Layne Hartsell^a,b,d, Leif Edvinsson^c, Jacob Urup Nielsen^c, Soraj Hongladarom^d

^a Center for Ethics in Science and Technology, Department of Philosophy, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.  ^b New Club of Paris, Austria.  ^c Copenhagen Municipality (Københavns Kommune), Denmark.  ^d Asia Institute, Japan

*Corresponding author: hartsell-mlh@protonmail.com

Keywords: global justice, societal innovation, open source, open science, digital commons, distributed digital manufacturing, nanotechnology, Anthropocene

Abstract 

The project of societal innovation is to address the need for societal level development where smaller social innovation has been unable to attend to, in order to avoid further technological determinism and dystopia, which are growing negative outcomes of current practices. Therefore, in this article, while we take a presumptive view on technology, we seek to explore an overview of the dimensions of societal innovation (SI) and global justice to address the urgency of the interpretation and transformation of the older failing systems. Our perspective on the concept of societal innovation is framed as a matter of open reasoning, technology, and global justice, which is an addition to science, technology, and society studies. We see SI as the renewal and further development of a robust, constructionist innovative system, both in societal value creation in production and societal governance. SI is a deepening of global justice into the productive sphere of human relations, and therefore, introduces a novel economic and larger social improvement to people’s everyday lives. SI could bring a systemic change (radical or incremental) to the major structures of society and/or modes of operation through greater participatory action and deliberative democracy [1]. The range of our exploration for SI is from code (Linux, block chain) to ICT to nanotechnology, and then to inquire into social application as an inclusive technosphere from new materials to new energy or societal, planetary wide systems. Access to the technosphere is a matter of global justice, while at the same time, the technical system should be within a planetary biosociety as a whole. The goal of SI is to provide an addition to how we will change and how continuous renewal can occur due to rapidly advancing technology in the Anthropocene. Changes must occur in all areas of human life from energy, infrastructure, agriculture, sanitation, public health/healthcare, education, and value creating production; whereas milestones of progress can be seen at the level of the individual, family, community, bioregion. Societal work, knowledge, structural capital, and resource use, should be the multiplier for the human well-being. The response we explore here should be considered as a basis for human needs or inclusivity – global justice and technology.

Introduction

The extraordinary developments in technology from the convergence of information and communications technology (ICT) to biotechnology and the potential for nanotechnology, and then the inability of current systems to meet major challenges has led us to consider the matter of societal innovation (SI) and global justice as a way to articulate a better response to the challenges of the near future.^[1] Societal Innovation is a concept developed to provide the framing for a novel economic and wider social improvement to people’s everyday lives taking a presumptive view on technology. It brings a systemic change (radical or incremental) to society´s structures or modes of operation and it is legitimated in democratic processes based on the integrity of the individual and the common good. We can regard societal innovation as a perpetual process of societal renewal with all its dimensions as we meet the challenges of rapidly increasing technology. We think that there must be a reframing and distinction for systemic change in the interplay between the larger transnational institutions, national, bioregion, and individual all as a planetary biosociety.^[2] Societal innovation is related to social innovation, but differs due to the fact that all levels should be considered pragmatically to achieve sustainable systemic change.^[3] 

Due to the inefficiencies and externalities of globalization, and particularly its narrow functions over the period from 1991 to 2008, and no major impediments, social and ecological degradation have moved into early stages of collapse, proceeding rapidly in the west in particular due to the lack of government spending on science and technology for public needs and by the direct imposition of austerity measures [2]. Entrepreneurial and benepreneurial activity has not proven to address the most basic systemic needs for societies or what we call the access to the technosphere.^[4] Societal innovation is a concept which we are developing which is representative of the technosocial reality we perceive to be of the near future.^[5] It is this technosocial complexity that we argue can be dealt with in the best manner through societal innovation; therefore, SI innovation should be a part of the next step towards a planetary society based on knowledge and technological systems for a ecohumano normative alignment between human systems and the natural environment.^[6] The onset of the Antropocene or the age of a constellation of effects from human activity on Earth’s geophysical system leads us to argue for a planetary response involving a democratic system of advanced technical biosocieties. Some of the ‘constellation’ of effects such as rising seas, changes in chemical composition of the seas, massive pollution and so forth, are emerging due to a productive system largely known as global scale capitalism involved in agriculture, industry, shipping, and military system.^[7] It is these institutions that have largely created the “rules, regulations, treaties, and conventions” that designed the global system of today.[8]

What is needed is a best approximation of empirical reality coupled with significant action following some of the principles and practices we discuss. We believe societal innovation to be a necessary element for the advent and continuous renewal of planetary society, and when coupled to the concept of nanotechnology we see societal innovation as a constellation of advanced technologies, the partner-state, industry, and civil society in relation to the integrity of the human being and the natural environment. Therefore, societal innovation will act as a spring board as well as provide a human and ecological context to the more financialized aspects of development. The innovative societies we propose would make up a pluralistic system, planetary in scope, of previously mentioned advanced, technical biosocieties and a ubiquitous commons both digital and physical in comprehensiveness. Such a commons is a digital system of open source networks such as technologies for the sharing of information and collaboration through ICT that allows for higher order coordination to be done whether it is for projects, work, learning/education, governance and so forth.

We expect that the aforementioned developments will be experienced along a spectrum of change in people’s lives and in society both socially in rules and roles, and in the infrastructure or built system of the past all converging with the technosphere within nature.^[9] These two systems, synthetic and natural, are the major, planetary elements for the Anthropocene in how we are to organize production, to power the necessary technical systems, to live, and to ultimately flourish. Thus, the foremost philosophical questions are: How will sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and nanotechnology be planned, developed, and implemented? Once implemented, the philosophical question is how will we create access as a matter of global justice found in the normative challenge of how major systems will be molded and/or used, maintained, and governed? Taken as a whole, the essential question is how to go from the built system to a fully emergent or planetary technosphere which is inclusive of humans and nature?

In the developed countries, the technosphere is more prominent, such as in East Asia and the Nordics, for example, South Korea and Denmark, while in others, the natural environment is prominent. The Anthropocene indicates the threat that the technical system poses to the planet and global ecological justice challenges the imposition of such geophysical change on those who had virtually nothing to do with the causal apparatus. How is this clear injustice to be addressed?

Societal innovation can help to bring a more sustainable future as the global shift has begun towards India and Asia. We will provide some examples from ASEAN – Malaysia, Thailand; and others from the Nordics. For the near future, there are wide differences in countries something the Chinese have been working to decrease, and we think there may be additional integrations through recognition of common needs and goals, which can lead to sharing and win-win relationships, or even a transcendence of the Global North and South concept. Such transcendence is a major question about what direction development will proceed and what kinds of technologies can be generated by starting from the premises of societal innovation in open reasoning and global justice.

Principles of societal innovation and technology

We suggest that societal innovation will be effective on a planetary scale, where such a hypothesis can provide a path or direction towards the inclusiveness of governance, well-being, economy, technology, society, and ecology, which delivers the greatest opportunities for expression of freedom and creativity. Such breadth of innovation, and logically integrated with the enormity of nanotechnology, societal innovation could be the confluence of major elements in society for the next level of emergence of organized human societies, while avoiding further breakdown that unfortunately is already advancing. Thus, there is a matter of innovation both to create new systems and to provide rescue means for survival. The innovative aspect can cross-over to provide for new ways to meet essential needs and thus provide a basis for betterment.

The major principles are of development of nanotechnology, access to the technosphere, inclusiveness in governance, and ultimately, ecological integrity. The focus is on the development of society through knowledge and technology within immediate pluralistic ecohumano values which are guided from the universality of those values. The major area is global justice where there are three aspects: essential equality, freedom, and plurality which create the basis for societal innovation. Also, it must be noted that the development of society must come through evidence-based knowledge and decision making, rather than of political ideology, the material dialectic, or ecclesial-cultural manifestations, which have resulted in blind alleys and ideological clashes between various powers resulting on tremendous suffering.

The development of societal innovation requires a highly interated system that can deal with complexity. Knowledge has already been uploaded to the Internet in a decade of knowledge economy into bits and now that knowledge can be reconfigured into new forms of knowledge and brought back into physical form in atoms.^[10] Societal innovation is not a revolutionary hypothesis, it is a developmental transformative proposition or presumption and can only build peacefully within the current existing structures for the benefit of an emerging planetary society. SI will help us to overcome current challenges of serious magnitude, particularly through democratic deliberation, applied technology, and ecological sustainability. For deliberation, one One illustrative case is the National Dialogue Quartet in Tunisia, which was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015. This group, under female leadership, worked in a cross sectorial approach over many years to reach a novel, peaceful reframing of the impact of societal innovation.^[11]

Access to the Technosphere

We consider societal innovation from a perspective of global justice and nanotechnology, which is to say that access to the technosphere is a universal right thus building upon the UN Declaration on Human Rights^[12] and the UN Declaration on Bioethics. Therefore, it follows that societal innovation is an inclusive social hypothesis, both in the Global North and South, and transcends these terms to the advent of planetary society. It is the right of all to benefit from, and even participate in, the scientific and technological advancements of today and tomorrow.^[13] Many from across the spectrum of debate already point to the fact that official systems have been slow to act to create opportunities for citizens to participate, in both politically and economically, and thus citizens themselves working at times in partnership with institutions, and at times without, have developed their own projects for participation in exploring life, the environment, the universe, and of course for political action (www.p2pfoundation.net). Interestingly, cities have emerged as leaders in a new movement towards development and participation.

To develop an integration of these principles into an applied societal innovation program, in future entries, we will consider knowledge societies; the ubiquitous commons; digital, distributed manufacturing; and particularly the potential for interaction between Scandinavia and Asia: Copenhagen, Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Jakarta.

1

Societal Innovation and Technology

               Societal innovation, as a concept, we see as a way to build upon open source networks and to describe the further deepening of the current technosphere as information-communication technologies (ICT), biotechnology, robotics, and early nanoscience transform society and the material structures around us – for communicating with each other, for knowledge, and for survival, such as in the case of medicine, transportation, and energy systems. In addition, the quickly emerging systems of the Internet of Things (IoT) and the networked-commons systems of code, design, and knowledge are all important developments. Further, these digital world systems will become physical manifestations in new manufacturing emerging which we call distributed digital manufacturing (DDM), commons-based peer production, and the collaborative economy.^{[14] [15]} The various aspects of society of which we give mention to here would make up the concept of societal innovation where material conditions are shaped and access created according to human need and development in such a way that conditions are not technologically deterministic but generative in scope allowing for individuals the benefits of greater access, essential equality, and freedom, thus creating opportunities for innovation.

2

Global Justice

In order to enable the above principles as applied ethics or global justice and technology, societal innovation as a theory covers the major areas of social operation – governance, knowledge commons and technology, production and economics, communications, and advanced infrastructure. In this case, the knowledge commons acts as a reservoir for innovation and technological development as a key aspect for the new collaborative economy and society. Here we consider societal innovation and technology as a matter of global justice which is necessary to meet the complexity of coordination of meeting and sustaining human needs as a universal principle. We also see the need for major additions and supplements to the current legal system in order to meet the challenges of massive technological development and changing societal structures physically, psychologically, and morally. Concerning infrastructure, and specifically in retrofitting major supportive systems of the current technosphere, new legal means will be necessary to accommodate new materials, safety measures, disposal and so forth.

In addition to physical structures which we have mentioned, we want to mention the psychological challenges of technological growth which we also propose societal innovation to be both a bridge to the future and also an integrational force so as to make the many transitions as easy as possible, while also keeping an open system for innovation to occur. Mutuality in governance systems would be the factor of inclusivity in access to the emergent technosphere. Already a major concern in society is the matter of personal privacy and the necessary freedoms which protect all from unlawful intrusion and surveillance.^[16]

Physical Systems: Digital Distributed Micromanufacturing

What has not been considered widely, as of this point in time due to its current emergence, is the interconversion of physical reality into design and vice versa which can be done for low marginal cost and yet create value at the local level. A universal system of the blockchain with digitally coordination of CBPP would allow for manufacturing to be distributed and thus localized. For understanding, the emergence distributed, digital manufacturing should be compared with the industrial concentrations known of in the past, however, soon micromanufacturing will make distrubted systems possible.

We suspect that the interface between code, design, and physics will be a place of high contention in the near future. Knowledge development such as in books along with physical goods in 3D printing or digital manufacturing are all challenging existing copyright legislation and society has yet to find an adequate solution, and during the disruption of past forms of production and the Great Recession, a new form of money and accounting emerged based on bits and electricity. (https://www.retarus.com/blog/en/machine-to-machine-and-person-to-person-this-is-how-industry-4-0-can-succeed/)Other areas of interest involve ubiquitous technology, a distributed nanotechnology medical system, IoT sensors, and a distributed, renewable energy system. On such a large scale, societal innovation will require far more changes to accommodate a planetary, advanced technological society; one that is integrated and allows for collaborative programs on major issues such as nuclear weapons, climate change, and poverty. Nuclear weapons, the most pressing concern, are not a matter of theory for societal innovation due to the highly specific area of governance, military systems, and treaties that we cannot consider in a short work, however, through open reasoning and open science, wider debate can occur and the generative phase of technology can be democratized. As a matter of knowledge and flourishing, collaborative systems can enable scientific and technical progress, social programs and development, better medical systems such as at the community and even individual level, and many more innovations, which are yet to be seen due to the holistic framework of societal innovation, which requires various systems and actors participating in a peerist synergism. Such a synergism allows for the creation of the basic aspect of societal innovation and the subsequent conditions for continuous innovation and renewal  through participatory, inclusive creative communities – collaborative economy, commons-based peer production, deliberative democracy/open reasoning, all which would meet the needs of people.

3.

Applied Societal Innovation: Scandinavia – Asia

Open Reasoning and Participatory Governance

In this section we want to cover the matter of open reasoning and participatory governance, where societal innovation might be viewed from different perspectives borrowing from history. One is as a lumification process, signals or intelligence from the Dragomans for Sustainability Navigation such as in Ragusa, Dalmatia. The Dragomans were early pioneers with another perspective for citizens in the ancient city of Dubrovnik, once also called Ragusa. For centuries, the city lived in peace and prosperity due to its lumification intelligence that was based on Dragomans as knowledge navigators involved in diplomacy. For the past ten years, e-students at Zagreb in collaboration with us at the New Club of Paris have organized a summer school to search for more insights of this unique societal heritage construct.

Another perspective is the triggering of the good word process for reduced psychological friction among citizens such as the Knowledge Café, as researched and applied by Dr Juanita Brown, in The World Café dissertation(see www.theworldcafe.com)^[17] Other projects for democratization through the application and developments of modern digital media others include: the Rulemaking for a joint cocreative push such as the Civil Brights innovations in Denmark, the Brights’ Digital Storytelling, voting applications such as in California, e-lawmaking in Malaysia, and the e-government information kiosk in India.^[18]

Distributed, digital manufacturing

Distributed, digital manufacturing is emerging into what may be the next level manufacturing system due simply to the fact that it shrinks time, place, and space while increasing flexibility and significantly decreasing costs. With the addition of ICT coordination, robotics, and physical modularity, a large-scale, distributed system can become a reality. The machines employed are compact 3D printers, computer numerical control (CNC) machines, biotech machines and processes, and so on, which can produce rapid results and are already producing in plastics, biologics, and metals. When they are connected to ICT they can receive code and designs and then print from designs, on site, locally. This process also reduces waste due to the precise functions of the machines. Put together such a system is a tremendous savings in transportation costs (near zero), and in waste (low). With access to ICT and the knowledge commons, manufacturing could occur at nearly anyplace and is a major reason why we use the term “planetary society” in our exploration of societal innovation.

The machines themselves might even become universal machines or what we might call nanoprinters, which are advancement on the advent of the desktop computer. The computer is a universal machine and can run various programs as actual hardware that has been coded into bits: calculator, TV, stereo, word processor, spreadsheet, math sheet, money, chess game, drawing tablet and so forth. The difference is that a nanodevice will assemble parts using atoms rather than bits and then building up to molecules and then larger structures, potentially making large manufacturing, obsolete. For universal physical production the nanoprinter might take digital design and make a wide range of products from plastics to metal and various combinations, and even pharmaceuticals and organs. Nanodevices would be able to make literally anything imaginable that could be produced in three dimensional space since it operates at the most basic level of matter related to the elements that make up material life.

4.

Networks, Systems, and Innovation

Asia has been the “workshop” of the world for most of the past 40 years due to the system of globalization with large-scale development by governments, while Scandinavia has developed into an advanced economic system based on technology innovation with social democratic development.^[19] We think there is great potential between the two regions for societal innovation, as there would be for any country to interact with Asia as attention, investment, power, culture, and production have moved East. The defining aspect of societal innovation between Asia and Scandinavia is development of society as an inclusive structure through knowledge and technology where the sharing of knowledge, design, technology, wealth, culture, and governance all could create the basis for flourishing societies for a planetary system.

Scandinavia

• In Finland after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a huge  need for Renewal on many levels. As a critcal driving force was the creation of a Committee for the Future, to address the societal thrust across political parties and old institutions to shape actions.^[20] In Finland, the city of Kotka recently converted from a city of heavy manufacturing into a new logistics center.
• In Denmark the administrative leaders realized the need for Cabinet process renewal.. So  inspired by Skandia Future Center, started in 1966 in Sweden and then followed by many, Denmark initiated the MindLab,  http://mind-lab.dk/en/ as a collaborative thrust between Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Finance/Taxation and Ministry of Social Affairs. Evaluation of it indicated impact on improved speed of  policy making as well as increased creativity
• Sweden was early pioneering,  see more on www.socialinnovation.se , as a pentahelix-forum striving to develop social innovation and social entrepreneurship with borderless knowledge sharing.  See alsao  www.socialcapitalmarkets.net  with a special Nordic Impact week, see www.nordicsgosocap.org  with very strong inspiration from the pioneers behind Living Bridges Planet see https:/livingbridgesplanet.wordpress.com/ and Impact Journey now with more than 2300 members, and tentatively Impact entrepreneurs

Asia

• In Thailand, both farming and manufacturing contribute to the Thai economic output, with smaller sectors in artisanal goods. Tourism is x% Greater access to ICT and distributed, digital manufacturing could enable Thai’s to broaden their economy into next level production. At the same time, a conversion from fossil fuels to renewable would …. Currently, they are planning to drill offshore of islands in the Southern Thai Gulf. Due to the current political conditions in Thailand, it is difficult to provide research on societal innovation. We will wait for further developments.
• In Malaysia, similar to Thailand, there is both agricultural and technological development as major contributors to the Malay economy. In an effort to increase innovative output, the Malay government implemented an ICT corridor…http://nitc.kkmm.gov.my/index.php/key-ict-initiatives/multimedia-super-corridor-msc-malaysia

• In Myanmar, the major output is agricultural while the country is rich in natural resources. Coupled with this potential is the recent, democratic elections which create a potential for larger participation for the people in their innovative pursuits for a better life. It is possible that Myanmar might “jump” ahead of many in ASEAN.
• In South Korea, there is a developed economy and democratic forms as the country heads into a period of transition from heavy manufacturing to ICT and knowledge-based production, partly due to an aging population and partly due to the tremendous potential for technology convergence into a new economy. For democratic forms, in 2003, the Korean people elected a president largely through ICT and in 2008 they initiated a massive protest, upwards of a million people in Gwanghwamun Square, against free trade impositions.

               In upcoming writings, we intend to work through the various combinations of knowledge and technology for societal innovation between the two regions, incorporating knowledge in the ubiquitous commons, technological systems implementation and management, environmental systems analysis, and governance and participation, all which make up societal innovation. The current political structure and economy are stagnating as South Korea has begun to look at agricultural production as a way to boost the economy. However the rejuvenation might be on its way by the social media networks, like Living Bridges Planet and its spin-off into Impact Navigators, where thousands of energizing dialogues are shaping new societal renewal initiatives.

About Dr. Layne Hartsell: Reader in philosophy at Faculty of Arts, Letters, and Humanities, Pannasastra University, and is a research professor at the Center for Ethics in Science and Technology, Dept of Philosophy, Chulalongkorn University

---

[1]

Reviewed Work: Justice, Equal Opportunity, and the Family by James S. Fishkin

Review by: Bernard R. Boxill

The Philosophical Review

Vol. 93, No. 4 (Oct., 1984), pp. 618-620

[2] Biosociety or biotic community comes from biocenosis and Karl Mobius (1877). I rely on Derrick Jensen and Aldo Leopold for ethics on deep green and the land ethic. It is imperative that we move towards a some type of federated system of advanced technical biosocieties.

[3] Ville V. Lehtola and Pirjo Ståhle, ‘Societal Innovation at the Interface of the State and Civil Society’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27, no. 2 (3 April 2014): 152–74, https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2014.863995.

[4] Benepreneur indicates “for benefit” and is an alternative to ‘entrepreneur’. The technosphere is the technical mediation between the person and nature that include the built system, high tech (digital), and advanced tech (nanotechnology).

[5] Technosocial reality indicates a society that is highly mediated by technology.

[6] Values inherent in global justice as humanistic and ecological

[7] Global capitalism is a productive system involving major actors such as states, corporations, and suprastate actors, and with very little democratic process. It’s distributive institution is the market. These institutions create the rules and standards that have wide ranging effects.

[8] Thomas Pogge, Global Justice and the Free Market, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9abhAvYmVc&html5=1.

[9] Chris Anderson, ‘In the Next Industrial Revolution, Atoms Are the New Bits’, Wired, 25 January 2010, http://www.wired.com/2010/01/ff_newrevolution/; Gary Anthes, ‘Bits to Atoms (and Atoms to Bits)’, Computerworld, 3 April 2006, http://www.computerworld.com/article/2562894/enterprise-applications/bits-to-atoms–and-atoms-to-bits-.html; ‘Atoms Versus Bits: Where To Find Innovation’, Forbes, accessed 10 April 2015, http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2013/01/23/atoms-versus-bits-where-to-find-innovation/.

[10] ‘Atoms Versus Bits’; Anthes, ‘Bits to Atoms (and Atoms to Bits)’; Anderson, ‘In the Next Industrial Revolution, Atoms Are the New Bits’.

[11] ‘Who Are the Tunisian ​​National ​​Dialogue ​​Quartet? | World News | The Guardian’, accessed 17 September 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/09/who-are-the-tunisia-national-dialogue-quartet-nobel-peace-prize-winner; ‘National Dialogue Quartet’, NobelPrize.org, accessed 17 September 2019, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2015/tndq/history/.

[12] UN, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” accessed October 28, 2014, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a28.

[13] UNESCO, ‘Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights’, accessed 21 September 2015, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-%20sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights/.

[14] Yochai Benkler and Helen Nissenbaum, ‘Commons-Based Peer Production and Virtue’, Journal of Political Philosophy 14, no. 4 (1 December 2006): 394–419, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00235.x; Richard D. Bartlett, ‘Making Sense of the Emerging Economy with Yochai Benkler: History of the Sharing Economy, Tensions in the Sharing Economy’, Medium, 23 May 2016, https://medium.com/enspiral-tales/making-sense-of-the-emerging-economy-with-yochai-benkler-b54f749cee92#.4bi8wp7qi.

[15] ‘The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom: Yochai Benkler: 9780300125771: Amazon.Com: Books’, accessed 17 September 2019, https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Networks-Production-Transforms-Markets/dp/0300125771.

[16] Sara Leckner, ‘Sceptics and Supporters of Corporate Use of Behavioural Data: Attitudes towards Informational Privacy and Internet Surveillance in Sweden’, Text, June 2018, https://doi.org/info:doi/10.1386/nl.16.1.113_1; ‘The Day We Fight Back: Activism Sweeps the Internet with Global Action Against Mass Surveillance’, Democracy Now!, accessed 22 May 2015, http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/11/the_day_we_fight_back_activism; Shoshana Zuboff, ‘“Surveillance Capitalism” Has Gone Rogue. We Must Curb Its Excesses. – The Washington Post’, Washington Post, accessed 17 September 2019, https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2Fsurveillance-capitalism-has-gone-rogue-we-must-curb-its-excesses%2F2019%2F01%2F24%2Fbe463f48-1ffa-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html.

[17] ‘History’, The World Cafe (blog), 4 July 2015, http://www.theworldcafe.com/about-us/history/.

[18] Pixel, Conference Proceedings. The Future of Education. 8th Edition (libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni, 2018); ‘Digital Interactive Kiosk | Touch Screen Kiosk Mumbai, India’, accessed 17 September 2019, http://www.bitsydisplays.com/Kiosk.asp.

[19] Capital Economics, “Will ASEAN Take China’s Place as the Workshop of the World?” (Capital Economics, August 19, 2015), https://www.capitaleconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/will-asean-take-china-s-place-as-the-workshop-of-the-world.pdf.

[20] Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development, ‘The Committee for the Future, Finnish Parliament Researches Long-Term Issues and Comments on Government Policy – FDSD’, accessed 29 September 2016, http://www.fdsd.org/ideas/the-committee-for-the-future-finnish-parliament/.