As a contribution for the on-going conversation on the relationship between design, narration and social media, I would like to start from a series of general observations. An introduction to the theme. A series of empirical thoughts developed in years of working at the cross-over between design, new media and narratives.

We all agree that design is mostly a narrative exercise (or if you prefer, story-telling). The writer tells his stories with a novel, the musician tells his stories composing music, the designer tells his stories making objects, spaces, buildings. But then, if we start to use new and social media, are there changes and transformations?

Here below, 12 points to start a conversation.

—

The community is the message (originally published on Abitare 532, May 2013).

A few days ago a friend asked me: “But why should I learn to use social media?” This is a question that doesn’t have an answer. It’s as if someone were to ask me: “Why should I learn to play the saxophone?” The question is put in a peculiar way, but it is possible to come up with a series of sensitivities and insights that we can gain and understand thanks to intense involvement with new social media. Here are 12 points with which to start a conversation.

1. New media?
New media don’t exist (and conversely neither do old media). To put it another way: all old media were once new, and all new media will become old. The Bic pen is an extraordinary medium. It was incredible and perfect in 1950, and it still is today. VHS and cable radio have led different lives. In short, whether the medium is new or old is not the heart of the matter. It all depends on how you use it (and what are the goals you want to achieve).

2. Generosity
This is the first and most indispensable ingredient. If you’re not generous, nothing (significant) will ever come of using social media. There is the importance of doing things for the pleasure of doing them, without a fixed purpose: the more you give, the more you take away. There is (really and truly) no possibility of taking without giving. And then if all this takes on the form of a community, a vast array of possibilities opens up before us.

3. Digital flâneurs
Walter Benjamin had his own universe of reference. It was made up of details, things on the margins, aimless strolls, Parisian shopping arcades and a thousand other more or less invisible ingredients of daily life. Here it’s the same. God is not just in the detail, but this detail is in general – and apparently – insignificant. Here too, though, if you find that detail is able to fascinate other people, at that point, a breath-taking film begins.

4. Where does the money come from?
It doesn’t. Or if it does, it comes through absolutely unpredictable mechanisms. It should never be forgotten that becoming famous on Facebook is like becoming rich in Monopoly. Try and invent a project to develop with a digital community: if you manage to reach this level you’re already doing pretty well. Hardly anybody, in truth, succeeds in making much money. For convenience’s sake, let’s forget about money.

5. Deductive?
No. Inductive. The Web (and with it the digital media) is made up of millions of extraordinary unsystematised (and unsystematisable) fragments. You start out from one of these fragments and climb back up to empirical systematisations. Again, when you learn to carry out this process of “climbing” with other people, you gain a strength that would have been unthinkable in previous environments.

6. Humour
Humour is a fundamental ingredient. This was already true for an exclusively analogue world, but it has become indispensable in a digital planet (especially in the social version). If a sense of humour is not present in large doses, it’s all a waste of time.

7. Visual imagination
The landscape does not exist. What does exist are spectacles of interpretation that we put on when we look around us. In our heads the oil refineries of the Po Valley start to take shape after we have seen Red Desert. The cinema, photography and television have changed our visual imagination. The same thing is happening with new and social media. The revolution is first and foremost one of imagery. It is a subtle change, and one that proceeds and advances in an invisible manner. But it is already here.

8. The 1% Rule
In the worlds of the Web there is this very simple formula: 90-9-1. In a given digital community (be it Wikipedia or a Facebook group), out of 100 participants there will be 90 who use the medium in a passive way, nine who are sporadically active and one who generates almost all the content. Being in that 1% allows you to invent new heavenly bodies to which the remaining 99% want access. This is an element that should not be underestimated.

9. Experts They don’t exist.
At best, there are people who try and try again, making mistakes over and over again: in this long and tedious process they acquire a quantity of information that is useful to others too. The on-line community is the antithesis of technocracies dominated by elites of experts. Ennio Flaiano said some 30 years ago “today even the fool is a specialist”. Well, the digital community does not allow for specialists.

10. Hierarchies
It is often said that digital communities are horizontal, and that there are no hierarchies. This is not true. The hierarchies and dynamics of power exist, and are perhaps even stronger than the usual ones, but they are simply implicit, unspoken. Understanding the invisible mechanisms that regulate the life of one of these communities is an exercise that offers us an insight into many facets of the here and now. The fact that the majority of these goings-on are negative does nothing but add value to the exercise.

11. Watch out!
A digital layer has appeared in our lives. But this does not mean that the early analogue layers have disappeared. On the contrary: they may be even more important than before. It’s just that they now have to reckon with a new presence. In general, those who are able to make the most appropriate short-circuits between the analogue planet and its digital satellite are the ones who can get the best out of both.

12. The community is the message
McLuhan taught us that “the medium is the message”. Perhaps what we are seeing here is another step in a different direction: the community is the message. From this point on we should be aware that we are in those territories marked hic sunt leones on mediaeval maps. Leones et dracones. This creates a curious sensation…

Obviously not all these ideas are of my own. They are the fruit of experiments and activities carried out with different communities.

For a series of reasons, they have asked me to summarise them. But having got this far I cannot fail to mention the community of Gran Touristas and that of Whoami. Without the unbounded energy and enthusiasm of these people, I would not have been able to report anything at all. Then I should cite all the people with whom I exchange tweets and Facebook posts (not to speak of photos on Instagram). The list would be too long, but you’ve got the idea. 

Follow-up observations to my December 27, 2012 post. I also refer to my comment in November 2012 under “open gss” with “….observations and ideas to share, from the perspective of “initiatives in society” related to EU-policy processes…”.

Looking at the different posts and comments I find a lot to be further inspired and challenged. Let me just quote here the one from Carlo Jaeger in February: “…Great post, it helps me to keep my tendency to despair about the EU under control!…”.

The initiatives articulated in my December post continue. The following can be said about it in this post:

– professional networks thrive, seek a balance between knowledge and action and appear to fill a void in addressing public goods-issues (networks organised as an “org”)

– networks become more sophisticated also thanks to “interaction” among participants and with “science”, and to increasing demand in society and the private sector, for sustainability solutions

– support for networks from public authorities seems to emerge at the level of EU member states

– “despair” about the pace of change is allowed for when looking at the governance processes in the EU, taking the need for action based on an assessment of the risks and uncertainties of the main global sustainability issues as the point of departure, as compared to actual EU-decision making.

The initiatives, linked to the GSS-issue of “Climate Policy and Global Financial Markets”, provide the following perspective:

1. “2Degrees-Investing Initiative” in co-operation with “Carbon Tracker” have launched a communications-drive on the issue of “Unburnable Carbon, Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets” (latest report 2013 CarbonTracker.org), in EU member states

2. “Rating Agencies and the Ecological Transition”: a seminar at the French National Assembly, hosted by the Parliamentary Sustainable Development Commission (Paris, February 2013) is in need of a follow-up

3.  “A transition to a low-carbon economy in the European Union” as an initiative of “GLOBE EU”, European Parliamentarians members of the global parliamentarian association GLOBE, remains on the table and will have to regain momentum towards a session with a number of ministers of Finance, in Autumn 2013. The two preceding processes will support this initiative.

In a broader setting global trends in accounting and reporting, disclosure and fiduciary duty and the relevant international processes dealing with the issues, constitute a further potential strong movement in favor of a much more operational approach to address sustainability issues.

The actual and latent “demand for scientific inputs and interaction” in the professional networks provides a relevant link to the GSS-project and to the forthcoming round of debate and networking in Brussels, in June 2013 I am looking forward to !

The contribution of Angela Wilkinson (March 2013) highlighting “How should GSS enable policy making to better ‘host’ the future in the present?” should be referred to here:

“…. Global Systems Science needs a deliberate and reflexive element of actionable supranational or ‘global’ foresight that recognises the contingent nature of an unpredictable future as a motivator for change in the present. Today’s big policy challenges benefit not just from looking back to see established patterns, but in looking forward and imagining different possibilities…”.

I see Angela’s contribution as one of the important comments i have tried “to absorb” for the purpose of further debate and action.

Gertjan Storm,

May 31, 2013.

With the GSS-project “Vision” in mind i present a few notes on “Forests”. Looking for “… highly interconnected challenges, “system of systems”..” as framed under “Vision” on the project website, “Forests” provides  a relevant and pertinent example from a professional network i wish to share.

The need for action arising from the analysis of issues under the heading of “Forests”, makes for a strong case to consider “… to support policy-making, public action and civic society to collectively engage in societal action …. ” by way of the provision of “scientific evidence”, referring to the framing of the “Vision”.

A specific case i am involved in supporting on a voluntary basis an initiative, relates to the following elements, elements of “REDD+” from the UN-REDD+-site on the one hand, and of ongoing processes of deforestation and resource exploitation in forest areas and the consequences for indigenous peoples on the other, brought together in the following three observations after the question described here:

“Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” as a relevant and potentially significant contribution to global climate mitigation: can climate action as developed and defined in the framework of UN-REDD+ be reconciled with the rights of indigenous peoples?:

1. Sustainability at the global and local levels: is “convergence” in attaining objectives in the areas of climate, biodiversity and ecosystems, especially also water, and in the domain of the rights of indigenous peoples, achievable and feasible, and under what conditions, with the following two elements:

2. The example of a concrete and significant problem area, i.e. Ecuador, and of the initiative of Norway to finance a REDD+-programme in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru (proposed funding 150 million $).

3. The immediacy of action and of outcomes needed for the sake of indigenous peoples as a human rights issue is a key question to be addressed (see also “environmental democracy” as defined in the Aarhus Convention and the possible extension of the geographical scope of “Aarhus” to Latin America, as supported by 14 countries in the region).

I look forward to the opportunity to exchange views on the issue at the forthcoming project conference.

Gertjan Storm,

May 2013.

ps: UN-REDD.org the site with information about the concept of “REDD+”, of “multiple benefits” and about “anticipated future activities”.

Regarding the energy section of the GSS Orientation Paper the following topics seem to be important to me. Some thoughts might already be incorporated in the latest version just posted by David, but I post them anyways:

1) Global energy trade flows and the economy

In 2011, annual revenues of the three largest energy corporations such as Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon and Chevron were in the range of US$ 470bn, US$ 433bn, US$ 236bn respectively (Global Energy company rankings: http://top250.platts.com/Top250Rankings/2012/Region/Industry). Seeing that this is as large as the GDP of Portugal (US$ 237bn), Argentina (US$ 446bn), Norway (US$ 485bn) in the same year, one can assume that energy trade flows have a significant impact on the global economy as a whole.

GSS can engage in mapping and understanding the global flows of energy: including fuels/raw materials used as energy source, as well as trade flows of generated electricity. Resulting from this information, we can ask how the energy sector influences the global economy?

How would a shift in trade flows or price shocks influence the economic activities in the network of countries and corporations involved, e.g.:

• How does the shale gas boom in the US influence global trade (quantities and prices) of oil, gas and coal. Does it shift electricity generation practices globally?
• How vulnerable is the “real” economy? How do oil/gas/coal price shocks influence the industry and therefore the entire economy globally?
• Can a shock in the energy sector cause a global crisis to a similar extend as the financial sector?

More advances tools and models are needed to assess global scenarios of this kind.

2) Energy & electricity modeling

In the area of energy modeling especially when assessing electricity costs, there is a need to go above and beyond single technology considerations, where usually LCOE (leveled cost of electricity) or capex (capital expenditure) of several technologies are compared to each other.

Instead, energy costs need to be analyzed from a system cost perspective, including more than one electricity generation technology (not a single technology vs. another) and including system costs such as energy storage, transportation as well as demand side management (next to generation costs).

If for example a generation or storage technology is expensive from a capex and LCOE perspective, but highly relevant from a system perspective and will only run several hours per year, it will not increase the overall system costs significantly but will add value to the system.

Parameters that become important then are technological lifetime, load and capacity factor, flexibility, storage capacity, as well as cost sensitivity with respect to changes in variable costs such as fuel costs and CO2 costs.

Even if an electricity system is optimized in terms of total system costs, the following question remains: Does the system need to be organized in a centralized fashion?

GSS can develop tools to assess differences in efficiency and costs of a decentralized energy system versus a centrally organized energy system.

Linking energy system considerations to climate change and sustainability research is equally important. Here GSS can shed more light on questions such as:

• multiple equilibria:

The question of multiple equilibria is relevant for the energy system as well. The current energy system (in any country) is not without alternatives, therefore the question is which alternative systems (equilibria) are possible and how can a transformation to such an equilibrium take place.

If the aim of an energy system is to provide supply security at minimal cost for society (system costs plus externalities), there are several possible equilibria, however with different levels of externalities. Assessing and choosing for a possible energy systems should include considerations in climate and environmental policy as well.

• Externalities:

The amount of externalities, such as CO2 emissions throughout the entire value chain, environmental degradation, contamination, food security, loss of biodiversity, long-term risks of fuel extraction and waste disposal need to be assessed more carefully and taken into account.

• risk assessment:

There are short-term risks (emerging during the operation time of the plant) and long-term risks (risks that go beyond the operation time of the plant). The assessment of these risks seem to differ very strongly between countries and are heavily influenced by political goals and political decision making. Private companies internalize the benefits of using energy technologies with high long-term risk, but often the long-term risks are transferred to the nations and therefore society. The involved risks are only shifted in space and time but not reduced or eliminated. Lobbying power of energy corporations certainly plays an important role here.

Energy corporations are not wiling to take the long-term risks due to the short-termism of todays financial and investment cycles. The challenge is to find governance mechanisms that make corporations take over a larger part of these risks collectively (disaster fund /resource extraction fund or similar) and therefore take over more responsibility for long-term consequences of their operations.

However, there are no unified measures used to assess these kinds of long-term risks. The challenge is to establish a more objective and more holistic risk assessment at a global scale, which will put a price tag (a range of potential costs) to specific technologies and practices.

3) Market design and policy interventions at a global scale

Information about energy market design and policies implemented in the energy sector is highly dispersed and partially not transparent:

• First, how is the energy market organized/set-up in countries worldwide: Which markets are liberalized, which are centralized, what are the resulting wholesale and retail prices, how transparent are the costs for the consumer? How can we obtain more transparency in OTC transactions?
• Second, which countries have implemented which policies (e.g feed-in-tariffs, quota systems, etc.) with which effects?

A more systematic monitoring and information sharing system is needed to increase learning at a global scale.

4) Innovation and technological development

From a sustainability perspective, technological development in the energy sector need to take into account the negative environmental and social impact throughout the value chain. Different solutions need to be assessed in a more holistic way. Questions arising from that are:

• What do learning curves for different technologies depend on? How can they be accelerated? Which role does energy policy and industrial policy play?
• How can we make sure that new energy technologies focus on sustainability and become value–adding for the environment and society?
• What is the role and the responsibility of engineers in this respect? (Analog to the question on the responsibility of bankers and traders in the financial sector)

5) Connections between the different layers and networks

Decisions have influences (often unintended) on other sectors (cross-sector) and other countries (cross-country) and vice versa:

• Interconnections between the transport sector, industry, energy sector, housing/building sector, the financial sector and so forth become increasingly important. E.g. How can the financial system support and hinder technological development? How does energy policies influence climate policies?
• Decisions about the market organization of the energy market in one country have an influence on neighboring countries and trade partners. Countries should be more aware of and take into account the influence their decisions have on other countries (especially in the EU context) and coordinate policies in this respect.