Conference, September 8-10, 1999 Schloß Höchst, Frankfurt a.M., Germany Mission | Program | Summary Participants | Paper | Webcam Documentation

				Executive Summary The 1999 Aventis Triangle Forum initiated a high-level discussion among leaders from Europe, North America and Asia on issues of the global future. Building on the foundations laid by several input task forces (download a summary of the events as a PDF file), the Forum's forty-two participants addressed three important themes: challenges to governance presented by global change, consequences of digitalization and biotechnology, and actions to take today to build a better future. The Method The conference brought together leaders in order to define priorities and options for shaping the future of our societies. The CAP decided to address interlocking problems by confronting experts in a wide variety of fields with broad questions about the global future. In addition to presentations in their areas of expertise, technologists contributed views on social questions, social scientists addressed the impact of technology, business leaders added to the discussion on values, and government members spoke on how to resolve these questions. Their answers, and the dialogue that followed, provide a guide to the key items on today's global agenda. Introduction Opening the Forum, Hoechst Chief Executive Officer Jürgen Dormann posed an overarching question, "How do we want to live tomorrow?" He then outlined several challenges for future societies to cope with: the consequences of rising life expectancies, the need for sustainable food production, and the importance of affordable medical care. Although every modern society's equilibrium is constantly in motion, leaders must still point the way to a sustainable future. Professor Werner Weidenfeld, Director of the Center for Applied Policy Research structured the discussion by calling on the participants to bring their diverse experience and expertise into a common focus. In a global setting characterized by change and innovation, ways must be found to compensate for new difficultues, and to preserve existing benefits. Governance In the first panel, Governor Boris Y. Nemtsov, Professor Benjamin Barber and Ronnie C. Chan tackled the problems facing all governments dealing with an increasingly diverse era. Governor Nemtsov highlighted the hope of the 'glasnost generation' and the real freedoms that Russians had gained since the collapse of communism. Professor Barber laid down five challenges that followed from economic globalization: Globalization itself has no civic dimension The move to an industrial economy to an information economy requires new rules Privatization leads to an eclipse of the public sector Spending is increasingly seen as a way of defining individuals' identity The infantilization of consumers and citizens To cope with these challenges, he said we must preserve diversity while also globalizing citizenship. Mr. Chan pointed out that the handover of Macau to China in December of this year will mark the end colonialism in Asia, but that simultaneously Asia is merging into the West: all significant global institutions originated in the West, there are no credible alternatives to Western approaches. This could lead to a lack of legitimacy for these institutions and practices in Asia, a situation that would harm all parties involved. Pax Americana may be preferable to any other, but that does not guarantee smooth sailing. In the discussion that followed, Prof. Shlomo Avineri expressed concern about tensions rising along the border between high-tech and low-tech societies. Dr. Sarasin Viraphol said that the challenge to Asia from the West is in many ways parallel to the challenge at the end of the nineteenth century, and that many younger people actively welcome the 'cultural invasion.' Eckard Polzer pointed out that, for all its influence, business is not interested in changing the world, but in making a profit. He added that just a few years ago, the Asian model was being held up as an example for the rest of the world and suspects that the current worries are overdone. Josef Janning asked how do we understand the public sphere for the future? The ability of our public institutions to respond does not seem to match our ability to gain knowledge. We need to rebuild the public sphere. Technology Professors Michio Kaku and Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker accented different aspects of advancing questions. Kaku's presentation offered an inspiring tour of the digital future, to the not distant time when the power of a Pentium chip is available for a penny, but where increases in computer power run up against the limits of silicon atoms between 2015 and 2020. In the networked world, losers include: nation-states, commodity makers, middlemen, war, small businesses, and people on fixed income. Winners include: nations that invest in education, artists and entertainers, and personal services. Winnacker pointed out that the biotech revolution is starting to happen around us. Science is building a better mouse; 10% of the pharmaceutical market already comes from drugs derived from genetic engineering. He pointed out some important ethical questions: The ability to identify diseases without being able to treat them Identifying genes which only predispose people to diseases Inevitable involvement of relatives in genome analyses Commercial interests of life and health insurance companies The spectre of eugenics Dr. Moira Gunn discussed the role of women in science and engineering. She said that the philosophy for the responsible use of technology takes longer to develop than the technology itself; we need to re-orient our regulations to improve their agility, their ability to respond to changing situations. Dr. William Drake said that the key question - which also relates to the questions of governance from the first panel - is how to get the incentives right. John Browning asked when the genetic technology is as self-evident as electricity? Genetic selection will probably make us more normal, but we will also probably find that our ideas of normality are actually very varied. One problem, though, is that we still have limited tolerance for other peoples' views of normality. Closing the discussion, Professor Kaku said that in ten years we would come back and say that all our predictions had been so conservative. Actions Dr. William Drake proposed ten steps to take now in four areas mostly related to the computer and telecommunications sector. I. Internet Governance Broadcasting must be re-thought; soon every web page will be a video or radio channel Global electronic commerce needs work; most governments are doing badly in this area II. External Impact of the Information Revolution The state's capacity is not declining, but it is being readjusted, the balance of authority is shifting The nature of war and conflict resolution is changing in the information age Technical cooperation and support should expand to help bring developing nations into the information age III. The Global Future Weapons proliferation at every scale, from pistols to rockets, should be controlled Strategies of inclusion must overcome extremism Countries must come to grips with demographic implosions and explosions IV. Analytical Challenges Decision makers should be wary of false 'either-or' choices Digital experience can only be extrapolated to physical experience in a limited way Summing up, he called for a better balance between commercial and non-commercial interests, as well as for broadening and deepening international exchanges. Mr. Zulkifli Baharudin added many more key points in his presentation. The Asian economic crisis has been a huge impetus for charge. Asian societies are ageing faster than any others on the planet and will have to re-think their social systems Technology is helping make new connections and fostering the growth of civil society Mobility poses a threat to stability, particularly in the upper reaches of poorer societies A danger in Asia is that existing structures of authority will be swept aside without anything ready to take their place Lifelong learning should be accompanied by lifelong re-qualification - professionals must demonstrate that they have kept their skills up to date The weakness of large states is starting to show, particularly in their ability to tax. Dr. Maritta Koch-Weser put forward five specific action areas. Environmental funding. The current Global Environmental Facility amounts to $2 billion over three years. This is far from sufficient for our common tasks. How can funding for environmental initiatives go from project-oriented to systemic? Sustainability issues are inherently international. Leaders should think in ecological spaces - river basins, forest reaches, seashores - rather than national ones. New technologies require new learning Sometimes a lighter touch works. Green banking and green investing would both help the environment. We should corect an obvious problem: many environmental conventions already exist in international law, but the meetings to administer consume large chunks of the budgets earmarked for implementation. We should consolidate operations and spend the money on improving the environment. Participants in the discussion also offered many action points. Dr. Olarn Chaipravat called for systematic improvement in political communication. For instance, many Asian leaders' first reaction to financial crises in neighboring countries was to deny that something similar could happen in their country. This was obviously mistaken. Dr. Moira Gunn said that we should design environmental concerns into every process and product from the beginning, rather than thinking about them later. She said that we still know next to nothing about the long-term health implications of computer use. Policy makers should issue expiration dates on technology regulations; after a certain amount of time, the regulation could be assumed to be out of date and no longer applicable. John Browning hoped that governments would get better at getting out of the business of doing things they no longer needed to be doing. He gently suggested a Minister for Saying "No" who would be rewarded for saving public money by getting the government out of unnecessary tasks. Prof. Duckhwan Lee warned that biology was in danger of repeating chemistry's mistakes at the end of the nineteenth century, when it promised great improvements but neglected the interactions between humans and the rest of the planet. Prof. Kriengsak Chareonwongsak asked the Forum to systematically target decision makers with recommendations, said that education was in need of a near-total overhaul, and that we should be careful to watch for the essence of democracy, rather than just settling for its form.
	Project Background | Events | Reports and Essays Zukunftszeugen | Contact Us | Home Page Last Modified: 2002-04-23 TOP