45 minutes now to talk to you to address you and people trust me that I fill these 45 minutes with somewhat content-rich sentences I already spent 5 of my minutes and this is a very interesting setup you could also imagine that the handover and the sharing of such information of a good Bavarian ordinary and the Prussian Berlin could happen in a completely different manner but however it somehow proved to be reasonable to have the listeners in a position that they all look in the same direction in this case and that this is almost a sermon-like situation and that this creates a format in which I can unfold a thought in a linear manner from A to Z from beginning to end it sounds silly maybe but as a researcher I wonder why is that our format why is it not different I could be in the center you could maybe make a comment whatever you may imagine we could also agree that you very loudly discuss whatever I say I don't want to go into greater detail but we could ask the question what problem does this setup solve and you could come to the conclusion that this setup for a presentation has a functional point or a sense and the point would be to be able to elaborate on a longer or a more complicated idea and you all got used to this format and I can see or as far as I can see I should say you sit very nicely in your chairs and you know how to behave tonight and so do I and what I do every day is giving presentations and speeches and I am sure that I will be able to fill those 45 minutes and that's not even funny it's just the way you approach such a topic and now we haven't even discussed digitalization yet but I use that same approach in my work weirdly enough it is the case that digital technologies have found their way into any part of our lives it mostly people seem to be taking it for granted and criticism also takes it for granted that digital technologies try to spread and so that's why I wonder what problem does that solve it's a methodologically controlled question and I'm very serious about my methodologically controlled question that was my first preliminary remark the next chapter is chapter 0 it's not yet what I want to focus on exclusively I'm talking about the technological sociological intuition I claim that technologies can only establish themselves or specific kinds of technologies can only establish themselves if there is an issue a problem in society if that technology solves a problem that is conceivable within society you don't need to know the problem beforehand in order to consider it a solution later I have some examples for you irrigation systems for example think of the Mediterranean Sea and think of the early irrigation systems and you will remember that they used a lot of energy, organizational and economic energy for them to be used and that alludes to the fact that the society had an organizational problem with the fact that of trying to feed a growing population by having enough fields to grow crops where irrigation couldn't be trusted in a punctual sense anymore but instead irrigation needed to be centralized or just think of the letterpress printing what problem did that solve if you ask people who invented or maybe let's say promoted letter printing their idea was to distribute the holy scriptures after a very short period of time people understood that they did not only distribute the holy scriptures but also the criticism of it and the criticism of the criticism of the criticism etc etc and thus there were other things that people learned people thought about writing other books other than the holy scriptures and more criticism arose and suddenly literature or pornography came about or more fact based forms of argumentation came about and that was only possible in a society where quite clearly the problem waits for a solution and where people understand that they can say different sentences or things about the same topic the letter printing would have not spread if in society that core of that problem would not have been conceivable before that people would have never thought about spreading the holy scriptures because everything you need to know is in there already why would everybody need to read it you only need to read it to find out that you can interpret it yourself and that is very risky because at the same time you understand that you can read it and interpret it in different manners and I will talk about that later similar stories are conceivable in this situation the steam engine requires a society where the use of power is a problem because otherwise you wouldn't need a steam engine you can use it in a stationary manner or as a locomotive lets say without the steam engine and the locomotive the discovery of the United States and the movement of the frontier would not have been possible in cars or radio and television and the development of these things and you could talk a lot about the problems i.e. the problems that these technologies solved and all these technologies persisted but these types of technology also always didn't have an identical functional sense with the intentions of those who invented these technologies so now what about digitalization i.e. lets start with the result i.e. digitalization is a reaction to the invisibility of its very content and also to society digital technologies do not only have something to do with digital data but with all kinds of other data as well an example a ball bearing is a very analog piece of technology in a ball bearing you can build in sensors and we do that today a lot and these sensors can collect information as to when the ball bearing is going to break and before it breaks you can replace it and you can save a lot of money so that you're not being interrupted and that's an example that has nothing to do or is not representative of the digital society but it boils the digital society down to what it is you need an experience that you learn through pattern it's something that you don't necessarily see so if you look at a ball bearing you will not be able to see whether it's going to break soon or not but and with digital implementation this is possible and the same thing rings true for society I claim that the problem that digitalization is a solution for already existed in a digital society where people didn't even have a computer I trace this back to the establishment of modern western early 19th century with the coming about of nation states of capitalism that was decentralized into companies with two modern organization modern infrastructure planning etc. all these things have always existed in the history of humanity people were able to go back to an analog experience so the question how much grain need to be cultivated in the proximity of a city in order to make sure that there was enough bread rolls for the people in the city is a very simple question but it is a new question for society where suddenly larger rules were inhabited and these experiences needed to be calculated or counted i.e. being digitalized and educators does a society need that wants to promote education this is another question the question how much medical supply needs to be guaranteed with a specific size of a city or how broad does a canal need to be for sewage to go through how much material do you need equipment do you need to provide for an army so all these questions have to be answered with statistic means so people had to look at the average person and by looking at that they were able to find answers there was a completely new form of self-observing in society so society observed itself people observed the bourgeois society the bourgeois society was so happy to have an individual as a subject that was strong to take its own decisions but we saw that these people adhered to patterns and made decisions that were similar and these patterns could be described in a quantitative manner what is the behavior of people from different classes like that was an important question for research at the time you may be familiar with romantic love and literature romantic love and literature has lovers usually in the story and these lovers trace back the entire world they live into their subjectivity and the authentic decisions that they take are important for the significant other and then statistics experts come about and they find out that we fall in love according to very predictable patterns usually we fall in love with people of the same confession religion same educational background but different sexes usually and all these things do have an influence up until the present day this of course is a humiliation first and foremost it's a humiliation that shows us that society itself like a ball bearing consists of patterns and these patterns can only be made visible through data and that's why I believe that the modern society since the time that I mentioned has been a digital society since then the self observing society just changed and if I want to answer the question what problem does digitalization solve then I think one of the problems is this it's the problem of the self of the society or in order to use the term you used it's about the complexity so the multifactorial form of society that society described in its processes earlier societies were very simple even though they had very complex cultural forms they were more simple when it comes to their practices their world views they were organized in clear hierarchies several simultaneous aspects that are interdependent that are no longer visible anymore and now I would like to move on further we could describe that in more detail I did that in a written form but not now but you could imagine that the digital technologies that are coming about would need to be invented if it wasn't already invented because these technologies are evil to do exactly what would solve what can be called one of the biggest issues with self observation self observation of society so what do computers do that were invented later according to my understanding more than 100 years later when society was already digital so the computers recombine elements and these elements consist of things that the computer can see i.e. data and so the computer tries to find and detect structures within those data sets these structures don't need to be there objectively but they need to be made visible a data set consists of different kinds of data and the data does not seem similar all the same they don't seem interlinked but they do have a structure and that is exactly what the computer can do with high potency all right so first for the first time we now get to a chapter with an actual number chapter one so I'm interested in the technical substrate which is the question what is digital technology for a sociologist who is not an IT Le who is not a mathematician there is an interesting differentiation that might be interested that might be obvious for sociologists like me namely the difference between medium and form but it's not only this differentiation but it's also the difference between a simple medium that allows for complex forms one could actually say that there's probably never been a technology as simple as digital technology and that sounds silly if I say that because we are dealing with forms that can reach a complexity unknown before and a potential unknown before and that has growth rates that nobody could have predicted so why can we still say that the technology itself is incredibly simple it is simple because the substrate means the information is coded binary this simple form which is the basis for all digital technologies allows for complex forms so it is very interesting to see that the same medium form can be used to organize the energy systems of an entire country can be organized to program a space technology can also be organized to allow for self observation of society for instance with regard to climate change mitigation that is a very current topic but at the same time the same substrate can provide us with electric toys electric toothbrushes and whatever else all of these things so the substrate is the same the form can be endlessly complex this might sound simple but it is not because it is the basis that allows this technology there was one case before that in history which is writing writing is not as simple because we have 26 letters that can be capitalized so that would then be 52 and they can be combined in endless variations that means that there is not always the same sentence following one first sentence everything would be written down with this writing and we therefore live in a world of writing you might know the discourses that are currently taking place in the area of writing where scientists are dealing with the question if this writing then becomes the world that it is and the same thing holds true for data technology because it is a reference in and for itself this is the case because data can only break out of this data in the form of data this can then have consequences in the analog world because you can detonate a bomb with data technology and the bomb does not consist of data but it consists of explosive so this is not data anymore but the data itself only refers to data the philosophist who explained it most radically is Martin Heidecker he formulated it in a quite critical way but he actually ended up saying that modernity replaces philosophy with cybernetics because data always refers to data so that's quite a good explanation and I am also referring to something that is highly discussed the question does data reflect the world the way it is you know the discussions about algorithms that calculate the likelihood of crimes being committed by certain people so you can induce data and then deduce if somebody is likely to commit a crime this is quite critical and criticized because these algorithms are based on gender inequality social inequality in the USA also with racial inequality are also reflected in the algorithms because they are the basis for their calculations this shows us that the data is taken from our world but it only reflects and what it reflects is a tautology they are not seeing the world objectively instead they are what they stand for and this is why I speak of the inexactness of data we know we have heard saying that scientists do not know how they develop their models you know that in science scientists say that the models are what is being depicted but there are a lot of inaccuracies and we know this from social science as well we interview people and then calculate to a very detailed point certain results and then realize that the data itself is contingent as we say it is inaccurate so the self reference of this data world somehow allows the duplication of the world and I am using this theorem of the duplication of the world in order to describe in an ironical way that we see another duplication in data that is something that we know from language and writing so there is this major problem between significance in Sini Fye from the world of language of what is being described and what is describing depicted again in data so data depicts structural differences intentions but they stand for something they can only stand for because they do not represent and cannot represent what they stand for themselves I would like to give you a simple example we know that the word tree is not a tree but when discussing and negotiating about trees we use the word tree and for trees it is quite easy because this is self describing but at times it is difficult to understand what something stands for for instance freedom or simplicity or diversity all of these words that I am also using here on my slide so this form of duplication of the world then leads to digitalisation representing the world that has a certain life of itself this means that just like society was once duplicated by language and writing it is now duplicated by data interestingly enough we have to say that data itself does not contain information but the information is held by those who observe this data an example is that one data set can be used for answering questions of criminology or medical research or identifying target groups for your next elections if you don't want to spend too much money on this campaign and make sure that you only spend it on those who are still insecure about what they will vote that was for example one of the strategies that the first Obama campaign used in the United States another aspect of the technological substrate is the so called increase of options the modern society does not know stop science so to say as a system theorist I think that we have a differentiated society where religious scientific et cetera logics are not differentiated because they have nothing to do with one another but they reproduce themselves and we then see increases in options this is the famous problem of capitalism we cannot stop capitalism with economic means impossible we can try to do so with political means this is the major conflict but with economic means it does not work there is no stop sign in the economic field and the economies of the 20th century are a good scientist for this in nuclear technology and also increases in options so with regard to religion was highly discussed in the past and this interestingly enough also holds true for the duplication of the world writing and language cannot be stopped with writing and language so we cannot we are not to use certain words and in order to strengthen them we have to use them for instance when we say don't say the word X then we have to use this word X and even by only dominating it indirectly we did denominate it so the data world does not know any stop sign in itself and this is kind of the mysterious about data that in its simplicity it can be used for everything and that's why forms of interconnectedness of connectivity is what the digital society is marked by today so we are all connected data is being used for something that it was not gathered for data from different areas of society become connective for other areas and we might then talk about examples during the discussion and of course I would also like to say something about the digitality of society I say that this is the reference problem of digitalization one might now say well what else might be the result of a sociologist my answer to this is well exactly this is the result because we are talking about the digitality of society we are talking about the analog visibility traditional societies always relied on their analog patterns that always held true however today we see that every solution produces a new problem every solution does we are always seeing new problems and I've said so already so what I think is interesting and I hope you do too is a third discovery of society when do we discover society and this now goes back to history we always discover society when we see a mixture of being able to shape something and this peculiar experience that society somehow seems to be stronger than the will of the individual I think that the first discovery took place at the beginning of the 19th century after the French Revolution interestingly enough in France it was promoted by the right wing right as from the master for example the second discovery might have taken place in the 60s and 70s so not only the movement of 68 but also the planning of social life to allow for social promotion to discuss the social background of problems the general equality of people and to see all of these problems based on society itself and the third discovery is today's digital technology you might now say that when I say I have said it started much earlier that's not true now about the third discovery but it still holds true because this third discovery does not necessarily discover something new but something that we have known for a while that makes us do what we do and want what we want that's the old formula of the civil society so the third discovery of society means that digital technology lives of a certain feature of society namely inertia so we can deduce a lot from little information with little information we can recombine certain elements and thus create a lot of deductions and information and we can deduce certain knowledge from data about future behavior of humans in marketing for example we can deduce purchase decisions that those who will purchase don't even know about yet this could be very positive but it could also be critical and what is interesting is that this third discovery of society leads to new control mechanisms we have heard criticism of the old book world and a surplus of control of this new digital world so this pattern of society is the material for digitalization and the technicity is the key for its success and therefore I also need to talk about technology we differentiate technology from humanity and you know this discourse that it's technology and not human makes sense because there are human technologies for example if you dance you need certain techniques and if you draw you need certain techniques and when doing so you don't even need to think about it in sport the same holds true when playing football you don't need to think about how to shoot a ball you have a certain technique ready Technices themselves have a certain culture and we ask ourselves is technology the opposite of culture when looking at technology in everyday life we see and this is a theory by man that technology does not need Consens if it works and this becomes clear where we have technological social structures let's not think about machines but about technological communication so if for example you need to talk to somebody at a desk because you want to buy a ticket a train ticket to Stuttgart it's quite probable that the person behind this desk does not ask you do you think that's necessary or ask you how do you think this one football club will play against the other these are not questions that you will be asked but you will be asked wouldn't you rather like to buy this kind of ticket or wouldn't you like to take this train telling you maybe even how much it costs so in everyday life we have a lot of communication that is very standardized and we do not need to tell the person in this case behind the desk that they should not talk about but sell you a ticket because everyone knows what is expected so this is already something that is set in stone therefore I am using this example to show you that this kind of technology does not need a consense but it works because it works that means that we can use technologies that we ourselves don't necessarily understand it's almost always kind of a black box for example everyone can drive a car without knowing how a car works hardly anyone knows what happens when you accelerate therefore the car definitely starts driving but we don't need to know what this actually means so the interesting part here is that technology is a simplification because it interlinks all elements it's not a loose coupling anymore that would for instance be asking somebody would you like or to the movies tonight and then this person might say well neither but technology can't do that if it works it does what it is supposed to do if it doesn't it's broken so this simplification through technology allows for the establishment of a high degree of complexity and the same holds true for this simple medium this simplified medium of technology that produces complex forms we could then say that this term function is too positive because functioning does not necessarily mean that it functions well but it means that it works in society so we all complain about certain technologies while still using them especially the digital technologies are very complicated with regard to their form however the application becomes more and more easy I am old enough to remember MS Boss where you had to enter certain had to enter certain commands in order to receive a result but this technology only became suitable for the masses once you only had to click on certain symbols so if it works, it works and if it doesn't, if it works it will probably prevail I distinguish between acting and experiencing technology everything I have described just now is experiencing technology it's a technology that uses data and media to do something with it but the more difficult and exciting questions arise with a technology that starts making its own decisions so for example a technology that produces its own data sets self-driving cars cannot go back to using data sets but instead these vehicles need to produce their own data sets with sensors cameras etc. these vehicles have to decide which piece of information from the outside becomes a piece of information on the inside and then that leads me to the question is there still a technology that still works and functions in this way if I had more time I would tell you more about the mathematical background of that problem the problem of the paradox of the beginning but I don't have enough time for that tonight and this is why I want to be brief and summarize I would like to tell you that the abductive machines as I call them cannot go back to a large data set but instead they do what we do as well they struggle and have to begin with the paradox elements of the beginning we do learn a lot about humans themselves the paradox of the beginning is the beginning of many mistakes you may be familiar with the phrase this is only human so that means this mistake can be forgiven so let's say we have an accident und the human element of an accident is that due to our own weakness in perception we were not able to prevent the accident a technology wouldn't be granted this excuse this is why we discuss exciting questions in ethics for example should as a driving car a run over an older person or a child and now my last slide at the moment we experience an overheating and it's not weather related overheating that we see no many things in society are overheating I talked about the surplus in criticism and control for example at this point we do not know for sure who is the controller and who is the controlling in the cybernetics discussion i would now like to leave it where it is now we see a high degree of overheating a heated debate in the concentration of capital interestingly enough this year i learned that google plus had to stop operating apparently because of a data leakage but no bigger company has ever been forced into stopping operating due to data leakage no the competition with facebook didn't work anymore because the concentration of data in two places put into question the business model and so the form of concentration of these technologies needs to be resourced with technological information let's just think of the forms of concentration of the cold processing industry and all the related things that come with that several technologies led to the fact that capital concentrated in specific areas the capital concentration today is something that has had an influence of economic prosperity that could be traced back to fossil elements that were used so purely digital economies have to be thought especially when it comes to forms of property of the source of value creation and all these things that we've learned from the 19th century from capitalism the impact and influence of productive forces so we also see an overheating in a discussion a discussion of the control of these developments and that also means true for dynamics of information paths because today we almost have gatekeepers in public communications that we set up these gatekeepers and also there is a new observer role when it comes to processing accessible data I call that observing people while observing this is what we do on social media but others how they observe other things and that is then in turn observed again and that unfolds a dynamic that works very differently from the public communication and the functioning thereof the way sociology just usually describes towards the end I would like to give you a piece of advice as to what you can do with a theory like that the protection regulation of the EU is a good example here this regulation serves the purpose to provide legal background to how information is being processed in my generation we protest at the census at the time which is maybe funny today because if you walk down the train station you leave many more traces than people have in the past with the census but this topic seems to be relevant and it seems unlikely that people would think this self-determination of information as a concept because the observer of the data is more important and so the data that is being generated through what you do is nothing that you can determine you may determine how much of your data is being forwarded but informationally for categorical reasons you cannot be self-determined here you may think I'm splitting hairs here intellectually but I think there's more to it I think describing these chains in information processing that are being enabled through a technology that leads the terminology at absurdum that we use if you bought an app once on your phone you maybe checked a box agreeing to something or you signed a piece of paper when you handed over data sets this is technological information and if you don't check a box if you don't sign the piece of paper you don't get the app you don't get more data but you're so used to just checking the boxes that this is a technosized form of communication and this is being ritualized and it's becoming persistent you may have a critical attitude towards that but you can also be more descriptive about it and just determine that these categories are being mixed up I was not very passionate in my presentation I admit that but I would end with a more passionate quote the end is open is it gaining of more freedoms or is it the end of civilization well we will see thank you very much for your attention herzlichen dank thank you very much Mr. Nassi for this very lucid presentation I have to begin with a very relevant issue that you just briefly addressed in your presentation before I excuse you about the continuous modernity so you said everything is already set up and if I'm not mistaken you were born in Gelsenkirchen and you've been in Munich for 20 years now and you have this very strong feeling about the soccer rivalry between Schalke so are you a Schalke-Fan or Munich-Fan, my son is a Bavarian Munich-Fan which I think makes a test necessary to find out whether he's actually my son or not does that lead to stability or instability in the family well we do get along we can handle it so when I read that was remarkable because the most counter-intuitive things as you use it in your book is digitality digitality needs stable functional systems in modernity and it unveils them it's something that we wouldn't expect I said it in my introduction very briefly in other fields or in other ways digitalization or digitality has not come about with modernity digitalization has come about with modernity so there are functional systems that are similar to digitality and networks that do something else do networks solve functional do they step in for functional systems or is there something new coming about I would like to correct you very briefly I've never claimed that functional systems are stable that would be a very peculiar diagnosis but what I do claim is that the basic coding of the functional systems are super stable an example there are countless opportunities to act and work economically so the diversity of forms is huge look at capitalism history in the history of capitalism there were countless ways in which you could do things and these countless ways the diversity is the result of a very simple thing the basic coding of economic things is that you need to make a profit you can act out of the best motives economically and also for the worst reasons but you can only act economically and also remain solvent the same thing rings true for politics the political system is anything but stable but the basic coding of that system is super stable whether you have the power or not whether you can get it or not whether power is in danger or not and whether you achieve power this is something that you cannot betray and even scientific statements are not true or false they are treated as correct otherwise there wouldn't be scientific statements and that is interesting i would like to set up an analogy to the digital world well the analogy is this it is not a coincidence that in a modern society these systems are ultra stable and being described as such through binary systems they then enable countless forms and that is why our society cannot be grasped as a problem so that means we are familiar with the history and no history of modernity as an attempt to politically control all things economics so modernity is the attempt to scientifically enlighten the political world modernity tries to rule and create the best opportunities through competition but none of that is indefinitely successful modernity and that's now my answer to your question so on the basis of this stability of these stabilities we create more network structures more solutions in a local or global sense in a smaller way or a greater way and that to us seems to lack structure but if you take a closer look it is more structure than we think and the same applies to cultural constraints so today you would say we are evolving and now you have to look back into history what historians say here in Europe we are stuck so deep in long term cultural coatings I would call but constraints is maybe a more fitting word so we are stuck in forms that are perpetuating themselves against the intuition of those who are actually doing something and this is why I called my book patterns that are fairly stable and as they are so stable our society is so volatile functional systems are not stable this would be a wrong summary the political system of our international community is anything but stable but the mechanism of power of power mechanisms is fairly stable I do have a sound issue so do people hear me or am I on the monitors online so we do need to make sure that our technicians actually get a sound on their devices over there okay seems to be working now so just for me to make it more clear wouldn't you say that once networks are more important and you refer to this as the brutally simple basic coding of systems that once this is being put out because the networks allow for more than wrong, false, non-efficient there is more solutions in a simultaneous manner so Becker would maybe say that a basic concept of the modernity is now being replaced with something else or are these things interconnected well I disagree with Becker here but if you take it closer look he's also more cautious he says functional differentiation is over now but he's more cautious there Harrison White a US networks theorist would say this he himself described this in economic terms so how do you perceive economic actors the economic system they do that with a network structure they look at that's where they piggyback basically and modernity is a network structure we look at our old social democratic model and we try to enable modern capitalism in order to provide for large parts of society that doesn't happen through the isolation of functional and systemic coding but through political programs that have a network structure and that can communicate and want to communicate beyond borders I am a scientist and I would like to be heard by other people who work in their functional system sometimes that works but what's interesting is this the others don't have to solve scientific problems but religious, economic or political problems you name it and that is an interesting network structure today we live in a world where digitalization through data sets that we have through recombination capabilities of potential information density leads to the fact that there are so many possible network links so many connectivitys that go back at the end of the day to the brutal simplicity and I wouldn't negotiate that I think this is the most radical diagnosis of modernity I use the term of term brutality not for fun it is in a way brutal not only because it is a fact in Brutum but this is the solid basis of what we are trying to do anybody who has ever tried to do something economically or politically will be catapulted back to this basic coding corruption is a great network if I want to bribe somebody to do something for me politically and to make a specific political decision I can do that with money of course but I cannot buy that with money but the person who was bribed has to then use that logic this person can't go to the parliament and say 100.000 euros now and I will share the money with you if we take this in that decision but the person can't do that as a scientist you can say oh this footnote is being presented to you by Mercedes Benz and this or that you can be bribed by Mercedes Benz but unfortunately they haven't called me yet in Switzerland it's different corruption is tax deductible well this is a very economic transaction these are operational costs if you will and if that works there's operational costs then that works in your political system but in a political system you still can communicate that not even in Switzerland I believe outside of Switzerland for now well I'll ask them tomorrow to go to Switzerland I would like to talk more about stability and instability because I find that so interesting and surprising I would like to cite another example or several maybe that some people would consider an expression of instability and others may not what would you think let's talk about the increase in justice and gender equality many people consider this to be a factor of instability because the number of those who are part of a public conversation is now increasing and new rules of the game need to be set up which is exhausting that some people perceived to be a factor of instability the educational offensive quote unquote is another aspect in the new two debate and the development in German museums and for example if we see a group of males sitting together something that catches more attention than years ago does that have to do in some way shape or form with the instability of functional mechanisms or with the instability of historical developments well both, that is so exciting all the debates that you just mentioned are following a certain sense of tradition during the traditions here no, but what's interesting is this we're still finding ourselves in the dialectics of movement and stance structure and process and we're aware of that there are normative forms that also still work in their negative form people sometimes claim that there's inequality between people and you can claim that because that happens against the backdrop of the equality inequality debate in the past it was clear a peasant wasn't as worthy of a human as a bourgeois so the documentation itself alludes to stability it's not about stability though it's about the stability of patterns for me and that is the business foundation of sociology what do empirical social researchers do we look at certain forms and even if you want to overcome those forms these forms seem to be more stable than we think these patterns if you will I research medical sociology a lot palliative medicine multi-professional teams and hospitals etc we're dealing with people who make decisions but at the same time we deal with patterns that these people move in digitalisation digitalisation makes use of the predictability of specific structures to then deduct certain results and empirical social research has always been humiliating to people in the sense that people were not able to imagine that our behaviour is as boring as it actually is in many presentations I started out by saying that not because I like myself so much because it was very boring I talked about my taste in music about my aesthetics the way I live about something that I consider morally correct I talked about my way of talking, of dressing you name it so all these things are necessarily predetermined but you could also say that there is nobody who is more boring than I am and I'm not trying to be flatter you don't know me well enough but I read your book and you're writing in your book about your car we can talk about that later I'm driving a Mercedes E-Class which is und it's und it's undermoderized but I would like to talk about music and I would like to talk about the humiliation that you mentioned in your book the humulation caused by predictability that we have to suffer through especially when it comes to the digital patterns that you describe and so you're talking about music you're talking about Bach you're talking about how similar music is suggested to you due to the comparative algorithms and Spotify or other streaming services and there are good experience of course but all these go back to patterns and sometimes you were quite unhappy with the fact that you were so predictable in your music taste is that maybe Bach because Bach is a very medical composer and because I have different experience with my music style well to say so quite clearly my description here is a description of the forms and namely that with computer technology we tried to explain the musical principle of Bach and the machine was then asked to do Bach music and it actually sounds like with other kinds of music his music naturally is very mathematical but it was also tried with different kinds of music so that's quite a simple form what's more interesting about this question is that even the aesthetical forms that we know and this is the actual humiliation are relatively predictable and with predictable I do not mean that they have no ethical worth but the sociologist takes a look it's surprising to see that patterns outweigh the irregularities so there is a certain consistency there is a little the little accident I would like to give you an example from empirical sociology we are currently talking about gender studies and from my first glance we could say that this underlines a large disruption because we now see that women are humans and that's not a joke but it was quite a late invention in human history to see that women are actual humans and actual subjects for example thinking about the voting rights for women in Switzerland giving something back to Switzerland took place in 1971 well 71 that's something now what I want to say with this is that it's interesting that we want to describe that everything could be different but then gender studies and gender research interestingly see the persistence of patterns and behaviors that are more traditional than the intentions of those who are behaving this way so that's an interesting question for me this is the most interesting aspect of gender studies because there are these large normative intentions to say things do not necessarily need to be this way but when looking at the practice we see that men who talk differently or they talk they talk different from how they behave so this is the impetus of the sociologist we do not want to say that nothing is changing a lot is changing our behavior is a digital one meaning that we can only understand its structure through observation and be interested in these patterns and this is what technological digitalization does and this also holds true for other current topics and could be done there our behavior is more racist than the way we talk even that and one of us why is this the case because these are obviously structures that are hard to get rid of Pierre Bourdieu is our reference author for this he described it best I think he describes it also for those who describe it and I like best his idea of the intellectual sitting at his desk all day and writing on a piece of paper he can construct his own world and thinks that he is creating something and is then surprised that others have different references and thereby realize that he is actually doing the same thing as everyone else namely acting in his case and with his social background so my simple thesis actually is the object of digitalization is this kind of patternness of society in the book I think is the question of what do we do with this this then has consequences for certain behavior so the behavior in itself is now expecting that we change the be that we can change the behavior of humans by calculating it by calculating ourselves by observing ourselves because we have machines that tell us how far we have walked today by observing that how much connectivity there was and this then has influence on the behavior in itself as I said this is a solution and this solution then leads to a problem and there will be new solutions for these problems so this is the rather simple idea what I think I read that you already do so at the end of your book you describe some scenarios saying how to present some solutions for this you talk about the climate for instance however what I am interested in before coming back to the major topics and before allowing for some questions within this patternness within this digital paradigm that you are describing where are their emotions or surprises because I have a different experience with Spotify because I don't hear classical music on Spotify I listen to pop music and Spotify is very bad at a suggesting similar music because it just doesn't understand the voice of a singer or a single sound that makes a song so it's only based on what other people listen to and it's not about pop rhythms apparently don't know yet we had other services like Last of M that did not succeed in this either so I am missing the surprise the uniqueness there's something that is not a pattern that leads to a certain joy in listening to this music and where does this take place I could talk a lot about pop music but I won't and last year I published a book but I would like to get back to your idea of surprising and exciting ideas I would like to point out a parrot doxy so what is a shift we have talked about shifting deviating behavior in crimes for example we saw that when young people commit crimes they do not have a deviating behavior but they stick to the code of their peer group and thus commit crimes this means that this idea of deviation takes place within this paradigm this is exactly what happens when we detect patterns we look at certain patterns and ask for possible deviations how is it possible to make people buy something that they would never have bought how do we make people vote something they never thought they would how do we make people do something they never thought they would in the medical area this plays an ever large role how to change this behavior disposition so knowledge is the worst predictive factor i am too small for my weight and i know how to change this but i don't succeed so it's not the knowledge about it but it's the way of finding forms for well how to include deviations in everyday life that then allows for this result and these patterns are gained from these data sets medical science is currently filled with this exactly this is done and the same holds true for election campaigns so deviation is great if it happens in a way that the pattern is still visible so deviation actually requires stability just like deviation does in criminal science so it would be much better if we said well this horrible society but let's just live the way we want to live this is what makes us do a lot of things and then we see that all these alternatives all these deviations are repeated within society in the 70s there were trials for alternative economies which worked for a while however when crises came up they were organized in an even more hierarchical way because these crises led to a situation in which the intention did not work anymore but things needed to be done so patterns were repeated it was usually the guys screaming loudest that led the way and not the smartest ones just like in real life you're writing very interesting things in your book also about surveillance in modern society you also talk about Privacy that was never as private as we would have liked it to be so before allowing for some questions I would like to ask you about the time factor current surveillance discussions seemed to focus on this more than in the past so this relation with those carry out the surveillance is a very continuous one there's hardly any way out there's no break compared to the 19th century where there was city planning or the police doing surveillance looking into your post or whatever these took place at certain points in time but today the surveillance is continuous it doesn't stop in this reality does this make a qualitative difference well yes it definitely does becker used the control surplus term here so this is the reality in the expectation we are afraid of being controlled and data allows for this a lot can be done with this data für China, z.B. viel mehr kann sein mit Daten, als wir es auch erwähnen können. Wir sind zufrieden mit einem Kontrollsurplus. Ich bin interessiert, dass die negativen Diagnosen oft die Idee des Erholens von etwas, das nie dort war. Du hast ein paar von diesen Insekten, aber du hast den wichtigsten Wissen vergessen. Dein eigenes Bewusstsein war der wichtigste Wissenfaktor. Ich habe es schon erwähnt. Wenn du ein modernes Leben in der Gesellschaft beschreibst, wenn du über andere Menschen kontrollierst oder dich kontrollierst, der freie Mensch ist der, der etwas will und etwas macht, also etwas aus deinem eigenen Willen. Wir haben gelernt über Foucault und seine Ideen und wir wissen das, aber heute haben wir realisiert, dass viel von dem, was wir als Unwählern gemacht haben, ist jetzt externalisiert, d.h. wir sind von denjenigen, die uns überwiesen und überwiesen sind. Es ist nicht necessarily die Polizei, die in deinem Fluss brechen. Es ist aber diese neue Technologie, die in deinem Privileg brechen, d.h. ihr seht, dass ihr durch eure Microfone oder die Kamera seht, das ist alles möglich, aber es geht auch um die Behavioural-Pattern, diese kleine Information, die viel Informationen gibt. Es gibt diese Kontrollmechanismen, es gibt Firmen, die mit den Menschen die finanzielle Begründung von bestimmten Menschen durch online Profilen, d.h. sie sind kreditwertig. Und diese Frage ist dafür eine sehr wichtige Frage. Wollen wir das? Wir sollten dafür immer das in den Mund halten. Danke. Wir haben jetzt zwei Microfone. Nein, wir haben eine Microfone. Ich kann dich nicht zu gut sehen, muss ich sagen, aber bitte raised your hand, if you would like to ask a question. Later on we will also take a look at questions on Twitter. Hallo, mein Name ist Romer Tosmanowski. I am a media scientist. I deal with digital media myself. Therefore is very interested in your interesting lecture. And I also already read your book. I liked your cool perspective of the system theorist with a view to these studies on digitalization. However, I have also heard you say that every solution leads to a new problem. And I find this understandable. When digital technology helps society in gaining knowledge and fulfilling its desire to observe itself, this can lead to problems. When there is a knowledge surplus, this can be unhealthy for society. Thinking of radical transparency, for instance, which would not be healthy for our coexistence. The reference point for this could be the sociologist Kurt Zimmer, who said that the secret is a very important gain of society. And this is now threatened. I am therefore interested in your opinion. Could you say something about this? And could you also give another idea on a reference text from Zimmer as well, who talked about the own logics of technology. Future generations cannot avoid this for themselves. So the question would therefore be, if we are using technology because we need it as a society, because it solves the problem, or if technology has its own agenda. So does technology not save our problems anymore, but only act as though it were doing so, but is making us its objects? Well, there are several interesting aspects here. So, regarding your questions, when it comes to the relations of solutions and problems, I actually mean it. I don't mean that there is a solution for each problem, but this is a methodological tool, which shows me that one solution can be the reference problem for something else. Letterpressprinting is such a great reference, because we know a lot about it, and we can look at it from a historical distance. It solved many problems, but it created new reference problems. So a lot that we talked about, the self-controlled subject of the Western modernity is the result of the problem that everyone can speak now. Everyone is allowed to say something, so it needs to be controlled in what way it does so. This is quite interesting. Social media, in the way we know it these days, have a promise that modernity always had, namely that everyone is allowed to participate in the discussion, and everyone does so now. Karl Schmidt wanted to prohibit it. Yes, he did, because it was a horizon, 1917. Well, yes, that was part of the horizon of a new philosophy of Karl Schmidt. And now we'll get back to that in a minute. That was part of his anti-Enlightenment. And coding in this way was quite ingenious, but he produced a new problem, because he took it seriously. And by seriously, I mean that he didn't take it as coding. Theologically speaking, he described this as a differentiation, as a Catholic thinker. You can only see it this way. But that is what you meant. Every solution leads to deviations. And these, then, need to be balanced again. That's the problem that I'm talking about. We are currently seeing that many solutions, for example, that everyone is allowed to participate in the discussion, leads to problems that we need to solve. Looking at simple solutions at newspapers, solving problems by moderating this discussion, which is a very modern aspect. It's kind of a teacher-like form. Do you think this actually is a solution? Let me repeat this. Solution means that we are prepared to deal with the consequences. It does not mean that it's a good solution or a bad solution. One solution, for instance, is that many newspapers have online services. And when it comes to topics such as refugees, they do not allow for comments to be made. So there is no discussion. And this is authoritarian, because actually everyone is supposed to be able to participate. So this is what I mean by saying it leads to new problems. In the economic sphere, added value is decoupled from objects these days. And this leads to problems that need to be solved. And these solutions need to be ways of dealing with it. You mentioned the own life of technology. That's also interesting. You said that we, as a society, were doing something here. I'm always critical when saying we, as a society, I'd rather use an evolutionary approach, saying that technology is developing its own dynamics. No technology does exactly what those who invented it planned it for. But it seems to have a certain life of its own. Digital technology is the example for this. Evolution means dealing with certain deviations. This then leads to a structure that, and we've discussed this today, Jeanette, could have ended differently. So the question is, what is the criteria for a different result? I mentioned Howard Reingold earlier, who had a more positive normative description in the 80s in the B-Area, I think. They said everyone has access to everything. Every data storage is open for everyone. This is democracy. And a sociologist might have said, well, if everyone is allowed to participate they can say everything. We will generate certain problems. We reach structures that can have weird consequences. And this is how this actually works. There was another question. I'm Rainer Reek from the Howard Institute for Networks Societies. I would like to say that I would have preferred to have a female person ask a question first, because female topics are difficult to address usually. But now on to my question. The term, or a phrase, digitalization is something that interests me a lot. I haven't used it the way you have. And it's because I can't grasp it so well. Because sometimes I think it is automation, computerization, maybe it's also just a play on words of those who lack society and those who prepare for revolution. I have a more technical background and I'm asking my question because technology asks us what purpose it should pursue. And it can have different. There are different answers to this questions. And technology could always be used in different ways. And so now we try to shape how we use technology. The question, what problems we can solve with digitalization implies many more other aspects for me. And maybe you can say a few more words about that. Thank you for your presentation. Well, a question is never an argument, but you make an argument in your question. This is a great question that I want to answer straight away, but I would like to be a bit cheeky. May I? It is very much expected that somebody gets up. It would be, would have been much better if we'd had the questions beforehand where I told you in my presentation that the format that condemned you to silence was a functional solution for a reference problem. This is how social orders work. Even criticism is to be expected. And it's nothing against your comment. You may be right. I've been very comfortable up here. But it's quite interesting to see that these patterns seem to be fairly stable. But now onto your question. These were two questions. So one question was this. What does digitalization actually mean? And secondly, my answer may be too general. So on your first question. I think I made quite clear how I see digitalization, how I define it, first of all. It's a very trivial distinction between analog visibility and a digital translation to make structures visible that you can't see with analog means. This is my basis, my foundation. And then, and you may know more about that than I do, I think I tried to fairly appropriately describe the technical substrate, technical aspects themselves to describe them in order to use that then as a metaphor in order to describe forms of society. For example, the dialectics between simplicity and complexity. That doesn't solve the problem. But I think this is what I was trying to do. And that leads me to the second part of your comment and question. You're right. In general, what I said, and possibly what you said, if I understood you right, this is already part of the next problem because you have a very general narrative where the term itself and its duplication generates something that needs to be researched empirically in more detail. So for technical reasons, I would agree with you here now, because in my book, I tried to make a distinction between experiencing and acting technology. And with that, I'm alluding to something that questions the digitalization discourse in a normative sense, because technologically something new is happening that you cannot describe or no longer describe with the terms that we use. And I think I tried to do that in my book, so that forced consensus and the trivial functioning where you don't really need to pay attention anymore no longer works with specific kinds of technology. And that's something that I alluded to. And that's the way we need to go. And that's how we need to think. And I think this is one of the neurologic points in my line of argument. Are there questions that we need to take into account or are there questions that popped up under our Twitter hashtag? Maybe short questions. I think there's another question in the second row. There are many questions from our Twitter community. The first question is this. What about the interactive, physical, communicative and necessary natures of complex functioning technologies? Is that the blind spot of systems theory? Oh, I thought that now we had the easy question. Can you please repeat that seriously? I saw that coming. What about the interactive, physical, communicative, necessary repairs of the complex reducing functioning technologies? Is this the blind spot of systems theory? Would you please answer that question? I hope I understood the question correctly that does contain a certain sense of irony. I noticed that for sure. But I don't try to be ironic now, but instead try to give an honest response. So what is meant is this, that there's also another form of communication that has been mediatized through different people. For example, what we do here, it's a very artificial situation, but the blind spot, I don't think it is the blind spot, it's something else in my block. I say the very important spot, that is very important to me, that most commentators have not even highlighted, which is my fault, of course. I describe that, especially the discussion, the discourse about digitalization and AI, which I didn't even address here because we would need much more time for that, that in that discussion you can learn about the physical intelligence and I take that very serious, this idea. What does that mean? Well, in the discourse and discussion of digitalization and the formalization of decision making tools or through the formalization, the mathematical formalization of judgments as through acting technology, we come to the following result. The whole thing has a paradox form, because it has to begin somewhere. I mentioned that the paradox form of this, we all know that, it consists in the fact that we never begin thinking because we have already begun to think. And that cannot be explained very well. The brain that we use, we use in a finite body and this body gets to its finite point at a specific point in time and it can therefore be described as something that is not a completely determined and formilogical system and cannot be represented as such. And if that thought is correct and I assume that it does, is correct, this is a hint to the fact that from the criticism of AI, that is not a criticism of AI itself, but in the peculiar expectations that people place in AI, from that criticism, you can learn something about the limited perspectives of human intelligence and this is why we still need that distinction, which also proves the fact that this is not the blind spot of my systems theory, but that is something that we need to think about further. I do admit that my brief explanation is not very transparent, but you have to trust me on that one now, otherwise I would like to refer you to literature. There are more Twitter questions, I assume that was only the first one. Okay, the next question from the Twitter community. Are there more things that happen through externalized data control that we use to conduct differently in the past? Yes, and I would go even further. I would say that not only control, but also things that we ourselves externalize are looking at what we internally in our psychology did as self-control that is now being conducted through outside control. I think of my own life. I am in a network with myself through digital technologies. That is interesting, I have devices that remind me of certain things that my conscious should remind me of. But for capacity reasons, because my life is the way it is, I forget things, I do need to externalize things and I have done that. And I said earlier that externalization forces us to do things just as our conscience used to do that. And that is a form of observation as well. And that determines us and also gives us a certain sense of selectiveness. The Chinese scoring system can also be used as an example here now, which also relies on a certain sense of how to build a conscience where this new system was implemented against very little resistance. This describes exactly what we were talking about. Let's just hope that we will be spared this development. Are there more questions? Yes, there is another one. What is a purely digital market in which the form of value creation does away with the old theories of the 20th century. Also ganz banale Beispiele. Yes, very trivial examples. Uber, for example, Uber is a very valuable company that owns nothing. It does not own a single vehicle. It doesn't even own the drivers. And you can't own drivers, but you can command them if you will. So the fact itself that there is a connection between specific people and locations is the basis of that value creation. And what happens with it in a material sense is taking place outside of that form of value creation. So this is one example. And we have to ask ourselves now, what does that mean to be the owner of means of production, that is capitalism criticism. But we can't say that anymore because anybody could have an idea like Uber if you need a little bit of capital to implement it. But there is no lack in capital. Capital is abundant at the moment. And it's rather the problem than the solution. It's not like Becker. Becker used to say that capital used to be scarce. Now there is a surplus in capital. Surplus is maybe not the right word. But maybe there is a little too much capital, you can say. And how can we explain value creation to people? And then there are practical problems arising. Who in this value chain can make a contribution to the value creation. Every controller would then say, well actually, things no longer work. They don't no longer fit because we don't even know where the value is created. This is a very simple example where you could say, yes, we need to adapt. There are many other edit patients that are necessary. For example, the value of labor is being redefined. Labor has the lowest meaning for value creation. Labor used to be a guarantor for continuity in the past. Is that still the case? Can we still have that in our form of the economy today? Maybe it's not the only form of value creation, but an important form of value creation. Insofern, es ist so schwierig zu beschreiben die Konsequenzen für den Labormarkt. Ich habe versucht, Literatur zu bekommen, und wenn du denkst, was möglich ist und die Prognose, dann, und in der Meinung, dass wir 120 % der Jobs, die wir haben, weil unsere Economy so gut arbeitet, dann ist das ein Hintern, dass solche Kriterien miss sind. Wir müssen auf die Prognose kommen. Wir müssen gleich wieder auf die Prognose kommen. Unsere Bar wird in ein paar Minuten öffnen. Aber eine Frage in der Klose. Ich frage dich aus einem sehr europäischen Punkt, mit dem es um die self-regulatingen Perspektive gibt. Es ist vielleicht schwierig, aber ich möchte dir ein paar europäische Gesamte geben. Ich möchte dich fragen, ob es ein Paradox ist, das wir in Europa und Deutschland gesehen haben, oder ob es die Dialektik ist. Ich möchte dir über die Prädiktabilität der EU-Pattern zu fragen. Es sind zwei Gesamte, die du pickst, was du möchtest. Der erste Gesamte ist der late, aber sehr intensiv, der Erkrankung von Populismus in Deutschland und der andere Gesamte ist das Digital-Native-Development. Alle schauen auf ihre Phones, die jemals in der Generation sind. Sie starten die größten sozialen Bewegungen seit den 1960er-Jahren, die für die Zukunfts-Movement sind. Diese waren Powerful Bewegungen, die nicht detectiv sind, die nicht prädiktiv sind. Der erste Gesamte ist eine Gesellschaft, die mit Prognosen und Prädikten gut ist, besonders nicht für einen großen Phänomen. Wenn ich einen picken würde, würde ich mich vielleicht auf beide kommentieren. Die interessante Frage ist das. Es ist nicht, dass die Deviation unimaginable ist, aber die Frage ist das. Was schauen wir uns an? Das ist ein Problem, wo man sagen kann, dass der politische System sehr dependant ist, um die einfachen Kosalität zu beschreiben. Man kann das in Populismus machen, sehr einfach. Viele Leute haben die Frage, aber ich würde sagen, dass das eine der Formen, um Populismus zu verstehen, ist, das zu sagen. Sie versuchen, so viel Ordnung zu bringen, wie man es so sieht. Das Interessante ist Populismus. Das ist sehr schwierig, um Populismus zu machen. Wir schauen uns an die elektronischen Fälle vor. Das hier ist ein Problem. Wir müssen dieémentartigsten Probleme lösen. Die elektronischen Fälle sind die Hauptmerksamkeit. Die Exynephobia ist nicht der Motiv, die sich in dieser Party zu empfangen, sondern das finns nur für die Elite. Die Leute denken, dass es Яleens für possessedante ist, weil dasőlige und kulturelle Institutionen wie Theater, Opera Houses, etc. Cornelia Koppetsch würde das sagen. Ja, sie würde etwas zu diesem Effekt sehen. Und es gibt eine Menge empirische Forschung, d.h. das Friedens für die Zukunft, ist insofern auch etwas, das man durch digitalen Technologien erklären kann, dieses Bewegung, mit diesen Channels zu tun. Aber das ist auch eine sehr selektive Form. Much of what Greta Thunberg is being allotted to is something that happened in the media and needed a representative in the media and had a certain sense of a representative function. And this may be a historical anomaly for this to take place, but if you take a closer look and compare, this form of protest is fairly different from the 1960s from 1968. I would say this has been unpredictable, seeing the new generation that addresses society and says, look around. You can't do what you're doing, solve that problem. This is a highly interesting deviation that maybe has to do with the fact that the forms of communication are based on smaller sets than in the 1960s, where the sentences had to be half as long as a sentence by Ardorno. So our evening was fairly long as well, but I found it very interesting. Thank you very much. Thank you Armin Nasse. Thank you for having joined us. The bar is open and I'll see you back in November. Thank you Armin Nasse.