Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Profile of Kigge Hvid
Yes. Hi, Silke. Actually my answer would [...]
Kigge Hvid: Yes. Hi, Silke. Actually my answer would be yes. And I think the reason why we have the right to believe that is the fact that humans have, are capable of taking responsibility. They are capable of acting and they are capable of planning. So, the only species on the world actually capable of doing something about it are human beings, and I think that we should do a lot of work to actually protect them and enable them to take action. So, on the other hand, you could say a fish could be as valuable as a human being, yeah? Sometimes it is and I guess it is basically, but this is about responsibility. Who are able to take responsibility of developing our work? Humans are and we will then have to hope and work for that they will take responsibility, also serving the better good of the whole planet and the whole universe. So, I find, I am sorry, but I find humans to be more valuable than fish.
Hi, Wera. That’s really a hard one. You [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Wera. That’s really a hard one. You are into -- you are actually in a country that lived with two very, very, very different economic systems. Germany lived with both capitalism and communism. So, actually, I think, you would have more experience than I would. What is after capitalism? What -- capitalism came after communism in your countries. What do you think would be better? I would have one goal which is also a part of it. I would say that what's after capitalism is the knowledge economy. It’s a creative economy, which is about thinking, planning, doing, innovating, sharing in a totally different way than we do now. I think already now we see small, small things getting up around the world of people doing things differently. I think, in the old world, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, things were really, really black and white. We had capitalism and we had the capitalists and they were really, really mean; and then we had people and they were not mean. If you look into it right now, I think that all these borders are falling. We do not have black and white anymore. There is no bad - only bad, of course, there is only bad and only good. But, it’s less and less. So, I think, also what we in the old world will call capitalism or capitalists. They also have a huge interesting in common development of our world right now.
I think that fundamentally globalization [...]
Kigge Hvid: I think that fundamentally globalization promotes connectivity, availability, sharing knowledge, network, the basis of how people can share and be together. So no, I think that globalization which is more than economic globalization because it is also knowledge globalization, it is network globalization. No, I think that globalization would promote democracy and free thinking. If you look into it, since the rise of the globalization, which started of course many many years ago in other forms, but since the rise of modern globalization, if you look into how many countries ruled by dictators that failed, you would see that many many many of the former dictatorships fell after globalization. And one of the reasons for this is that people are more connected, people have more access to knowledge, people have also more access to getting together and to raise movements of resistance. So no, I think not. And I also think that part of the economic globalization is that companies, brands, economics works all over the world. And I see a huge raise in the social responsibility of the big companies and of the different governments throughout the world.
Hi Jason, 27. I don’t know. Actually I [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Jason, 27. I don’t know. Actually I don’t know. This is a very, very probably -- this is a very personal question, I think. It’s also an overall question, of course, but also a personal. I am not a black American. I don’t know how and why you stay on loving and defending your country if it treats you really unjust. I think basically it must be about finding out how to level. Does your country give you so much good that even though you are on some levels treated badly that you still get something from your society that you need? Actually living in New York in these days, my advice to you would be that if you really, really feel that you’re not welcome in the States, move because you live in a part of the world where you are actually free to go where you want. So do that. It’s not my – I know, of course, about the racial problems in the States and all over the world. I also know about your history of racial issues. But actually, I think you should not accept it; and if you can’t live with it, move. Go somewhere else. Find someone else to play with. Do that. Do not accept it. If you are pressed, don’t accept it because you are able to not doing that because you live somewhere where you can move.
Hi, Claire. Sorry, I’m just a little late. [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Claire. Sorry, I’m just a little late. What are the basic dignities? Basically, I think the dignities that all humans need is the right and possibility to care for themselves, their family, their communities, and their societies. This would mean that they would have the right to education, to a job, to freedom of speech, to cover their basic needs, to food, to a place to sleep, stuff like that. This is basically covered in the Bills of Human Rights, the UN Bills of Human Rights. So, that is one part of it. What are the needs? Basically, it’s the right to provide for yourself and care for yourself, your family, your communities. So -- and why do we let so many people go without them? It’s true that we do. It’s true that so many freedom rights are oppressed many places in the world. But, do we just let them go without it? Now, I think there’s a big emphasis in the world, in the UN, in a lot of governments around the world, in a lot of activist movements, in a lot of NGOs to have this fact changed. I see a lot of people, and you can just look around this table being very deeply engaged in seeing to that all people have the basic rights of living. When we don’t do that, places where the human rights are not obeyed, it would be a question of fear, of egoism, of money, of religion, and of tradition. And, that would mean that somewhere, some places, the work against this will be a very very long walk, but it is a walk that started and it is the walk that would continue.
It’s basically a problem of distribution [...]
Kigge Hvid: It’s basically a problem of distribution because we do produce enough food; we do produce enough food to feed the whole world. So, basically what we have here is a problem of distribution. It’s a problem of choice. It’s a problem of political choice. And, I think most of all, it’s a problem of fear. We would be able to with our technology and our knowledge right now, our ways of logistics, our insight in the world, we would be able to feed the whole world. It is in fact one of the UN 2020 development goals that we should be able to feed the whole world. So, why don’t we do it? Basically, it’s about some people in part of the world fearing losing instead of sharing. I think that what we should do concerning this question is that we should get a lot of people around the world to look into the overall system of distribution of economics and find out ways to distribute without fear. It is may be also a problem of the states where you are not able to feed your people of choices there. The question could be put in a way that you would put blame on some part of the world, which would be the Western world. I think to blame is uninteresting. I think to look into developments and possibilities are interesting. So, it is not a question of blame. It should be a question of development.
I have to pose another question? Is it [...]
Kigge Hvid: I have to pose another question? Is it corrupt, how do you find it corrupt, and which economic system are you discussing? Is it the system of South Africa? Is it the system of the States? Is it the Danish system where I come from? Or, is it in fact the global system you are talking about? If it’s a global system, I think what you're aiming at as corruption is the fact that people are not equally rich around the world or have their basic needs covered in the same way around the world. If this is what you are aiming at and you are asking how should we dismantle that, I think it's a question of new thinking, of new planning. So, how do we do that? We engage people around the world. Basically, there is no one else than people,; there is no one else than us to find out how to solve these problems. Right now, I see a lot of new thinking in the world. I see a lot of very very skilled people from very different fields of professional skills getting together in the world to look into the very big problems. So, one thing we could do is that if you read the UN 2050 Millennium Goals, look into them. They are the voices of 190 or something states leaders of around the world put by them to be the biggest problem in the world. Look into them, look into how you could, how your community could, how the people you work with, how your university, how your job could help solve these problems. I sincerely believe that we have the knowledge to solve the problems and to find other and very much better systems. The only thing that’s needed now is that all the good voices of the world, all the good thinking of the world comes together and look into these problems. So, take care -- no, take part, take care and just start it.
Hi, Jens, how are you? Up there in [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Jens, how are you? Up there in Sweden? You in Stockholm? Hi! So, I am Danish. How should it be devised? I think you should know some part of the answers because looking into the Scandinavian Welfare Society that would be one idea. The basic idea of the welfare societies in Scandinavia is that the broadest shoulders should carry the biggest loads. Another idea is that people should have covered their specific needs. I think that’s a way to look into a new and different economic system. Does it cover animal, humans, or planet’s right? I don’t know, but one basic element in covering the rights of everything on earth is democracy. And then you could say but democracy is not always wise. No, you’re right. Democracy is not always right and not always wise either. But this is the only way as I see it. So a basic solution would be to create international and global economic systems where the biggest and broadest shoulders carry the heaviest loads.
Hi, Adam. How are you? You are in [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Adam. How are you? You are in California. You must have sun shining on you again. So, you are asking if corporate social responsibility is possible? Of course, you could put your answer in another way or I would do tha. What you are asking is really, is human social responsibility possible because basically a company or a corporation is humans. So, if you do not believe that a company can act responsible to the environments and all the communities surrounding them, then you basically do not believe that humans can act responsible. Yes, the answer is, yes. Corporate social responsibility is possible. We see a lot, a lot, a lot of questions around. This table is one question. As far as I know, a very, very big insurance company is the main sponsor of this whole project. They just simply paid for me being here, for the table being setup, for all the techniques around. Yes, corporate social responsibility is possible because basically corporations are just people.
Hi David, where do you speak from? You [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi David, where do you speak from? You speak from Canada. I would understand your question if you spoke from a part of the Middle East or if you spoke from parts of Africa or from Asia. Actually, what I think is going on in the Western world right now is that female values are prevailing. I have two boys, 7 and 10. They are, when not with me and my husband, raised by females. They are surrounded by females all around them, in kindergarten, in school and universities. That’s one thing. And I can tell you that the female values prevail, which I actually think is a problem because I think what you have to aim for is a balance between male and female values. So, that’s one thing. If we look into the educational system, education at the highest level at least in Denmark have more females than males. Being a doctor, being an architect, being a dentist, being an economic, being a lawyer. We have more females trained in those areas than males. So, that would mean that in just a few years all the female values would prevail at least in Denmark. And it might be the same in Canada and the rest of the Western world. And that’s a problem because it’s not that female values should prevail. It’s that female and male values should prevail; it’s that human values should prevail. I would think that if the balance were on the male side or on the female side, it would always be a problem. The other thing you could ask in this question you posed is that in some places of the world, females have very little [inaudible]. Yes, that’s the problem and it shouldn’t be like that. But, I also see due to the global connectivity, due to globalization, due to the internet, that also in areas where females are really oppressed you see big very strong movements working against that. And I can see, you are male. So, you see males and females engaged in a movement of having human rights, not female rights, not male rights. But, having…
I think you really, really have to think [...]
Kigge Hvid: I think you really, really have to think about your question is or includes that the African state should be less developed than Western States? Please think with me once again, are they? They might be concerning economics, concerning stuff, concerning goods, concerning laundry machines, but this is purely a question about values. What if you look into family structures? What if you look into ways of being together? What if you look into being connected to tradition? What if you look into being connected to nature? What if you look into being connected to your family? Is Africa then still that less developed? It’s not my thinking. My thinking is that what you think about here is only economics and that’s a part of the world; it’s also a crucial part of the world, but it’s only a part of the world. What do you see in other countries that should be more developed than Africa is more isolation, less family connection, less sharing of tradition, less understanding of nature. So, you could just as well say that the countries you find more developed are in fact less developed. So, please look into the qualities, the strengths of Africa; I mean Africa, the land every child would know. Look into the qualities and do not believe if other people tell you that you are less developed.
Let’s see, so no, does it? Do you think so? [...]
Kigge Hvid: Let’s see, so no, does it? Do you think so? Of course it doesn’t depend on, is it a direct consequence of our wealth that other people are poor? In some questions it is; in other questions it’s not. During the colonizations of other parts of the world, yes it was a direct consequence. Now the world is very, very, very different. Now it is not a consequence; it is a problem of distribution. It’s a problem of planning. I think what could we do? What you’re aiming at is of course that some parts of the world are starving; other parts of the world are not starving but live in excess with everything they have around them, so what you’re aiming at is of course this question. So what should we do about it? In fact, should we look into the whole system of distribution and planning? Should we also look into the system of the western world throwing money and lots, lots, lots of money, into what was earlier the state referred to as undeveloped countries? If we look into all these systems and the responsibility of looking into this system would be the global society, so what is the global society? It’s first of all the government. It’s the overall governmental institution like the UN and then it’s the people. So, in fact, it’s not a part of it. We can easily, easily having the whole world being not poor like UN is aiming at in the Millennium Development Goal. So it could easily be solved. Who should solve it? The international society which is basically people. So everyone should take care to take part of this. For instance, I come from the science community and we know that scientists around the world are working also on this goal to find out how could we do this differently.
So, actually I have a professor in law just [...]
Kigge Hvid: So, actually I have a professor in law just beside me. So, my answer, and he would be very much better to answer that. I can take my sunglasses off. I think that it will be appropriate or necessary to break the law if the law contradicts with the feelings, the values, and the will of the majority of the people. That’s it. This is basically about democracy. If you live in a democracy, which you do, the laws are the rules that people in your world decided to live by. If you should come into a situation where the majority of the people in the states do not accept the laws, then it’s about democracy. Is it most people who believes in law find them good or not, if the majority hates law and kind of [inaudible] to them and they don’t represent their values, then it would be possible to break the law. Hey, Matt, one more thing. This doesn’t mean that you can’t speak up against the law, that you can protest against the law. But, it has to be as long as you live in a democracy and the laws are in agreement with the values of most people of the majority of the democracy, then the way you speak up against the law is nonviolent. Then you use your freedom of speech.
Hello Frank... in New York! Hi! So, how can [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hello Frank... in New York! Hi! So, how can we do that? I don’t know how we should do that. But, I think that one thing is for really, really sure and that is that the global human rights should prevail over all other rights in the world. That might sound hard, that’s just a part of democracy, that’s also a part of living again together in a global society. We simply have to have some values, some rules, some legislation that ensure us that we cherish the same overall values which really are about liberty, about having the right to cover basic needs. So basically they should; and if they would conflict with traditional or religious value, that’s a problem we have to solve and that’s a problem we see many places in the world. But, it is something we have to solve that which would be up to the international society, to governments and to individuals to see too that these values, the overall values of the human society are accepted, are lived by all over the world.
What is the brand basically? A brand is [...]
Kigge Hvid: What is the brand basically? A brand is basically people. A brand is created by people. A brand often sells things. Sometimes a brand doesn't sell things but is a brand like the Red Cross. What is a government? Basically, a government is representatives of people. So, basically this question is: are people more powerful than people? I think it would be wrong to think as a brand as something mean, something ugly. A brand is basically people working for something. But as the question is put, the idea is: are brands, the big companies, more powerful than governments? Sometimes they are because they own a lot of money, a lot of energy, and a lot of visions, and they possess a lot of knowledge. So, sometimes yes they are. Even single people in our world are more powerful than governments. On the other hand, people are more powerful than governments as well, due to our more modern or contemporary networks. So, my answer would basically be brands are people, governments are people, and people are not more powerful than people.
What I hear is really not criticism. What [...]
Kigge Hvid: What I hear is really not criticism. What I hear is a huge fear of history repeated. I think one of the lessons learned in the developed world was how industrialization hit our environment. So, I do not personally criticize China. I think China should just go for it, of course. But, please do not let history repeat itself. Please do not let the whole environment around us be really, really, ruined. Please learn from all the lessons learned around the world of how to make economic growth and still take care of the environment. I think that’s really the basic problem. You won’t be able to live with that. It’s not a goal in the world to pollute; it’s not a goal in the world to have your air stink, to have your water really, really, dirty. No, it’s not a goal. It’s a goal to have cars. If everybody in the world want cars, yes. I love my car. Yes, go for it; get a car. But, right now, we have techniques, we have innovation methods, we have technology that would enable us, as a global society, also to help China not to make the same mistakes that were made in the Western world. So, it’s a question of a green economic growth in China. That is possible now.
Hi India. I think your problem is very, [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi India. I think your problem is very, very much depending on from where you speak. I see you speak from India; I speak from Denmark. The very limited knowledge I have about your educational system in India would make it very, very difficult for me to answer. One thing I can say is that the educational systems around the world are very, very different. So, instead may be we should ask ourselves how would an educational system allow a child to bloom? I think what is basic to a child is to enable them to feel self-respect, self-confidence that they are able to feel love, that they are able to act as an individual and listen to and work in a group. So, I think instead what we could do was to look into how would this educational system help children to bloom around the world. They have to look; they have to be creative. They have to take responsibility not only for the group but also for themselves. So, instead may be you should start looking into what -- how would an educational system enable children to bloom, make that list, and look into how could your educational system live up to all these things that it would have to live up to. So, the final answer would be a good educational system would allow children to bloom and we have lots and lots of very great examples. Furthermore, it’s not only the educational system that allows children to bloom, it’s the community, it’s the parents, so there is a lot of them. Okay.
Let’s see, so no, does it? Do you think so? [...]
Kigge Hvid: Let’s see, so no, does it? Do you think so? Of course it doesn’t depend on, is it a direct consequence of our wealth that other people are poor? In some questions it is; in other questions it’s not. During the colonizations of other parts of the world, yes it was a direct consequence. Now the world is very, very, very different. Now it is not a consequence; it is a problem of distribution. It’s a problem of planning. I think what could we do? What you’re aiming at is of course that some parts of the world are starving; other parts of the world are not starving but live in excess with everything they have around them, so what you’re aiming at is of course this question. So what should we do about it? In fact, should we look into the whole system of distribution and planning? Should we also look into the system of the western world throwing money and lots, lots, lots of money, into what was earlier the state referred to as undeveloped countries? If we look into all these systems and the responsibility of looking into this system would be the global society, so what is the global society? It’s first of all the government. It’s the overall governmental institution like the UN and then it’s the people. So, in fact, it’s not a part of it. We can easily, easily having the whole world being not poor like UN is aiming at in the Millennium Development Goal. So it could easily be solved. Who should solve it? The international society which is basically people. So everyone should take care to take part of this. For instance, I come from the science community and we know that scientists around the world are working also on this goal to find out how could we do this differently.
Hi, Nicola. I don't know if we do. I do [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Nicola. I don't know if we do. I do not. Do you? So, who are the big “we”? Is it the international society, is it your government, is it other parts of the government or is this something you see in the medias? But, if we go for your question and beliefs in the facts of your question, how is it so that we believe that other - some people are worth more than others? It’s due to tradition, it’s due to religion, it’s due to egoism, and it’s sometimes also due to greed. Personally, I do not believe that and I think a lot of people in the world would really disagree on this. So, everything, the overall idea is that all human beings are equal. We have a lot of laws, bills of rights, legislation to try to see to that. Sometimes it doesn’t happen, so what we should do about that is have the people to react and have people and movement and government all over the world try to see to that all humans are equal. Another thing is when you ask are some lives worth more than other, or is it soldiers you are referring to? Is it the fact that some people are dying from hunger? Is it the fact that some people live a life that's materially poor than other lives, because also in lives that you do not see as valued, I see a lot of value. I see a lot of other ways of living, a lot of other ways of other tradition that is actually valued.
Hi, you. I can't say your name, but I know [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, you. I can't say your name, but I know you're from Mongolia. That's a place I've really always wanted to go to. So, how should the development of developing countries take place' Is it micro or macro-finance' That's really really a question you have to put to economic thinking people, which I'm not. I could answer you in another way. I think that's what really really important is that you empower people. So, the development of developing countries should be -- I don't know, it should be about micro or macro-financing, though I would think that micro-finance is a really really good invention. No, it should basically be about empowerment. So, instead of helping, supporting, lifting, carrying other people, what we should do is to empower people, to empower people to take care of their own needs, of the needs of their society, of the needs of their community. So, my answer would be, I don't know about micro or macro, but I know about empowerment and what we should do is to empower people to live their life, to take care of their society, to take care of their own development. Hope that helped you. I could tell you also that the sun is shining in Berlin and we're in one of the most historic places in the world. So, right now it's really really beautiful here. I hope it's also beautiful in Mongolia. And, one another thing would be I'd love to go and ride horses in Mongolia.
It's do you feel disadvantaged, do you [...]
Kigge Hvid: It's do you feel disadvantaged, do you yourself as a person -- as a female, if you are a female, feel disadvantaged? Anyway, the problem of women being less powerful and having less opportunities than men is basically a problem about family structure. The problem is though that females seem to care or to tend more to their families, to have taken the biggest job in the family. This can be solved using law. For instance, in Sweden, it is a law that male and female have the same maternity leaves which means first of all that males get to know their children just as well as the female, that’s one thing. It also means that women can keep their job on the market. The other thing is, is it a disadvantage? It’s the values you measure on is the power -- the old-fashioned power, the possibility to have the job to work really hard, to work always, is it to be -- is that better than being allowed to tend to your family for instance. I don’t know. I have a job; I love my job; I would never live without it. I feel equal to the men that surrounds me in the whole world where I get around. So -- but, it’s a value question you pose. What is it to be disadvanced and I think it’s also about you taking responsibility of your surroundings, of your people, of the people around you and also take a stand alone in the world saying I am not disadvanced; I may be female, but I am not disadvanced and that would influence. But, of course, other parts of the world faces different problems due to politics, to religions and that should be solved, and one of the things that could help solving this problem is the international society
Hi, Ethan. I think there is a lot of [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Ethan. I think there is a lot of suffering in the world that’s really in no way connected to drugs. We have hunger, we have bad social ways of living, we have families breaking down, we have illnesses and so on. So, no; still, if there would be no drugs at all in the world there would still be suffering which is part of the human condition. So, the other idea or the other question you asked is, if it’s possible that addiction is not about drugs but basically about the way we live. Yes, it is possible. I believe, I actually live in the streets where a lot of drugs are going on and I believe that drugs basically is about the lack of capability to exist in the world we live in. It’s a way of escaping. Sometimes it only happens on coincidences, it happens when you are on people’s parties and stuff like that. But basically if you are a junkie it is about not being capable of facing the world we live in. And so, yes you are right. It is about the way we live together with people. It’s about communication. It’s about isolation in society. It’s about not being able to relate to the people. It’s about not being able to cry for help and getting help. So, yes, no drugs wouldn’t help the world or wouldn’t solve all problems of the world. And yes, addiction is about not being capable to face the society that’s around you.
So, it is our responsibility and it’s only [...]
Kigge Hvid: So, it is our responsibility and it’s only our responsibility. So our responsibility is huge. It's not only in Africa, it's in Europe, it's in the states, it's in Asia, it's all over the world where we have to solve the problem of AIDS. Actually, it's not that expensive. So, actually I think it's US $50 million you can use and then you could actually solve the problems of AIDS. If you look into a project in Copenhagen called Copenhagen Consensus, they look into how we could use huge economic means and how we should use them to solve the problems of the world. Leading economists from all over the world, all of them would say the thing we should most use the money on is solving the problem of AIDS. So, our responsibility is gigantic. We simply have to do something about it, that’s one thing. The other thing is that we are able to do it, and we just have it to do it now, okay?
Hi Stephanie! Please say hello to Denise [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Stephanie! Please say hello to Denise that I know who lives in Santa Monica. Anyway, I don’t know how to do that. I think the best thing we can do to children all over the world is to give them free choice of opportunities, to give them responsibility, to give them self-esteem, to give them the capacity to understand and connect to themselves and to society who surrounds them. So, that’s one thing. The other thing is that gang violence is like all other violence. It’s often an expression of the fact that pressure would give you. Another pressure would always increase pressure. So, we have to secure that the condition for youngsters in the cities are good, that they are actually able to get an education that they have families, that the family’s doctors are not ruined. All that stuff would help prevent gangs.
Hi Howard! I’ve been talking for some hours [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Howard! I’ve been talking for some hours now, so my voice is getting worse and the sun is still in my eyes. Anyway, I think we already have some of the best economic thinkers in the world looking into that question. Actually, in Copenhagen in Denmark, there’s an event going on called Copenhagen Capacity. They had a group of Noble-prized economic thinkers from all over the world coming to Copenhagen and then posed the question, “What if, I think it was fifty billion U.S. dollars was to be used, how would they be put best to use”? The answer is without question to prevent HIV, to cure HIV, to stop AIDS. So, you could look into the material. You could look into the website of Copenhagen Capacity and what you would find would be that if we used a relatively small amount of money on actually fighting AIDS, the gains on the other hand would be amazing due to the people that wouldn’t die, due to the people who could work, due to the huge generations of young people that would actually have a chance to grow up and do good for the world or simply just live in the world.
Hi Moise! I think it’s a very big question [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Moise! I think it’s a very big question you raised here. And the strange thing is that everything was tried, war, politics, negotiations, table discussion, dialogue, the whole world interfering that there is no problem in the world, that’s so many people looked into and tried to solve as the Middle East issues. So, why is there is no peace? I don’t know. Maybe it’s because we use the same solutions as always. I think that one way to gain peace would be to secure a national state for Israel and for Palestine, to secure that they have their own borders. Their own kind of democracy. Their own secured state where they can feel at home. So, but what if we go back to the beginning, and if we accept that everything has been tried and nothing really worked yet, should we try something else? Maybe we should just admit politics fails, war fails, negotiation fails. So maybe look into other solution. Would it be an idea to have each Palestinian child eating in an Israeli family four days a week and each Israeli child eating in a Palestine family all the other days? Would it be an idea to get the children of the two states, which is the basic issue, is it, would be an idea to work with the children to get them to know each other and respect each other? I see it when I get around the world and talk to clever and intelligent fantastic people all around the world. Still, on a personal level they’re so engaged if they’re Palestinians or if they’re Israeli, they are not able to look into other solution and in no way able to forgive all the stuffs that happened to them and their families.
Hi Glen! There is one saying which is [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Glen! There is one saying which is fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. That’s not entirely true, but in some places, for instance, in your country, it was necessary to have violence involved in stopping politicians from doing something you didn’t want. But, basically, the only way we stop our governments from going to war is to speak up. So now, this also depends on whether people live in a democracy or not. In a democracy, what you do is you speak up, you vote, you discuss, you speak up loudly.
Hi Michelle. I actually believe it is [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Michelle. I actually believe it is necessary, that one operates on several different levels. A sole global administration would be a horrible thing for me. Because it would in fact mean that the center of administration would be much too far away from the people, who it ruled. So I think it is necessary to have a list of different institutions to solve this form of general global problems. I think we need to have local councils. In Denmark for instance, it could be the town council (meningen forsvinder hvis jeg også skriver kommuner). Then we need to have regional councils. It could be part of a country forming a council. Or parts of different countries, being close to each other. We also need national councils, this would normally be national administrations(I think she means national assemblies, when she says administration). Then we need to have transnational councils or global councils. I am a strong supporter of the UN. I believe the idea behind the UN, is one of the best ideas ever conceived. The UN have been neglected, it they have been destroyed. The UN have not been used to its their full potential. This does not mean the preservation of the UN is wrong. It only means we can do a much, much better job. So the answer would be: we need to have governments, or councils, or institutions which governs on many different levels. To ensure an overall global coherence and thinking, but also to ensure the contact to the people, the users of the system , to the humanity.
Hi Haya! To me, it’s different, to me the [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Haya! To me, it’s different, to me the fact is that when a nation declares war on another nation and on the overall targets the nation, not the civilians, then it’s a war which can be self-defense. If it’s terrorism, to me, it’s if minority not representing the whole or the majority declare war on civilians, on individuals and [INAUDIBLE], not controlled by government or by democracy. Then we have another thing, a third thing that to me is very important, which would be resistance. To me, resistance is when the laws of a country, of a state, of a nation does not apply to the feelings, the values and the wishes of the majority, then resistance is necessary and can be used, resistance can be violent or can be nonviolent, but resistance can be needed which is different from both war and from terrorism.
Hi, Angela! I’m not sure if this is right. [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Angela! I’m not sure if this is right. Is there an increase in the civilian casualties of war in modern time? Yes, there were in World War II and World War I but now, it seems to me that the casualties are smaller. Civilian casualties are a fact in war. As long as we wage war, we will have civilian casualties. That’s how it is. That will never be stopped unless let’s put an end to the war. So, but what can we do to limit the numbers of civilian casualties? The only thing we can do is to have better international laws. Have better international bills, and have states and people applying to them. I think, another maybe smaller but another problem in civilian casualties is if you could use that words in some ways, somewhere, the moral or the ethics of war is decreasing, which means that in my opinion, more and more often see civilians used as shields for soldiers, which is of course unacceptable.
Hi Florian in Germany! How much of our [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Florian in Germany! How much of our liberty are we going to offer for security or supposed security? I don’t know, but right now you see a lot of people being really, really willing to offer a lot of liberty. You see people being surveyed. You see places being surveyed. You see people, that’s one thing, I mean I can live with the survey of [hypocrites] bases in Copenhagen, that’s not a problem to me, but the really, really thing why you really limited your freedom, your liberty is the fear you imposed on yourself. It’s the fear when you close your door. It’s the fear when you put the fence around your house. It’s the fear when you survey your children all the time. It’s the fear when you always, always, always need to carry this helmet when you go on a bike. I guess you’re hinting to the threat of terrorism in the western world right now, and the fact that a lot of systems are being installed to survey public places and stuff like that and all. The fundamental human rights and laws are often being broken to let people look into your mails, to your letters, to the books you lend at a library. But I actually think that the worst fear is the fear or the biggest limitation is the fear you impose on yourself when you do not connect to people. [more in another language]. Well Florian, now I begin speaking Danish, because I am Dane, and that is something completely different. At the moment society makes a whole lot of rules because we are scared in the western world because of terrorism. And we accept that a whole, whole lot of laws are broken. That the constitution is broken, that the constitution is being bypassed and changed. That is one thing; I can live with a part of that. What I find very hard living with, is the fear people put into them selves. The fear people have inside themselves. People are in fact afraid to meet each other. People in fact in no way trust each other anymore. I actually feel that I trust really, really, really much and have trust in really many people. And that have never caused me any harm.
Hi Chris! I think that one thing that is the [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Chris! I think that one thing that is the mark of our way of life, if you then by that mean the western world, the one thing that’s specific for our way of life is democracy. And many wars are waged due to the fact that we want to implement democracy in other countries. I think the whole idea about that is very, very difficult because democracy is not a thing you get. It’s not a thing that people can impose on you. It’s not a thing you can be given. Democracy is the thing that grows. In the western world, it took us many hundred years to go democracy. There’s a long line of history to watch democracy before we actually got it. That’s the time of enlightenment. I don’t know if you know what that is. That’s after the middle ages. The problem is right now, that often we go to foreign countries with a totally different culture, totally different way of living and we try to impose our way of living on them within weeks, within years, within months sometimes. That’s not possible. If you want to impose our way of life, which I have chosen to see as democracy, then it must grow from within the country. It’s not something that’s given to you. It’s something that’s growing which is really, really important.
Hi Bo. If we look at it, then it is always [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Bo. If we look at it, then it is always very, very difficult to say who the good humans are. Who are the decent humans? I can see you speak from America. And you believe your leader, that your government takes care of it self, and does what you like it to do. Look, it is actually the case that exactly your government represent just about half of the Americans. Therefore we must presume that this government acts as just about half of the American population wants. This is called democracy. Your claim could then just as well be that just about half of the Americans are not decent humans. This I can absolutely not agree with. I actually think it is very, very hard to label people, and to say who is good and who is not good. That was the one thing. But how can one then work to improve the world as such. I actually think we have better opportunity for that than ever before. We have knowledge, we have technology, we have insight, we have connection around the world, we have the Internet, we have mass medias and we have ways of communication. So actually I think, that we now have the opportunity to make the world far, far better than it has ever been before. What will it take before we seize this opportunity? In a democracy it takes for us to elect the leaders we feel represent our views. And in a democracy it is also so, that we simply need to accept if there are other people with other views. Another thing is that we our self take part. One thing is to be represented by politicians. Another thing is to take part your self. One simply has a right, a duty to use ones freedom of speech and to take part. So how do we define decent humans? If we can say “decent” humans exist, which I actually do not think we can. Because “decent” will always be a subjective consideration, defined from your point of view. And I think you count yourself as one of the “decent” humans. I actually quite often think this is a problem. For instance at this table super, super, super many fantastic humans are seated. There is one thing I miss. Where are the business people? Where is the huge business community? They are not here. Is this because they are not decent humans? Is this because they are not free voices in the world? I think this is completely wrong. So to sum up, if “decent” humans are to help each other making the world better, then they actually need to learn how to listen to a lot of different point of views than their own. And they need to learn how to work together with a whole lot of humans, who might not believe the same as they. And most certainly have completely different professional skills and knowledge than they do.
Yes, to me it’s a basic human right that [...]
Kigge Hvid: Yes, to me it’s a basic human right that everyone should have the right to choose where we live.
Hi Friedman in Chicago! I don’t know. Was [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Friedman in Chicago! I don’t know. Was the fact that the Africans were brought over as slaves, the actual basis of racism, of being afraid of people who look different, of people who acted different or people who’s taught different? If it was, and I don’t know if it was, if it was, and if you could imagine society where you had never, never ever had fear of people who were different from you, the world would be very much different now. We would then have a world without fear, with a greater understanding of each other or maybe not understanding but acceptance that people were different. So, if the slave thing was the basis of racism, which it wasn’t, because we saw that even before slavery, but if it was, world would be very, very different.
Hi Alex! No, not as a way of ruling the [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Alex! No, not as a way of ruling the world and you ruling nations. There’s a lot of things much better than democracy. Fun, happiness, love, sex, but as a way of ruling, no.
Hi Sandra! I try without the glasses because [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Sandra! I try without the glasses because the sun is out now. To me, there is one thing and that is, war is war. Violence is violence, no matter what. Holy war is war fought due to religion. In my point of view, holy war can be just and holy war can be unjust. Just like a lot of other wars. All other wars can be just and unjust. The unjust can just think, also is depending on from which side you see it. Most wars and wars between nations will seem just to the aggressor and unjust to the sufferer.
Hi Jody. I think there is one thing. [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Jody. I think there is one thing. Considering huge superior changes. Political changes, social changes, economic changes. There is one thing, which is absolutely necessary, and that is time. The next necessary, is the fact that these changes cannot be given. Changes have to be taken, must be developed. If we are talking about the change from dictatorship to democracy I honestly believe democracy can not be given. You can have it, you can assist, can help, if you have experience with democracy. But what is absolutely crucial for at country to change from a dictatorship into a democracy is the presence of cultural understanding and cultural basis for this change. This means, there has to be education, there has to be knowledge, there has to be engagement from these people this is actually about or else it is a lost case from the beginning. You also ask, if there is any way America can lose or be emancipated from its position as the most powerful nation? Well, there is one way, that is other nations being equally powerful. This is the old power balance, which have been present for a long time. Here we see EU as one of these powers, that are growing rather rapidly. And starting to taking its standing. So this is one way, actually right now I cannot see others.
If you think about, if by profit means [...]
Kigge Hvid: If you think about, if by profit means economic profiting, there’s a lot, a lot of people profiting from terrorism. Basically, I would say that the people profiting from terrorism are the people living and profiting from fear. These are radicals on both sides, the arms industries, the medias, the security companies, all the people who actually earn money on this. On the other hand, on not economic profiting, who would be profiting from terrorism? I think there’s one thing really strange about it, which is, since terrorism really struck or outside terrorism because we had terrorism in Ireland and Spain and so on, in Europe, but since it really struck, it made people think. It made some people think and it made a lot of people fear. The only good thing I could see about terrorism would be, if it made people think of how to plan the world in another way. Still, I would say that terrorism paid by individuals or paid by a state is in no way profitable for the world. It’s to attack civilians, which is on all levels unacceptable.
There are many different forms of courage. [...]
Kigge Hvid: There are many different forms of courage. If we concentrate on completely personal level, then I think courage for me is to do the things, to think the thoughts others do not do or think. Disagreeing with others. To do and think what I think is right, but not commonly accepted. That is one thing, but you can also see examples of real courage around the world. Very often it is connected to superior political circumstances. We are sitting on a square here in Berlin, where, under the reign of Nazism, books from all those talking against the regime were burned. The way of thinking, all the knowledge the regime did not like, those books were simply burned exactly here where we sit. In this kind of situation it is courage to keep saying and believing what you actually believe, without regards to the fact that it is dangerous to you. So there are many different kinds of courage. Is there anyone in particular in the world today that is really courageous? Ye, there are humans who work, think or act under conditions that many of us find completely preposterously. They get beaten, thrown in prison, kept imprisoned for many, many years. Well, you can consider Nelson Mandela as a symbol of great courage. But are any certain causes making me think some people are very courageous? Yes, I actually believe courage often has several states of expression. If we focus on Nelson Mandela, he was courageous beyond all borders. He was persistent and pursuing. But you also have to acknowledge de Klerk, who together with Mandela ensured the abolition of the Apartheid. He was also extremely courageous, because he was, if any, working against the interests of his clan.
Hi Wolfgang! It is not only supposed, it is [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Wolfgang! It is not only supposed, it is in fact, much more dangerous and the reason for this is, the people who has their hands on the bomb. In a nondemocracy, you sincerely lack the control by media, by politicians, by law, by the voice of the people, and by the world opinion. So, when an Iranian bomb is more dangerous than a bomb in a democracy, it’s simply due to the lack of control. On the other hand of course, the actual bomb is just as horrible as dangerous and as unwanted in the world.
Hi, Maria! You also live in a place where [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Maria! You also live in a place where you used to have overall problems and conflicts. Ops, I have decided to speak Danish. So this is something completely different. The purpose of international law is of course to secure that some common human rules are complied with. If we turn our attention on for instance the rules about war. Then it shows that we actually have some strong international laws about how states should behave at war. For instance, civilians must not be targeted. There are certain weapons, which are not allowed, there are certain methods that are not allowed to use. And then you asked: why should we have these laws if they are not complied with? You are absolutely right, but it would not be any better if we did not have these rules. So the purpose of this discussion must be: how do we secure that these laws actually are complied with? How do we ensure, for instance, that the whole legislation about war is complied with. We already have international courts to ensure the rules are being complied with. It is already possible to drag a head of state to court, if he has taken part in a war, and if in this war many, many civilians have been killed. So we are actually in the process recognizing of that the international laws do not only exist because they are good and we need them, but also because they need to be respected. The other thing we can do is to react every time a law is not obeyed. Then it must be spoken out loudly to the world. And we have some amazing means to speak up now. Because it actually happens to be like this; even if you are not able to reach the mass media, if you are not famous, if you are not able to get on the air, you still can get on the air, via the Internet. So there is actually a way [to express yourself], and to keep underlining [that the laws shall be upheld. There is a larger critical mass after the Internet has been given to us. And you are able to rally a much larger critical mass, using the Internet. So the Internet could actually be a democratic weapon, which could take part in further ensuring the laws agreed upon are also complied with. Laws, many of which actually are very sensible.
Hi, Yang! I think when politics fails to [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Yang! I think when politics fails to give people influence on their own lives and when politics do not apply to the values and the feelings of most people, then you increase the risk of violence as a political weapon. In many ways you can say that violence and war is a non-verbal way of gaining influence on the world. So basically, this is about if you want to avoid violence due to politics, then you have to give people influence on their lives and you have to have a system that applies to the feeling and the interest of most people.
Hi Adrienn! Actually, I think it’s that [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Adrienn! Actually, I think it’s that colonialism is part of the one of the first steps of globalization. It’s said that globalization grew from colonialism, which was the state’s going out into the world oppressing, using other states. On the next level, we had the companies going out into the world, the establishment of the huge international or multinational brands, and now, we have the third step of globalization, which is on an individual level which is individual network with individual moving around in the world, individuals connected to people around the world. So, in my point of views, this step in globalization is a very, very positive step, which enables people to connect, to know, to understand, to talk to and to discuss with people all over the world. It also enables people from different countries with specific needs or with specific values to connect to each other. So in many ways we now also see the rise of tribes across nation, across oceans, across the globe. So this could be the modern version of colonialism, which I find very positive.
Hi Adelina! I’ll start by asking to the last [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Adelina! I’ll start by asking to the last part of your question; no freedom is not relative to where you live in the world. Freedom is something absolute. It is not relative. It’s exercised differently in different places in the world. The limits within your freedom or around your freedom are different to where you live. But freedom is not relative. It’s perfect. It’s something. It is, so, what is freedom? Freedom is your possibility of choosing. It’s the limits of how much you can choose. To be free, you have to be able to choose how and why to care for yourself, your family, to get education, to choose where you live, to choose your religion, to choose how you live. So basically, you can say that freedom is to be able to choose on all the basics part and very, very important part of your world and it’s not relative.
Hi, Saphyre! That’s really, really difficult [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi, Saphyre! That’s really, really difficult to answer but of course, you knew that and that’s why you post the question. To me, the line goes between what the common, which is the majority at least decide and what you feel you want to do. If you decide or if you live in a democracy, you have to live with the fact or not even in a democracy, if you live with other people, you simply have to sometimes live with the fact that other people want to do something else that you want to do. So, but if you live in democracy, if this is about law, then it must be a question about, if the majority decides something, then you have to obey to that if you want to live in a democracy. So, but it’s really, really difficult and it’s on really different levels. There’s an overall governmental, national level and then there’s your own personal level. So, the things should be that we should not make laws. We should not make regulations for all parts of the world. Sometimes, in my society, which is in Denmark, I see more and more laws coming, and I see that connected to the medias. Every time we have just a small, small, small case, which could be a crime, a rape or robbery, somebody cheating someone then, we have medias claiming for new legislation for new laws. So, if you have this total control, this total law regulation of society, your liberty, your freedom will be diminished, which is to me a horrible fact. So, how do we decide? Which should be the overall laws of our society? Who decides? People decide. It should people. It should be the representatives of the people, which are government or international organizations like the U.N. So, we must have laws on different levels [AUDIO ENDS]
Hi Roy! We have in history a lot of examples [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Roy! We have in history a lot of examples and exactly the country from where you are, from where you lived in India taught the world of non-violent resistance. On the other hand, we saw the results and the success and the need of violent resistance in South Africa, and we saw the lucky result of that. So, yes, I would think we need very different ways of resisting, spanning from speaking of using the freedom of speech, using demonstrations, thinking, writing, reading, talking. And on the other extreme or the other end of the line, violence and war is depending on the culture fighting for, it’s depending on the oppression you are against. And I think violence should only be used if it’s the question of the majority’s rights, feelings and values being oppressed.
My heroes are those who act and think, [...]
Kigge Hvid: My heroes are those who act and think, without fear and without prejudices.
Well Chen. If we do that, we would have a [...]
Kigge Hvid: Well Chen. If we do that, we would have a really, really big problem. It could be good thinking as you do. It would mean that we needed to create a whole different kind of global economy. Copyright and protection of pattern etc. etc. is constructed in such a way that the ones that actually think the thought and invest all the development funds in a new - tangible or not - product, is also the ones earning the money. If this has to be stopped, we need a whole new kind of global economy. What would happen if we did? Would it actually strengthen creativity and innovation? I am not so sure that copyrights stops creativity and development. Sometimes I actually think that the economical incitement lying behind your ability to copyright protect, is part of strengthening the creativity. Aids medicine for the third world for instance is another area within the medical area, where copyright is a major strain. In co-operation with the companies who invest the development funds, and we are talking very large development funds, we should try to see if one can create some solutions. So the state, company and communities together can create some solutions, so that people who are ill, for instance by HIV and cannot afford their medicine, have the opportunity to receive that medicine. It is an interesting thought. But a very, very extensive thought, and I am not sure it would provide the result you want, being more creativity.
Hi David. Yes, there absolutely is. And it [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi David. Yes, there absolutely is. And it is visible now. The way it is visible, actually is that our icebergs melts. The human race is more and more affected by allergies, more and more people are getting ill, more and more natural disasters occur. We still are not absolutely sure that the natural disasters, the flooding, the storms, have anything to do with the ecology. If it does have anything to do with it, we now have visible evidence. Then you can ask - what do we do about it? How do we respond, when we see that there actually is an ecological limit to economical growth? Again it is all about new solutions, we need to think differently. I believe it is absolutely impossible to convince humans to decrease their welfare, to decrease their wealth. Actually there are too many advantages in great economical wealth to convince the human population to not wanting to have it. One neither can convince the ones who have not got it, to never getting it. It is hard to convince people to not having a car, when they really would like a car. This is one thing which is important, to accept that we need to find other solutions, instead of expecting a fall in living standards. The other thing which is super important right now, is making sure history does not repeat it self. At the moment a long list of very, very large countries is being industrialised, countries that have not previously been industrialised. What we can do is to make sure that this industrialisation does not affect the environment in the same way the environment have been affected by the western world’s industrialisation, those things of course must be done. That is a question about influencing governments, the United Nations, supranational units, organisations, companies etc. etc. And sharing knowledge besides.
Yes I think so. And honestly, so what? I [...]
Kigge Hvid: Yes I think so. And honestly, so what? I think a lot of the new technological aids, or I know, also make it possible to conduct a much, much stronger surveillance in the world. Firstly surveillance was also possible earlier. Secondly I believe the advantages of our new technology, is far, far greater, unless the case is quite serious and grave, so we need not care about it. This means for the ordinary human in the ordinary society the advantages are far, far greater. You can see an example like Google Earth, which is an amazing system. When it is developed it will of course give evil rulers, evil terrorists and other people with evil intentions an opportunity to surveillance the world in a way we absolutely cannot imagine right now. I believe that the ones who have the need for surveillance and the reason to monitor, they already are doing so. They have the technology. What is happening is that technology is being democratised and is put to use in many positive ways for people all over the world. So yes the surveillance is properly larger, so what? The advantages are far, far greater than the risks and the problems it give.
Hi Ian. I do not know, I do understand what [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Ian. I do not know, I do understand what you mean. When it is about wild animals, then it is a question whether that the animals you mention, actually have become domestic animals. We are domestic animals, we actually been that through our whole history, in any case a very, very long time back. The human is a domestic animal, if we can put it like that. So does technology influence that? Yes somewhere the technology is part of making people lazier, more indolent, more apathetic. Somewhere else technology actually is part of making people more active, more outgoing, more engaged and more linked to each other. I do not think there is a straightforward answer to your question. But of course there is a risk, a risk that can be opposed by the individual. Communities or larger communities can also fight it, this could be governments etc. etc. But there is a risk for both parts, which is part of what we have to live with. I think the advantages with our new technology are much, much bigger then the disadvantages. In some way I also think your question gives the impression that we cannot influence technology. We can influence the technology. Gives the impression that we cannot decide ourselves how the technology can be used. We have the possibility to deselect the technology; we can choose some parts of the technology and ignore others. Sometimes I think your question also sounds like “huh, we can not do anything about it ourselves” Of course we can, you have a choice yourself.
Hi Kat. It happens to be so, that I believe [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Kat. It happens to be so, that I believe there is one thing we must do. And that is basically to use our knowledge to generate energy that is renewable or from sources which are renewable. And then we have to ensure, via legislation, that this is the kind of energy used. It happens to be so that when we legislate and say: so and so shares of energy have to be from renewable sources, then it actually happens, then cars, all of a sudden, can ride on wind. Then cars, all of a sudden, can ride on water. Then cars, all of a sudden, can ride on solar energy. So we have to use our knowledge to create new and renewable energy sources. Then we need to legislate that these sources actually have to be used and respected. I believe it is absolutely naïve to think one can lower the living standard. The advantages by the proportional high living standards are so huge to humanity, that we need forget the dream about everyone returning to riding horse-drawn carriages. This will not happen; therefore we need to use our resources differently, by developing methods, preventing us from destroying our environment. And do not use the limited energy sources. So this what I think one needs to do. I actually believe it is like this, legislation, innovation, this it what is needed, and it is possible to do.
The organisation I represent, INDEX in [...]
Kigge Hvid: The organisation I represent, INDEX in Copenhagen, award the world’s largest designs with a prize. Last year the winning project actually made it possible to supply pure water for one person for a year, at a cost of only 3 dollars. It is a simple straw with filters, which make it possible to drink water from almost any contaminated water source, being lakes, rivers etc. etc. and retrieve purified water. This is a temporary solution, a solution usable right away, at a very, very low cost, and it is simple to distribute all over the world. If making a permanent solution for the issue of clear water in the world is our focus, then the quality of the water both in Germany and in Denmark etc. etc is increasing. Our rivers, lakes etc. etc. become clearer and clearer. This solution must also be used in the developing countries. I think it is done best by starting looking into innovation. And as a part of the United Nations’ development goals for 2015, to make sure that the best resources around the world are being assigned to the task of figuring out how to do it. What we do at INDEX, is to put some of the worlds leading designers and innovative thinkers, and a list of the worlds most interesting young designers, to use design mythology and design competences, to see how we can make sure there is fresh water for everyone in the world. Another way is to affect governments, supranational councils, companies and one also makes it economical interesting for companies to be a part of developing these goals. So we make sure that the great knowledge and research within private companies also can be used in this area.
Yes Eric, of course the answer must be: in a [...]
Kigge Hvid: Yes Eric, of course the answer must be: in a short term yes, in a long term no. But one can say, that if one actually is put in that position, and acknowledges and knows, that one is put in that situation, being that new technology in short term can harm many humans, in long term can save many human lives. Then I think what one should do, is to thoroughly investigate if there is other technology, other options, which in the short term wont have the same side affect, if we can call it so. What one has to before deciding to do it, is investigating all other options. When one has investigated the options and has seen there is a technology which in short term will harm ten thousands, but in long term will help millions of humans, then I believe there can be a basis for saying: yes, we develop this technology. Such a technology should be under the public’s administration. This means the development must take place openly, so the politicians, the medias, the public opinion etc. etc. have access to continuously comment on the development
Hi Mike. In any case there is one thing I [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Mike. In any case there is one thing I would never do. That would be to start preparing the whole world to the disaster, when it arrives. Look, I do not think we are there. On the contrary I actually see, that there are so many good visions in the world. So many good signs indicating, that there is a lot of people thinking in a different way - starting to think about solutions, rather than thinking traditional. And therefore I actually believe we never will go there, I actually believe that what is important we do now is to make sure we wont go there. Instead of giving up and say: “Well, we are going there and it is going to be absolutely awful, and everything is going straight down the drain”. I do not believe it is going to happen, I see that more and more of the boundaries which previously existed in the world, black and white, business and the people, and also many of these boundaries which were existing previously, wealthy and poor etc. That the thoughts in these different groups are getting more and more similar, and that one is interested in hauling in the same direction. When I travel around the world and talk with for instance business executives, then I experience that many of them have almost the same values and the same wishes as I do. And they are using their position, from their place in society to take part in hauling in the direction, which could help making a world, which could be better, safer, more fun to be in. So I will absolutely not start preparing the world, I will simply make sure that it would never happen and I believe we are entirely capable of doing it. [Pause] Mike I actually believe I want to say one more thing. I think you are speaking from a base of fear, and I think fear is a completely awful thing in the world. Fear is preventing people from acting, fear is what prevents people from thinking freely, fear is what makes people panic. So instead of fearing that this would happen, and then I honestly think you should be taking part in doing something, so this wont happen. And you can do something.
Hi Michael. I think your question is really [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Michael. I think your question is really damn prejudiced. Because it is actually the fact for most parts of the world, that the TV which is supplied, is the TV which is demanded. This is known from very high accurately measurements, and it is possible to see that it is actually what people watch. So if you think what is shown on TV is shit, then you are actually taking part in judging all those who do not think that. That was a point that I think is important. The other thing is that a very large part of our information in the world is concentrated on fewer and fewer hands. These hands are very good at finding what people want. But still there are fewer and fewer, actually almost just a handful of people, who dominate the media landscape, or certainly the commercialised media landscape. That’s the way it is. The question is - can this be changed? But we have other medias; we have other options for mass medias. We have the Internet, we have podcasts and we have all these kind of things. That is an opportunity to secure another kind of content. I think this could be one of the solutions, if many people like you think, what is being broadcast on the mass medias at the moment is without relevance and without benefit. Well then the question is, if we now in fact can use the Internet to broadcast what we think is relevant - the radiobroadcasts, uploading the books, make the videos, make the films, that we ourselves think is relevant. So in fact there are options to secure, that the media image can disperse more and more, and more people can gets access to the medias while the media image on the other hand is gathering more and more.
Hi. Yes. Sometimes I get the thought “how [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi. Yes. Sometimes I get the thought “how can we be sure there is a risk? How can we be so certain that this is going wrong? Why is it that when there is a possibility that it could go wrong, we believe it will? Sometimes I could actually wish someone said: “Okay then, we need to gamble and we aim at this to go well, so that genetic engineering, genetic development, genetic research can be a part of doing something good to our society, can be a part of solving starvation problems, can solve the huge health problems, can solve problems of water supplies, can solve many other problems in the world”. Sometimes actually I think - “Well, could we have a world with a little more diversity?” Star Wars - if you think about that for an instance. I would like to live in a world where all these amazing creatures like Jar Jar Binks and many other good ones surrounded us. Of course I am joking, but my point is: how come you take the negative standpoint? It could also be possible to take the positive standpoint and believe some of these new technologies, among them genetic engineering, actually are a positive addition to the world.
Hi Springer from Berlin. That is a difficult [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Springer from Berlin. That is a difficult question you ask. But one can say that the whole basis for science is the observation. And there are many who would think that if something, anything, is observed, then it is also being affected. So that could be the starting point; that no form of science is objective. Another thing one does in science is to set up controlled environments for what one observes. As soon as you create a controlled environment, you have made a long list of decisions, which all will be decisive for the output you will receive. Solely on a technical background science is not objective. The other thing I thing: why should we ask our best thinkers in world, our scientist to be objective. I actually rather prefer to have their opinion, their explanation, their foundation for their way of thinking, their point of view after they have studied a huge scientific area. What one could recommend was to receive a list containing all the areas they think they have missed, a list containing the conditions they have taken in account in their work. A list containing all the things they have ignored, which they know they have ignored. So I actually believe the thought of science is objective is not correct, because it is about observing. The next part is that I neither thinks it is correct because if we demand that it is objective, then we wont get the best of our scientist. So no.
Hi Joe. Mainly it is important to understand [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Joe. Mainly it is important to understand the problems. That is if you really want to. So you simply have to understand. One way you could do so for the time being, is to watch the movie publicly known at the moment - made amongst others by Al Gore. So this is the first thing you can do. The next thing is of course to remember to turn of your electric lights and use a lid when boiling water etcetera. It is all small efforts saving energy. But these efforts do not have a large impact on the general situation. What really would make a difference, was if you and others could try to influence government, co-operations, organisations, institutions to think in new directions. This could be done by debates, movies, on the Internet etc. etc. It happens to be so, that if every car in America could drive 12 km. more on a litre of gas, then America would be independent of oil. This would mean a great difference in the situation between war and peace in the world. Another thing is, today cars can ride on ethanol. It is so today, that we are able to make cars that use completely different fuels and renewable fuels, than we are used to. And thereby avoid pollution and avoid consummation of limited energy sources. So it is possible. It is solely a question doing so. Should this be done - then governments, car producers, electricity producers etc. etc have to be influenced to change. And this could happen. Another thing is Denmark, the little country I come from, is fourth largest supplier of wind energy. This means, that one of the things you can do in the USA, is to influence your government and your representatives to ensure that the energy we use is renewable energy. In addition you also have to make sure that the question about CO2 discharge e.g. is also a question about legislation. When California decide, that there no longer can be CO2 releases from cars, then California, because it is the state with the largest number of car purchasers in the world, then they change the legislation in USA all at once.
Hi Nathan. That is a difficult question, [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Nathan. That is a difficult question, because I believe it is absolutely crucial, to secure methods, to develop new methods, which ensures that one is not forced to essentially decrease the prosperity, for instance in the USA, while at the same time ensure a similar prosperity, because prosperity is linked to consumption, in other parts of the world, for instance in China and India. If one is to do that, there needs to be thought very differently, than one does at the moment. There needs to be thought differently on micro levels, meaning on personally levels in the individual home. And on superior national levels and again on a global level. I think one of the methods one should try to use, was to gather some of the world’s greatest designers to figure out how we do this. Then create a list of international councils that work together via the Internet. Councils which are including a lot of different qualifications. Being from sociologists, to economists, to jurists, to designers. Material people, marketing people. Get them together, the world could simply establish 20 conclusive councils working with these processes, and trying to find new solutions after defining the demand. One also needs to investigate, what can the user, what can the American, what can the Indian, what can the Chinese actually accept to live with. These are processes we possess at the moment and these could be used to find a qualified answer to your, by the way, very difficult question.
Hi Kenneth. Now I will to answer regarding [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Kenneth. Now I will to answer regarding to both architecture and design, architecture as the big scale and design seen as the small scale. Architecture and design shape the world that surround us, design the products, both tangible and not tangible, the products that surround us. There is no doubt that they have an enormous impact on our surroundings. The question is, if this influence can be better. I think there are some very crucial parameters, being that one as a designer and architect familiarize oneself with the - acknowledged or not - needs of the consumer. This means that a designer or architect does not design out of divine inspiration, but that one designs from a thorough knowledge about the needs of the consumer. If you want to see a list of concrete examples on how this sort of thing can work and how architecture and design can help and support our global society. Then I think you should visit “Architecture for humanity”, their website, which is about how architects and designers act in concrete areas of crisis, in entirely big, big concrete challenges in the world. So go visit it, there is no doubt it is being done well at the moment and that it can be done a lot much better.
I would reluctantly see a future of black [...]
Kigge Hvid: I would reluctantly see a future of black and white. It is a future, with somebody are the good ones and somebody are the evil ones. Where somebody are the rich ones and somebody are the poor ones. I would like to see a future where the form of - what I regard as a very old fashioned way of thinking – where that thinking is demolished. Where one instead thinks across, where one thinks without disbelief, where one thinks without prejudice. Instead one should make sure, for instance in problem solving, to involve many different abilities, many different thoughts, many different ways to address solutions. I think our world is still affected by the seeing in a black and white vision, in the same way we did before the wall fell. That is when we had communism and capitalism, when we had the big evil multinational co-operations, when we had the workers. I do not think the world is like that anymore. I think a break down of those boundaries is happening, and the places I go and discuss with people around the world, I experience over and over again, that people I previously thought had directly opposite agenda in fact have the completely same agenda as I. And they also try to make things better from their position in the world.
It depends on what kind of mass medias we [...]
Kigge Hvid: It depends on what kind of mass medias we are talking about. If we are only talking about the commercial mass medias, such as newspapers, TV-networks etc. etc., then I think there is one kind of answer. If we also talk about the non-profit mass medias for instance the Internet, then my opinion is: whatever makes people able to connect to each other, to communicate with each other, makes us able to understand each other, is good. So if we are talking about these medias, for instance the Internet, then I definitely believe it is an opportunity. It is a way of democratising the flow of news, because the Internet and podcast etc. etc., make you as an individual or as a smaller group, actually able to use the medias. So this is one thing and this is on a general democratic level. Another thing is that we are constantly bombarded with news and inputs from the medias, and with pictures. I myself often think this is a problem, meaning I simply can stand it. There is simply too much of it and I can not handle the huge impact and I cannot make a properly selection in the massive impact. I believe this is something a lot of people experience and this is on a completely personal level. So I actually think the human mind should be much, much better at deselecting. In my home we are two children and a mother and a father. Television we do not watch, at least we do it very, very seldom. We read the newspaper, of course we read book and we listen to the radio. But it is seldom that we watch television, and what it gives us is huge amounts of time, our evening are very long. It is not because of principals we do not watch television, but it is usually because there is nothing worth watching. And this has actually given us extra time. So in that sense one could say: if one sometimes deselects the many medias, then what you get is time. And that is very, very nice.
Nicolas, it already is. It is happening all [...]
Kigge Hvid: Nicolas, it already is. It is happening all over the world. You can have a computer record oscillation in the brain; in addition to that you can get them to sensor emotions and the physical outputs emotions produce. It is already happening, if you want to know more about this, I would visit NASAs website, I would visit MITs website and look for it. Yes it is happening. If you are thinking about whether it is possible to pour memories, pictures, thoughts directly from the brain to a computer, then we need to have a lot larger knowledge about what thoughts, emotions and the processes that happen in the brain really are, larger than we have today. But I have no doubt that it is going to happen. When it is going to happen, it will, as I think about all technology, both have great advantages and disadvantages attached to it.
I think it is crucial that one develop quite [...]
Kigge Hvid: I think it is crucial that one develop quite concrete technology and Internet based tools that give equal access to knowledge all over the world. One example is of course M.I.Ts 100 dollar laptop. Other examples are servers, which are put at disposal for free. Another example again is microfilm based educational archives and encyclopaedias. So it is possible to develop and it is already under development all over the world. The other thing is that before receiving education, there are some starting points that should be taken care of. One of course must have enough to eat, one must have roof over the head and one should have the option to feel safe or to feel secure. Before making sure that everyone gain equal access to education, we must make sure that everyone have those basic starting points before even being able educate oneself.
Well, this is in fact a difficult question. [...]
Kigge Hvid: Well, this is in fact a difficult question. But really I want to say: you are sitting in the USA and you ask some people sitting in Berlin about that. I think a step in the right direction would be for you not to ask people over here, but ask the people sitting next to you.
Hi Rodrigo! There are very, very many good [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Rodrigo! There are very, very many good ways to do this and I’m going to swap to Danish. Sorry for that you have to read the translation. [more in another language]. There are many amazing examples showing how the Internet can be used to help and promote solution of bad economy and social problems. One example is one of the winners of INDEX awards 2005, which is called "From the start Obsvatorio"[Read comments] This is an Internet based network of 40 million Spanish speaking arts craftsmen in Latin America. What is happening on this site, which is also linked to concrete physical educational establishments and workshops, is that the many Latin American arts craftsmen and craftsmen, who are having their bread taken out of their mouth because of the globalisation. Via this site they have the opportunity to access knowledge about new technology, about new markets, establish connection to manufactures around the world, get new knowledge about materials, get knowledge about new laws, get knowledge about new inventions in their area of expertise. Beyond that they have opportunity for physically meeting and attending classes. This is just one example showing how the Internet can help in this area. Another one is in Nepal where a new system, interface and mobile phone have been designed for farmers having yak oxen. The tradition is that they take yak oxen from the village and take them very, very far up into the mountains in the summer, where the farmer takes care of his oxen without any connection to the outside world. This means they do not have any connection to their family. It means they have not got any connection to vets. Now they have been given access to the Internet, which makes them able to get guidance about the health status of their livestock, they can sell milk, meat and livestock via the Internet. At the same time they have connection to their family. So this is yet an example. Another example would be a system, also nominated to INDEX award 2005, with foundation in the thinking of Prahalad the inverse pyramids. Internet is put at disposal for free, with server capacity based on the Internet, for people around the world. And at the same time computers, powered by solar energy, developed amongst others on M.I.T, are provided. Another way to give people access and connection, so that social problems can be solved and secure local economy.
It is two things, firstly it is love and [...]
Kigge Hvid: It is two things, firstly it is love and secondly it is, what is bigger than me.
I think it has starting points in different [...]
Kigge Hvid: I think it has starting points in different things. One thing is what is being offered. And there is no doubt about that the media landscape that surrounds us and all the pictures that surrounds us in general, are getting stronger and stronger and have larger and larger influence on us. And it could look as if most things in the world can be bought and sold, but for instance when one reads your books then it is obvious that what is in the world cannot only be bought and sold. So I think it is most important to be part of creating a cultural diversity. Instead of doing like this and constantly narrowing down, we should open up and involve us in different forms of debates. I see very many places in the world where different groups come into existence with different focuses, which are not all about purchases and sales, which are not all about consuming. So this Internet based, network based, rise of new interest group, of new forums etc. etc. is a way to avoid that and it is something you can take part in. It is something almost everyone can take part in. Another thing I think would be important to observe is: what is it that surrounds us. And to be a part of securing that what surrounds us actually becomes better. Even though it can be bought and sold, that it has some other kind of value. We are working - I am working with what is called “Designs to improve life”, that is design which helps improving essential areas of the human life. That is design too – there are super professionals around the world who are working with this. When this focus is chosen it is because it is our attitude: that there is enough teacups, there is enough coffeepots in the world, enough of all these gadgets that surround us. There is enough chairs, use one of the many hundreds there are, and then use your extra energy to develop those things which are really important. Yet another thing is the attitude of the consumers towards what they buy. As long as we keep buying what is supplied on the market, as long as we keep on having an absolute need for owning 170 different teacups in 36 different nuances of light blue, so long will it be on the market, they will surround us and they will influence us. So it is also a question about focusing the consumer culture into different areas. And this is where we have decisive influence as individuals.
Hi Sebastian. No I actually believe, that if [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Sebastian. No I actually believe, that if one really should be able to understand how we affect our world, then one actually either has to be an expert in this field, being an expert in environmental questions. Or one needs to live in a way where one is under directly influence by environmental questions or environmental problems in ones daily life. This means, if you live in Chernobyl, then you might be able to be brought to understand. So it actually is so, that in order really to make people understand things like this, they need to be affected visually. They simply need to see it for themselves. This leaves a giant responsibility to those who either are experts or to those directly affected by it, to make sure that other people all over the world, who are necessary to change the global environmental situation, make sure that these people get these visual impressions, which ensure that one actually understands it. In addition to this you have to accept that people in an ordinary busy everyday life are not able to show concern for everything. And therefore we have to ensure, that those knowing something about this and those who work with this, actually takes this seriously and accept their responsibility to help solving these problems.
Hi Dagmar. I do not know where you believe [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Dagmar. I do not know where you believe this is the case. There are very, very few places in the world, where water is commercialised. Meaning places where Coca-Cola has been able to buy up the national water resources. This of course is a problem. Here it must be said that resources like water and air should not be possible to commercialise, it has to be impossible to sell. Other places it is of course the case, that your water is so contaminated that it is not possible to retrieve pure water, but only Coca-Cola or dirty water. This of course is due to environmental questions. This is due to an increasing pollution. And this can be solved; it happens to be one of the goals, if my memory serves me right, on the list of United Nations 2015 development goals, that one solves the water problems in the world. So one ensures that everyone has sufficient amounts of water. So this is something the political and economical leaders of the world are working hard to ensure. But the foundation must be that common resources, they cannot be commercialised, they cannot be sold. Further more that all countries, unlike for instance Singapore, must have access to their own resources of fresh water.
What can we learn from Africa? One of the [...]
Kigge Hvid: What can we learn from Africa? One of the things one can learn about is a wonderful nature. This I have done. No seriously, what one can learn from Africa, is what happens when one colonizes a country. What we can learn from Africa is what happens when one form of culture is, with use of power, is forced into a different form of culture. What happens when one form of economy is forced to be used suppressing another. That was what happened during the colonizing of Africa, and it has shown to be a really, really bad example. So we can show that if development should happen and if changes should happen in a community, then it is crucial it happens by the support of the humans living in that community. Supported by the culture in the community in question and not by a superior force and an outside [here I believe, she would rather use the stronger expression: uncomprehending] culture. I think another and more recent thing we could learn from Africa is, that development aid which is only focusing about: “lets pour a huge sum of money down to you and help you with a lot of different things without making ourselves acquainted with it” this kind of development aid does not help. If development aid is going to work, then one has to get oneself acquainted with the users, for instance being the Africans, needs. To understand what kind of place you are going to operate in, and to use the development aid for strengthening the local population and not just pump economical funds into the area. One has to strengthen, so the local population itself can take control of the development in the country.
I think what is absolutely crucial for [...]
Kigge Hvid: I think what is absolutely crucial for creating the balance you are talking about, is that one makes sure that units making decisions, being governments, local governments, politicians etc. etc. function on many different levels. This means, one starts local and then moves through a whole row of levels from local to global. If we on the contrary to this only have local councils, governments or watch units, then we will not be able to do it. If we have only regional councils we will not be able to do it either. So it is diversity in the units at power, in power structure in fact.
I also checked. So, these questions are not [...]
Kigge Hvid: I also checked. So, these questions are not going to be answered, because these questions are about development processes. It means that a process has begun, and concrete answers have been given. These are not final answers - these are not the definitive answers. So this is about to get engaged in the process, it is not about the final answers. Because the answers and the questions will keep on being given and asked from now and in all eternity. So you better just get started becoming [cannot understand what she is saying] and be a part of the process.
I think there is a story I once found, which [...]
Kigge Hvid: I think there is a story I once found, which I think is the most amazing story. It was mentioned in a paragraph in a daily newspaper in Denmark and I have never seen it since. It was a story about: that the major international medical co-operations, had made a deal with perhaps the United Nations, to give up the copyrights in Africa, on medicine that treat or cure Aids. I do not know if it is true; I have only seen it that one time. But if it is true, that this deal has been made and one has started using it. Then it is a amazingly important story, because behind this story there must have been negotiations in a field that previously has been so difficult to solve. And which is so decisive to the global state of health. There must be a method one has used; there must be a solution that can be used in many other areas of the health industry. So if it is true, then this was the story the medias should investigate and report all over the world. Further more there is a long list of stories that do not get told in the mass medias. And these are the success stories. I believe the most important story which should be aired now, which should be told now, which should be sent out in the mass medias now, that is the story about all the places going well. It would be inspiration; it would be happiness and would ease some of the fear in the world that makes people scared. The fear that means that people actually do not act and think everything is going to hell. I do not think everything is going to hell, so we need the success stories. We should be interested in that instead of all the really - really bad stories that are being reported.
This is all about how many questions can be [...]
Kigge Hvid: This is all about how many questions can be viewed from different sides. Two answers, which are correct for the same question, but at the same time contradict each other. This is because the answer is seen from different points of views. And this is exactly what is so important to discover in the world, that there are so many different views and so many different attitudes because there are so many different cultures and so many different humans. If we actually could understand this, as a global nation, then it would be much, much easier solving our problems. At the moment there is a prevailing attitude towards something being absolutely right and something being absolutely wrong. On the other hand much is actually an expression of different attitudes, of different upbringings, of different traditions. If we learn to listen, to what lie behind these different answers, then we would have a larger opportunity to develop the world.
That would be: dont be ruled by fear, Do not [...]
Kigge Hvid: That would be: dont be ruled by fear, Do not be afraid.
Hi Desire. I think if one takes a look on my [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Desire. I think if one takes a look on my grandmother’s life. My grandmother was a young woman during the Second World War. She had no washing machine, she had five children, she had absolutely no money, she did not have an iron, she did not have a car, she did not have an electric stove, she did not have all the things you have in your world. She just had a telephone; yes I suppose that was the nearest, to the technology we have now, that she had. Was she less stressed than we are, yes this is absolutely certain. Because it was also so that my grandmother as working at home as a housewife, she was working from 6 am to 11 pm. Her ordinary day, her working day was about twice as long as a normal working day in the western world. So could it be like this - we are actually much more preoccupied with: how exactly do we feel, preoccupied with whether we actually are being stressed, preoccupied with whether life is about to be too much for us, I actually think that is one of the things you should consider. Also one can consider the fact that we of course are receiving a lot more information, there is a lot more to deal with. This of course makes us, with a modern expression, stressed. We become more and more stressed with all those information we receive. Of course one of the options could be to start sorting the information, and simply refuse to be online a good part of the time. So you choose not to be online all the time and do not live online. Actually decide you yourself: when you are going online and when not. I think your question has a little smell of this egocentrism we have in the western world. This navel contemplation on “how do I really feel right now”. Actually many of the things we have invented are very, very time saving and should make it less stressful. Perhaps we are not so hardcore anymore. Perhaps we are just not as strong as they were. Perhaps we have become too soft. Perhaps this is where we should look instead.
Try to think in a different way. What is it [...]
Kigge Hvid: Try to think in a different way. What is it that makes it so wrong, that it is military or market forces that drive development forward? The Internet was developed by the military, user run innovation, ergonomic etc. etc. all original developed by the military. Future scenarios developed by the military. Is it in itself bad, if it is developed by the military? Or is your way of thinking so; that some who are only evil and some who are only good, and the military is amongst the evil? There actually is a reason and also a democratic reason for the military. It is not only evil. It is to protect our countries, our communities, our for instance democratic rights, our constitution. So would it be better if it had been the market forces that had driven development forward? You can say one thing about the market forces is good at securing, and that is distribution. So yes, if we had a world that had not been commercialised, if nothing could be sold, then it would be possible that there had been a larger access. The other thing would then be, where had this been developed? Who had invested the development funds? If not the large companies? If not the military? So a long way down the road I think there can be great advantages in having the market forces to drive the development ahead, if it is also is made accessible and democratised further down the line. And it is in far most of the development stages. You can see it in the case of the internet, the computer, in the case of telephony. You can see it in the case of the aerial industry, which has been tremendously democratised compared to what is was ten years ago, the aerial industry which by the way also is developed by the military. In it self, I do not see anything evil by it have been developed by the military. And I see that the things that are being developed by the military and by private companies also is accessible later, being democratised.
The answer is actually very, very simple. It [...]
Kigge Hvid: The answer is actually very, very simple. It is the human’s responsibility. That’s it. One of the things I believe, it is crucial to secure that the resources common to the humanity, water, air, oil, is not commercialised, they are to be shared equally amongst the humanity. This have not been done concerning the oil, up till now it has been done, concerning air, almost around the world, and it has also been done for a very, very large part of the world, concerning water. There is although some places where this is not the case. So what one has to ensure is, first of all it is the humans who decides this, it is the humans who have the responsibility to secure that the resources we have access to is used sensible. Secondly there has to be joint ownership concerning those resources we are depending on.
I would say, if it is only about beauty, [...]
Kigge Hvid: I would say, if it is only about beauty, then I want to say: we know too little about it, who is setting the norm of beauty? At the moment we are really super skilled at doing it, not with genetic engineering, but with surgery. And I must say the norm of beauty we see in for instance in America, where eighty years old women look like forty years old women, and to me by the way look like things or gizmos from outer space. No I do not think we should use the knowledge of our experts, the knowledge of our scientist, their time to standardize our aesthetic concepts in connection with humans. If it is not just about beauty, if it is not just a question of aesthetics, then it is an extremely difficult question. Because if you have some one in your family who is ill, then you would say that everything must be done, everything must be allowed. If you do not, if it is far from you, personally, then you would be more concerned.
I actually think that there exist very, very [...]
Kigge Hvid: I actually think that there exist very, very few absolute lies and absolute truths. I think most of it are points of view. To me truth and lie really is not interesting. I think what is interesting is how we as humans makes ourselves capable of understanding different angles and understand that the same fact can be both true or a lie to different humans depending on their position in the world. So actually I think, lies is not interesting, truth is not interesting. What is interesting is to try understanding why we have different points of views and what we can make of these different points of views. Because I deep down think, that the better we become at understanding different views, different standpoints, the better we also becomes at solving the problems existing in the world, and the better we become at understanding each other, communicate with each other. So do not try to see what in reality is lie and what is truth. It is not an absolute; it is a point of view.
Hi Lena. It is confidence, team spirit and [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Lena. It is confidence, team spirit and love. That’s it.
Look, if you watch into the art forms, what [...]
Kigge Hvid: Look, if you watch into the art forms, what is inside the world of arts as something in it self, what is most important at the moment, then it is the immaterial rights. How they are directed and controlled and developed etc. etc. If instead you mean what would be most important for art to bring up at the moment, then one could see all the questions asked to “Table of free voices” today. There will be a huge, huge area of topics that art could process.
Well, this is in fact a personal question. [...]
Kigge Hvid: Well, this is in fact a personal question. On the personal level, what really moves me, are connections, it is to understand, to connect to other people. In addition to that what can really move me is beauty - for instance in art. Something else that affects me, on a more overriding level, is people acting without fear, is people who act without prejudices. People who act in the areas needing to be acted without being afraid to do it, regardless what other people think about it.
I think that one of the myths, which is [...]
Kigge Hvid: I think that one of the myths, which is absolutely crucial that we get created is: it is not so bad. We have to create a myth, which by the way reflects reality – really - really many things are going well. That people as such are able to make good, solid communities, fantastic products, proper social relations, beautiful art and culture. So one of the things I think is the most, most important to create - or actually I think it is important to shut down the myth saying: that everything is going wrong, that everything is not good enough or that not everything is well. I think it is of crucial importance that we get the world joined together or what can we call it? The global consciousness that we can do something, that we can solve this, that we are doing well, that we have been doing well, that we have solved a huge sum of problems in the period of existence of man. One of the things that are the safest way to secure that people do not act, is telling by all times that it is going very, very bad. They become pacified, it paralyses them. Try instead to tell them it is useful. That would be a myth that would make a change.
Hi Alin. I do not really know. But I am [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Alin. I do not really know. But I am confident, that around this table are some, who will be able to answer that question. So ask them.
Hi Katrine. I am not sure I agree with your [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Katrine. I am not sure I agree with your position or the position your question shows. We believe more in nationality than in humanity. I actually believe, that some of the things happening with globalisation is that we are going to believe more and more in humanity and the individual nation is going to become less and less important. To me this would be a perfect development. One reason that this can happen is that we are getting better and better connected. So some of the things happening in the world now, is the establishment of what we could call “tribes”. Meaning, for instance the known example, that young people in Germany have more in common with young people in Japan, than they have with older people in Germany. In that sense globalisation is part of creating a different kind of connection in the world or many, many different kinds of connections in the world. And I believe this will influence the nations appearing as shut fortresses to become less and less important, while the human becomes more and more important.
Hi Sasha. This is after all a question about [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Sasha. This is after all a question about what we eat exactly. I actually do not believe that the food I am eating is of poor quality. I also believe that it is possible, in the country where I live, to get hold of food of really, really good quality. So if we first disregard the economical question, because there is places in the world where you simply can not get hold of food, because you do not have money for it. In those places it almost does not matter if it is good or lousy food, it is simply a question about food. But if we take a look at it, I actually believe, in the western world where we do have money for food, then it is simply because we get what we ask for. We ask for lousy food, we are too lazy to cook proper food - we are too lazy to care about our raw materials. So there actually are differences, even in Europe. If you go to Italy or France, then you actually receive food that is of amazing quality. And one of the reasons is the amount of time spend on it. An Italian ham is dried over a period of many years. Oil is developed over lots of years. It is a matter of time - we are too busy spending our time rather than trying to get hold of decent food. This is the one thing. We do not demand proper food - we do not care about it. In many western countries the fact is, that proportional you spend a very, very little part of your total economy for food. This is a priority that can be changed by one self. In addition to that it actually is the case in parts of Europe, for instance Germany where you are from, that there is legislation about how the fundamental substance of food for the population must be treated. In Germany it is so, that you are only allowed to stuff meat in a sausage. It is like that; it is meat and nothing else. In Italy it is so that pasta must be made by flour, egg and water, it is like that and nothing else… and oil. In Germany also a beer must only be made of water and yeast and hop and it is like that. So it actually is possible to legislate in this field. The problem is, if people do not demand proper food, then they wont get it. If everyone insists on going down to the corner and having pizza everyday, then that is how it is. So it is also a question of supply and demand. The question also is, if you do not want food made of chickens forced forward in a pace impossible to chickens, if you do not want to pay for it, then you wont get it.
Hi Joselyn. I think there is a certain way [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Joselyn. I think there is a certain way we can make sure the cities are not similar, but actually reflecting the people living there, people who are not similar. You do so by getting familiarized with the needs of the people living in the city, when the city is evolving. After all a city is not static, a city is like a process that continuously is developed by the people living in the city and those professionals working with city development. So I think what is decisive for us to do be able to this - what I think is correct, is your point of view that cities should not be similar. Firstly because it is boring, secondly it would mean that the cities would not match to the people living there, because humans and cultures are not similar. So what one needs to do is to get familiarized with the people living in these cities. And if the people living in the city feel very, very good with large open squares, then this is what should be created in that specific city. While other people might have a great need for warmth or safety or isolation etc. etc. Then this is the kind of city that should be created. A city is never one large coherent group. Cities consist of many, many, many different crowds. The better the city planners become at familiarizing with the different needs of the inhabitants, and to plan and build in order to the inhabitants needs - the better our cities will reflect who actually live there. Another possibility is never to make completely finished buildings. To work after a concept of assembling, where parts of a building, parts of an apartment, are accommodated and build, while other parts are left for the user. It can be outside or inside, it can be in the planning of a park, where the final details are left for the user to plan. It can be the walls of an apartment planned by the user. So it will be important to have insight in the needs of the users.
I absolutely agree with you. In Denmark we [...]
Kigge Hvid: I absolutely agree with you. In Denmark we have an expression called second generation immigrant, we actually also have an expression called third generation immigrant, and we properly also get fourth generation immigrants. To me it is humans, who are born and have had their upbringing in Denmark, and they are Danes. So to me African-Americans are Americans. On the other hand I think that in a complex community as the United States, where people have come from the whole world, it sometimes has been necessary to feel at home at all in the new country, to hold on to ones former nationality. Further more the African- Americans are a quite special case, because they were brought to USA as slaves. And it has been a part of the black movement in USA to have this term for them selves. Being just African-Americans. So this also is a cultural thing and matter of self-perception. But basically people who are living and have had their upbringing in a country, they are the inhabitants of that country. And that is it.
Well, one could in fact say, they have to [...]
Kigge Hvid: Well, one could in fact say, they have to see the world. This could mean that they have to see differences. To get an urge to live in the world, to get an urge to develop and change the world to the better, hopefully, then one needs to see that there are many, many different people, different beliefs, points of views. Many different cultures. Many different religions. Many different starting points for life in the world. So the one thing that you have to see and have to understand, is differences.
But Max, this depends on what kind of [...]
Kigge Hvid: But Max, this depends on what kind of community you are talking about. Actually what has happened with the Internet is that you have your physical, geographic community in your local area where you live. At the same time you have gained access to many, many different communities; via the virtual Internet based communities. One could say that there are many ways to strengthen the physical, geographical community and we have worked a long time in different ways to strengthen it. What has happened now is, that we also can work to strengthen different kinds of communities. This means that you can connect, via the Internet, to completely different people, with whom you feel alike, with whom you share interests, people who are sitting in the other end of the world. So if the Internet is part of strengthening our communities, yes it is. It also can help completely local, in that sense that you can make a telephone chain, you can do a garage sale, you can book a babysitter, you can do some shopping, you can do surveillance, you can create a huge variety of services on the Internet, which are completely based in the local community. But actually the Internet makes it possible for you to have the opportunity to cultivate and develop and grow and strengthen completely different communities, completely different interests, criss-crossing the globe.
Hi Nick. That was a good question you had [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Nick. That was a good question you had there. Look, it depends on which city you are talking about. If you are talking about the world city - the city as such. We can definitely say at this time that they are going to get bigger, they are getting higher, they are increasing in numbers, they are getting narrower. So that is some of the things. If you then look at modern architecture, then you can also see there are many working on how the city shall develop and how the town plan shall develop. Go see in Venice [cant understand what she is saying] in architecture. There you will find some amazing, skill full, clever thought examples on how a city can develop and become larger, higher etc. etc. etc. But still work in human scale. So there are communities, there is opportunity to meet, so the scales wont become so that the humans simply feel strange there. There you will be able to see very many examples, some Scandinavian examples on innovation within construction in general. There will be Boase, a large ecological district, which is about to be built in Copenhagen. Boklok which is a new form of very cheap and very properly construction, created by Skanska and Ikea. But you will be able to see lots and lots of examples on how cities will change. Another thing that will characterize our cities in the future: are pictures. We will see more and more intelligent houses, which will show pictures, which will react on the humans inside the houses or the humans approaching the houses. So you will receive, via our cities, via our architecture an even larger amount of pictures, which will affect you. I believe that one has to give a lot of consideration to how one does. I believe it could be exciting, interesting and good for the cities. But one always has to have a great concern for the public space, because people cannot live without visiting the public space. So you cannot avoid it. But you will see larger cities, you will see more cities. You will also see a lot more organic cities. You will also see cities where one actually has taken the need for decent recreational areas in account. You will also see cities, where you have varying functions in the cities. Meaning buildings used as a bank at day, are used as a school at evening or as overnight accommodations. So you will also see much more flexible cities. Something completely different is, that you will also see more poor cities. I believe there will be a greater difference between poor and wealthy cities and that is most certainly something the international community must work intensely to solve.
Hi Andrew. Look, if all humans in China want [...]
Kigge Hvid: Hi Andrew. Look, if all humans in China want a car, then my position is, they must have one. Why should it be so that all of us in the west, who love cars, who love our car, must have one, while the Chinese or the Indians for that matter, should not have one? But then we have a problem.[She does not clarify what the problem is] We know that if there come billions of new cars, if all the Chinese, all the Indians want a car – then what should we do? We must find a solution. Then we need to make cars, which firstly are produced without affecting the environment. And secondly they are riding on wind power, when they are actually driving around the roads. It is possible, we have never have a better time in the world to solve all the great problems that surround us. We have knowledge, we have technology, the means of communication. We have the whole lot. So it is simply now we must get started, making sure solutions are created that actually makes it possible for all the Chinese people to get a car. Deep down it is actually the fact, that the rest of us love our cars. Of course a different thing one could do is to strengthen public transportation so much and make it so attractive, so not everyone want to have a car. But again I think it is a question about innovation, I think it is a question about using the knowledgeable and technological state we actually have. And then make sure it is actually used for securing that the things we do, the things we produce, the things we draw, the things we design, the things we manufacture for the world, are made and used in a way so they do not ruin the environment.
