Aceleração social, estabilização dinâmica e desincronização da sociedade com Hartmut Rosa

Thank you very much for the kind introduction and for the invitation to São Paulo. I very much like to be here, it is my first time in this city, I’ve been to Brazil a few times, I’ve always loved this country I found out yesterday that SP is very interesting and fascinating. Fascinating I also find this organization, SESC, which is a very unusual way of organizing communal life and also public debates, maybe politics.

I’m very happy to be here. And I’m sorry that I don’t speak Portuguese, I can’t do this, so I’ll try to be slow that hopefully you can follow me, and maybe also get the translation. I’ve been working on the topic of speed, with the idea that modernization is about speeding up life to a great extent, I mean, I think in cultural observations, in cultural perception, modernity has always connected to a sense of life speeding up, speeding even the world in a literal sense.

When I think in transport, more and more people are in movement simultaneously, when they started with the railways, and then with the cars and now with the airplanes, and it’s not just the people, it’s also goods and raw materials. And now it’s also data and information. So modernization really is about speeding up the world, and we’re not just something that happens to us, people really.

. . we connect our sense of happiness, of freedom to move and to speed up things.

But there’s a complementary danger, that people feel that life might get too fast in our world might get too fast. And we suffer the fate of this little frog here, which is from an advert that said: Not fast enough. It couldn’t move fast enough, so it was run down by a world that is a kind of runaway world as the sociologist Anthony Giddens, once acclaimed or Paul Virilio, the French writer, says the world seems to come down on us like an accident.

We’re getting too fast to us. So I want to present to you, is first, I want to present to you a kind new definition of what it means to live in a modern age, and a modern society, and modern for me is quite a long term, I think it’s a systematic change in the way we organize our society and lead our lives, which means we need to speed up in order to have something like institutional stabilities. I want to present you this conception and then point out why this leads to social acceleration.

So, in a way, relating to the topic of this conference, the feature we weave, the future we make, we knit, it’s a future that incessantly, permanently, needs to speed up to grow and to innovate just in order to stay where we are. So, social acceleration is the concept, the principle on which we run to stabilize ourselves. But then my diagnosis is that this leads to serious problems, to problems of synchronization, because we cannot speed up the whole world, to the same extent.

There are social groups who cannot accelerate or refuse to accelerate, so there is a desynchronization between social groups, between the jetset highly mobile society and those who kind of stay tight to a place, for example. But there’s also desynchronization between the social organization, the technological speed, the economic transaction, the environment, so the ecological crisis is a crisis of desynchronization. There’s a desynchronization between the speed of politics, of doing what we talked about this morning, of coming together, democratically organizing our world, it’s a time consuming process.

That might be too slow for our world. And maybe even what was once called our souls, our psyche, might not be fast enough for the high speed of digital society. So, then, in the end, I wanna talk about the future we dream of or we might want to create together, and maybe this conference is a part of this.

So, I have to speed up, because I only have 30 to 40 minutes. All right, so, here is my suggestion. In social science, in philosophy and in humanities, there’s a huge debate about what modernity is about.

I once wanted to publish a book in Portuguese, in Brazil, there were reviews and they declined it it’s not interesting for Brazil, because you don’t talk about modernity anymore. That’s what they said. I found that very interesting.

And I also understand that to some extent, there’s a huge debate in the social sciences about whether modernity is still a useful concept because, of course as you might know, Shmuel Eisenstein and others talk about multiple modernities. Modernity in Brazil might be different from the European or the North American or the Chinese or the Japanese, or the South African modernities, and maybe even within Brazil there are different modernities. And I think certainly there must be a clear sense of differences, but nevertheless multiplicity is not enough.

Is there something that is a kind of determining principle in the global logic, what you could call globalization, in the way we reorganize social life, digital life in the 21st century. So, here, I want to keep the term modernity, I think we have the modern”. .

. 106 and here’s my suggestion of how we could define it, because it’s neutral with respect to the value of culture, I’m not saying the modern is the good and the non-modern is a bad thing, so here’s my definition. A society can be called modern when its model of stabilization and its institutional reproduction is dynamic, this means a society is modern when it needs growth, acceleration and innovation just to keep its institutional status quo structure.

. . and to maintain its status quo and to keep its form.

So, what do I mean by this? I mean, it’s very easy to see, I think it’s a change in the way we organize our life which occurs from the 28th century onwards, certainly also in Latin America and in Europe and in North America first, but then also elsewhere. We see it in a capitalistic economy most easily.

This is the basic, the raw formula of capitalism, money is only invested into a commodity when there is the promise and the prospect of making more money out of it. No one, I mean, that’s quite. .

. It’s nothing immoral or unjust of bad about it, that’s the logic of capitalistic economy, you invest capital in order to create more capital, money, commodity, more money. In an economy.

. . it’s actually true for the individual companies as well as for the national economy.

If Brazil doesn’t achieve growth, you’re really in trouble, and it’s the same for Germany, for the E. U. , for North America, for everyone.

Modern national economies need to increase their growth domestic product in order to keep the institutional structure. If the Brazilian economy does not grow, I mean, you had some trouble like everyone else, after 2008. So, without growth, the institutional structure is in trouble, jobs might get lost, companies close down, the tax revenue goes down, but, public expenditure goes up, because you need to invest into getting the economy going again, also in welfare programs and other things, and that creates a budget problem, we can observe that all over the world, and even delegitimization of the political system.

Greece, for example, in Europe, is an interesting example, but you have similar problems in Argentina, for example, but, when you look at Greece, it did not grow for 10 years, it actually declined, but then, immediately, you have serious problems for the whole institutional structures, high rates of unemployment, breakdown of the welfare system, a kind of serious political democratic crisis, a huge budget crisis, and there’s almost no solution for this problem. Unless there is a debt card which will probably happen soon. So, on a worldwide scale at least, in some nations, in some regions, you might not have growth for some time, but leads to institutional destability.

And the logic of increase still in place there, so capitalist economy works on the condition that it permanently grows, and growth is connected to acceleration and innovation. How do you achieve growth in order to come up with new products or processes or production? So, innovation and acceleration is necessary for this process.

In a capitalist economy, time is money in many respects, so. . .

As money is always scarce, time is always scarce, and you invest time similarly as you invest money. By the way, I find this very interesting. Benjamin Franklin, Max Weber called Benjamin Franklin, who said: Always remember that time is money, don’t waste time, because that means wasting money.

And in an economy which runs on this scale that’s a problem. But I think. .

. I would almost go with Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist in that sense. .

. we, you and I, we do not always remember that time is money. So, when you go home today, in the evening, you worked long, you don’t care about money, maybe, for the rest of the day, then you remember that money is also cultural capital, right?

You should read some books which you always needed to read, or write something which you’ve always wanted to write, or maybe see a play, because you have to recreate cultural capital, your knowledge of the world. At least you have to see the news. But maybe in the evening you say: Oh, no, today I don’t want to remember that time is money and that time is cultural capital, so, forget about it.

But also you still remember time is social capital, there are many people you wanted to call or answer the e-mails, or their whatsapps. Or even you wanted to care for your relatives or for your friends, but you haven’t seen for a long time, so, when you sit at home you feel somehow pressed: Oh, time is money, OK, not today. Oh, time is cultural capital, oh, maybe not today.

” But then it’s still social capital, and, if you really are very strong you don’t care tonight that time is money, time is cultural capital, time is social capital, you remember that time is also physical capital, it’s body capital, so you should do something for your body, go a little for a jog or go to the gym, or at least do some meditation, some mind-based stress reduction, or some yoga, or something like this kind. So, the logic of increasing your capital foundation in order to give you the resources you need to stay in your position, right, to not fall behind the others who also invest in their cultural, social capital. So, this logic is very powerful, I think it’s much more powerful than at the age when Marx and Max Weber wrote about it.

But for me it’s quite interesting to see that it’s not that this logic dynamic stabilization you only get institutional stability through permanent. . .

interdynamic and growing way. It’s also true, for example, in politics, because, of course, how do we stabilize, how do we create political power, governmental power that it’s not just that there is a king or an emperor who is there all the time like Edward I, Edward II, Edward III. .

. it’s always the same system. But political power has to be kind of dynamically stabilized with elections every four years and you only win the election if you promise some sort of increase, so, I think in 2018 the next president will be elected, right?

and the electoral competition will be led about promises of increase, so one candidate will promise: Vote for me, and you’ll get more jobs, more wealth, more streets, maybe more industries and so on. And the other candidate’ll maybe promise more hospital beds, more university places, whatever, but it’s dynamic stabilization there too. And what I find very interesting culturally is that.

. . Did I forget science here?

No, here. This I find very interesting, because this is my old formula, in the way we deal with science, it’s the same logic as you have here, it’s knowledge, research, more knowledge. And that’s very unusual culturally, I mean, When we look at non-modern forms of culture, it might be pre-modern, or just this logic of modernity, knowledge is always treated like a treasure, you have to know how to do things, for example, how to hunt game, deers, or a stag, or how to grow crops, and so on.

And you have to know how to build a home and how to fabric clothes and so on, and how to do the rituals, services in the temples also, but it’s a kind of knowledge which is a treasure, very often most cultures think that this knowledge has come down from the ancestors, through a long chain of history, or it was even revealed in sacred sources and you have to hand it down in a kind of scholarly institution, so, the school, with the master and the disciple, very often it’s male-dominated, right? it’s the main form in a patriarchal society, of how people deal with knowledge. And knowledge is the highest form of.

. . It’s a treasure of different sort, it’s not like money, it’s different.

But in modernity science has become the center of knowledge. In German it’s very nice because it’s sort of speak, changing from wissen” to wissenschaft”. .

. because wissen is a kind of treasure, like money, but wissenschaft, in the second part of the word, schaft” you see production, permanent production of new knowledge. So, how is science done today?

If you’re a scientist you have to promise. . .

For example, I think it’s the same in Brazil, like everywhere, you have to promise that you’ll create new knowledge, something that was not there before through certain money, I have to prove I’m a learned scholar, give me 2 million Euros, also, and I’ll produce new knowledge. That’s how the whole scientific system is done, you promise that in a given period of time, with a certain economic basis, you will create new knowledge, more knowledge, so knowledge is permanently about looking further into the universe looking deeper into matter, or looking deeper into our organs, or so on, it’s permanently pushing the boundaries, that’s what we do in science. It’s the same, by the way, in art, we no longer have the concept that art if recreating, either nature, or in one form or in the other, but going beyond what others have done before.

So, I believe the logic that you can only recreate institutional status quo through increase, through going beyond, through acceleration. Innovation and growth is basic for our society, and, by the way, I think it’s also. .

. It’s not just outside the institutional structure and we are the poor victims, because what it means, I mean, what I want to say, and I think it’s really important, is the fact that no matter how fast you lived this year, next year you have to run a little faster, or you’ll lose out in the competition. But it’s truly individually and collectively.

If Brazil slows down, you’ll lose out in the international global competition, but it’s also true for you as individuals, because very often, people, I’m sure, in a megalopolis like São Paulo it’s the same like anywhere else, people say: “Oh, my life is so fast, it’s quite okay, I’m doing fine, I have a good job maybe, a nice family and so on, but I’m so stressed at the moment”. Then I really have bad news for you, forget this “at the moment”, next year it will be worse. And the problem it’s not worse because we’re going to some interesting place, it’s going to be worse just to stay where you are, if you slow down you’ll lose out, but, nevertheless, this logic of speeding up, going beyond, increase, is in our soul so to speak, it’s in our brain, through the logic of what I call the triple A approach to the good life.

What is a good life for you? Probably you cannot spell out the whole program, it’s very hard to tell in the modern society. But, we’re led by, it’s the idea that it would be good to make more parts of the world, and the world is a kind of totality, of the possibilities that there are in the world, you want to make them available, attainable and accessible.

This is why, for us, as subjects, money is interesting. Why are you interested in money? Most of us are, fight, even scientists.

Even so we claim. . .

no, no, we’re not led by that, but, that’s not totally true. Why is money attractive for modern subjects? Because it’s a kind of magic charm, so to speak, to make the world available.

If you win a million. . .

No, 10 million reais tonight, more of the world is available, accessible and attainable to you. It’s more easy for you to fly to all places, you can buy a house in New York, maybe, or wherever you want to, or a yacht and sail the oceans, or even an airplane. So, money makes you the world available, attainable and accessible.

And it’s not just money, it’s actually the same with the other things. Why do you want to live in São Paulo rather than in the Amazonas region, which is very nice, I believe, I’ve never been there? But, why do most people want to live in São Paulo?

Well, you’ll say: “Because in São Paulo I have the MASP”, which is spectacular, I was there yesterday, “the museums and the shopping centers and the stadiums, and the ‘teatros’ everything that SESC gives to you and so on”. You have the world available, attainable, and accessible, and if you live in the Amazonas, it’s not there, So, I call this, in German, “Welt in Reichweite”, the scope and the reach of what you can make accessible, available, attainable is big in São Paulo, but small in the Amazonas. It’s big if you have a lot of money, but small if you have little money.

So, our implicit concept of the good life, what you live by is the idea I want to have the world disposable, available, attainable. Now I’m running out of time. But what I want to say so far is that there is a kind of.

. . what Max Weber calls the iron cage of modernity: is the necessity to permanently grow, innovate and to accelerate just to stay where we are.

Now, actually, I want to skip this second part because the idea is very easy, let me put you to this, the idea is very easy. I spoiled my nice play. The logic is that.

. . the problem is that, with this logic of permanent increase, the problem of time will become worse and worse, because you cannot increase time, we cannot augment time, we’ll always have 24 hours per day.

So, we have many more goods which we use at any one time, like what I say here, for example, the average household now contains about 10 thousand objects, the middle class household, I believe in São Paulo it’s similar to Europe, in 1900 it was only 400 objects. So, the number of objects you produce, you consume, you distribute has vastly increased, it’s escalatory logic. And the number of people you’re in contact with through Facebook, WhatsApp and all these things, but also you read about it in the papers, you see them on TV, you listen to them on the radio, it has kind of increased in an escalatory pace.

Kenneth Gergen, an American psychologist, says the number of people you meet on one day is more than the number of people that a medieval person met in the whole of his life, if you also count those you read about, and so on, and, of course, you have many options of things you want to do and things other people expect you to do, so there’s an explosion in everything, but only 24 hours per day. This is the reason why we’re running out of time, time is probably the scarcest resource of the future, it’s much worse than oil. Now people say probably there will be enough oil, the talk of peak oil is kind of out, there’s now a kind of peak demand, very soon the demand in oil might drop, which is maybe not so good for Brazil.

So, we can increase everything, but you cannot increase time, so, we’re running out of time, and that means there is a permanent acceleration in technology, transport, communication and the production of goods and services. And also the world changes at a pace much faster, the world does not stay the same in the future we create. Therefore you have to run faster and faster just to stay in place, you try to do everything faster, by running faster, by not having any breaks or pauses, and by multi-tasking.

So, while you sit here you might occasionally look at your smartphones so you can keep in touch with everything else that is going on around you. Why is this a problem? First of all, we need more and more energy to keep this logic of acceleration going, we need raw materials, resources, like oil and other stuff, but we also need political energy.

Politics in this age is all about creating more dynamics, making the flows of capital coming to your country or your region. So, politics is about educating the young to a higher degree and faster in order for them to be creative, using even the old aged people, using natural resources. So we need political energy, physical energy, but also psychological energy.

This logic of speed up it’s not going on by itself, it’s us, the human beings, it’s our psychological fabric, which keeps this logic of increase and growth going. So we need more and more energy to keep it going, and the frustrating thing, this is new in the 21st century, and I’m not so sure this is something we would debate, I think maybe for Brazil it might be different, but I think in Europe, that’s the family story of Europe, getting tired, at least in the 18th century, the idea was that growth, and acceleration, and innovation, they’d bring about a better life. We’re running forward, it’s a logic of progress, we’re progressing towards the golden age, is something we create, by becoming wealthy, we may overcome poverty and scarcity.

By inventing technology we will make life better, so to speak, And by speeding up technologically we will overcome the scarcity of time. But now, in the 21st century, we have lost that hope, we do not believe we have overcome scarcity, rather, it’s the opposite way. In Brazil, as in Europe, politicians and economists tell you: “If you don’t run really fast, you’ll fall behind, things will get much worse, global competition will be much harder in the future, so there’s no longer the promise of the great world you’re running to, it’s the opposite, if you don’t run, you will fall down the drain, you’re going to the abyss.

And no one believes we will overcome the scarcity of time through faster technologies, for example we will not even overcome ignorance, so, in the middle classes, for the first time in the last 250 years, middle class parents no longer believe that they work hard and do what they can in order for the kids to have a better life. All over the place, in Japan, for example, in the US, in Europe and I think also in the big cities in Brazil, parents are concerned that, if they don’t do everything they can if they don’t work as hard as possible, if they don’t train their kids as hard as possible, they will go down, they’ll have a worse life. So, now, we have to run not in order to run forward, to reach the golden horizon, to realize a promise, you have to run faster and faster not to make it bad, not to fall into disaster and a catastrophe.

And this is what I don’t know about Brazil, I think because there might be many places, perhaps, I’m speculating, where Brazilians still would want to speed up and move forward and grow. I have something to say about this in the end. -I still have time?

-Yes. Great. So, this is not so important, but here there might be desynchronization, right?

So, what I’ve said so far is we permanently speed up, we dynamize the world with innovation, speeding up, not everything can speed up to the same degree, and there are some forms of life which might disappear if you permanently push them to speed up. Indigenous forms of life, for example, they’re permanently in danger of being eroded by this pressure to speed up, for example, but it might also be a class difference, this is something Zygmunt Bauman and others have argued, I think quite forcefully, that those who are flexible and fast, they win out in this game, and those who are settled, down and slow might lose out, but, nevertheless, there are four kinds of very hard systemic limits. One is the ecological limit.

I believe that the system of economic production and the technological change is too fast for the environment. It’s not a problem if people cut down trees, beavers, for example, have cut down trees for millions of years, but it’s a problem if you cut it down in the Amazonian rain forest at a rate which is too fast for the trees to reproduce, and it’s the same with the oceans that we fish, it’s not bad, mammas have done that for millions of years, but, if we fish the oceans at a speed which is so high that the fish cannot reproduce, they’ll be gone very quickly, right? So, we’re too fast for the nature’s proper time, it’s the same with pollution.

I think actually global warming is very interesting, because the physical energy we need to dynamize the world, as we speak here together there are 2 million people in the air, above the world, 2 million people at the same time. And, of course, that needs a lot of energy, this dynamization needs a lot of energy, this kind of energy is transformed into speeding up the atmosphere, because heating up the gas or the atmosphere around Earth is making the molecules spin faster, speeding up in the literal sense, so, there’s ecological desynchronization between nature’s time, and temporality, and the human time down here on Earth. And then, as I’ve already said, I think we have to rethink democracy, we certainly have, right, because as we knew it is in trouble all over the world, I would say, probably in Brazil certainly in the US, certainly in Europe and everywhere else.

And, why is this? Because democracy is a time-consuming process, it’s not just about having the world saying yes or no, democracy is the idea. .

. it has a lot to do with what we heard this morning, people coming together and deliberating together, formulating possibilities and ideas and then setting in motion a dialogue, a multilogue, where we actually. .

. I have now just written a new book, it’s titled “Resonance”, and I believe that democracy is a kind of resonant process where it’s not about: I have to have my will or you have to have your will, I make my voice heard and all of you make your voices heard too, and then, we have to listen and to answer, and in this process of listening and answering, we transform, I change my view after the dialogue, you change your view after the dialogue, so, this is how we construct a future which is much more promising, but you cannot tell in advance what the result of democratic deliberation and negotiation will be, it’s always a kind of open process, and this openness is time consuming and it’s against the logic of force, increase, speed up and dynamization although there is desynchronization between the temporality of democracy and the temporality of the markets and dynamic stabilization. Then I believe, even within the economy, we have a desynchronization between the speed of the financial markets, because the finance capital at currencies can be traded within fractions of seconds, it’s done by computer algorithms, but the real economy is time consuming, it takes time to build a house, or to build a car, or even to write a book, and, what’s worse, it takes a lot of time to consume these things.

You do not consume a book when you buy it, you consume it when you read it, and this really takes a lot of time. So, there is a desynchronization between the speed of the financial markets and the speed of the so called real economy. Finally, and this is where I find it really interesting, I believe if you really want to have a democratic future, if you want to think of the future we want to create, we need to somehow rethink what a really good life is.

what is good for us as human beings it’s not how can we make Brazil faster and more competitive, but how can we create a world in which we want to live, which is good for us as human beings. And there are quite a lot of numbers of reasons why for us as human beings this logic is very depressing, we have to run faster and faster just to stay where we are might not lead to a good life. It might create burnout.

A burnout is a state of affairs in which you have lost all access of resonance. You might have a job, be very successful, you might have a family, you might have many kinds of civic engagements, connections, a lot of social, cultural and physical capital, but you might actually fall into burnout. And what is burnout?

It’s a state of affairs where the world doesn’t answer, where you don’t feel connected, I call it alienation, in a sense that it’s a relationship without relations. So, burnout might be the consequence of a high speed society in which you don’t have enough time to really appropriate the world, to get into a mode of resonance, answering and listening. So, this logic of speed up, of dynamic stabilization creates a lot of problems in the long run.

So, now I’m almost done. The question is: what do we do? Because this is also about the future.

How do we imagine a better future? And I think it’s necessary to break out of the logic of dynamic stabilization, we need a different form of stabilization that I now call it adaptive stabilization. So, what does that mean?

Because, of course, we cannot just be static, it wouldn’t be a good idea to freeze society. Actually, no society was successful by just being static, society is always changing and they transform and they morph into something new. So, my claim is we have to make a kind of adaptive stabilization, that means, when there is a new challenge or a new problem, you have to be.

. . sometimes you have to be innovative, sometimes you have to speed up and sometimes you have to grow.

What societies always did, I mean, what I’m looking for is not a society. . .

it’s not a society that does never speed up or innovate or grow, so, we should be able to do this, but we only should do this when we want a change of the status quo, for example, there might be some regions in Brazil, maybe of in some other places where there is not enough food. Then, of course, we need growth, but this is growth in order to change the status quo, to overcome scarcity. Of course you might want to speed up internet connections in some Amazonas regions.

That’s speed up, that’s acceleration, but it’s acceleration in order to change the status quo, and certainly we want innovation in green technologies or, some, I don’t know, some new medicine, but. . .

So, I think the society we want to have should be a society that is capable of speeding up, of producing growth, and of innovation in order to. . .

If there is some need for it, some political or cultural or ecological, or medical need for it, or a desire at least, so, speed, innovation and growth should be possible in order to change the status quo, but, it shouldn’t be a state of existence where at the beginning of the year you say. . .

In Germany, also, we have enough cars, we have enough clothes, we have enough food, we have enough computers, but somehow we have to achieve growth, that ‘s the idiotic thing. If you have to say. .

. And people feel that they’re running as fast as they can, nevertheless, this year we have to speed up, we have to innovate, we have to grow just to stay who we are. That’s what I think we should break.

So, moving from dynamic stabilization to adaptive stabilization, and that’s why I don’t like particularly the term, I like a lot the about the idea of degrowth, which is also a topic of this conference, but I don’t like the term very much, because not in all conditions it makes sense to shrink, right? For example, if there is a region where there is hunger, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to tell them that they should degrow. So, I think whether or not there is actual growth and speed up has nothing to do with the logic of dynamic stabilization.

For example, Greece is shrinking, but it’s a growth society in the sense that it cannot maintain its status quo without growth, acceleration and innovation. So, Greece is not a degrowth society, it’s a growth society that degrows. And certainly there could be places, I don’t know, in some poor region where we have growth, acceleration and innovation which would not be a growth society in the sense of dynamic stabilization.

So, how do we get there? I believe we should do it in a democratic way, which is a very hard to think right now, but democracy in the sense of the sphere of resonance, where people are given a voice where they make their voice heard, but it’s not just a voice of protest, or anger, or cynical laughter, but it’s the voice which is used in a way of listening and answering that you actually hear the other, not just despise them. I think the problem with democracy is that two sides, most often it’s two sides, they don’t listen and answer, they think the others are idiots.

The Trumpists think all the liberates are just bad idiots and the liberals think that the Trumpists are fascists and racists and idiots. So that’s the end of democracy, it’s no longer in resonance fear. But we somehow need to regain democracy, and this is what we’re working on in Jena, we have a big consortium.

660 I think we need economic reforms, because this capital logic, money commodity, more money, is totally growth dependent, so, I believe we’re working on an idea of economic democracy that does have a place for markets and for competition, but this kind of place is defined politically and culturally. Then I think we need a welfare reform, I’m personally in favor of unconditional basic income, because this would take the fear and the anxiety out of this logic of permanent increase. What I said , I think we need a new definition of what a good life is.

I just published a book in German, it’s 800 pages, it’s called “Resonance - The Logic of Being in the World”, and I believe we have to move from this concept of good life, that good life is about attainability, accessibility, availability towards a form of life which takes it as the normative astic, as being in the answering mode with the people you live with, but also with nature, for example, or with art, or with your work, people love to work when it’s a resonant relationship, when they feel self efficacious on the one hand, but also receptive, affected by what they’re doing on the other hand. So, we need a new astic for the good life, and it’s called resonance. Thank you very much for your patience.