Latest / The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast / Designing Regenerative Futures: Trust, Circularity & Humane Innovation - EP04

Transcript

Designing Regenerative Futures: Trust, Circularity & Humane Innovation - EP04 · The In-Between Tech and Trust Podcast

0:07
Welcome to the In Between Trust Podcast, the podcast at the
0:11
intersection of tech and trust. In a world defined by speed and
0:15
extraction, how do we design for continuity, care and
0:19
circularity? Today's guest is Karl Gauta,
0:23
Founder and CEO of Indeed Innovation, a Hamburg based
0:27
consultancy pioneering humane innovation and circular design.
0:31
In this episode, we explore why design is never neutral and how
0:36
it silently builds or breaks trust, the mindset shift from
0:40
exit strategies to endurance strategies, and how.
0:44
Circular Systems. Thrive on transparency,
0:47
accountability, and long termism.
0:50
This is a conversation about trust as intent and why courage,
0:54
not speed, may be the most radical design principle.
0:58
Of all, welcome to the In Between podcast, Kajal.
1:01
I'm so happy to have you. I'm so glad talking to you Eva,
1:06
and super happy seeing you. Likewise, and we've been like in
1:11
contact for a long time. We're even co-authors of the
1:14
book 10 Moral Questions and I'm so thrilled to like diving into
1:19
the topics of sustainability, but also circular innovation
1:23
with you and also what it means to you in regards to trust.
1:27
For me, the first question is your journey around circular
1:32
innovation has started like long before we've even met and you
1:35
founded your own company, Indeed Innovation on it.
1:39
And I was wondering what first made you question of how things
1:43
are designed and for whom? Well, actually that that is a
1:47
funny question. And I would immediately go back
1:51
in time for a very long time because it was when I was still
1:56
in kindergarten. And like everyone else, I guess
1:59
I played with Lego. And you have to know my father
2:03
was a civil engineer so was impacted by, you know, following
2:06
sometimes on construction sites for tunnels and bridges.
2:10
There were those big, big machines.
2:12
And I remember myself, I probably was like 5 years old or
2:16
something like that, building my own first construction machine,
2:20
you know, so not the one that was described in box from Lego,
2:23
but intrinsically myself. And I was super proud that the
2:27
stuff was working. And I would say that was the
2:29
very first time that I designed something with intend for
2:34
something. I mean, that is so fascinating
2:38
because it like actually also shows how long you've been
2:40
dedicated to the topic, right? And one of the like your
2:45
languages, so to say, is like human innovation.
2:48
And can you it trade a bit on what it means to you, not as a
2:52
concept, but also like a posture that you want to bring towards
2:55
the future? If we look at it from a general
2:58
perspective, but then again also in reflection upon trust in
3:02
particular. Yes.
3:04
And you know that's a great question and we probably all
3:07
know the expression of this user centricity, right.
3:10
So humane innovation and be careful, it has always an E at
3:14
the end. So humane innovation is not
3:18
about putting human at the core. Because there is this American
3:22
professor, I think he's US, Kevin Slammin, that beautifully
3:26
describes and that really resonates a lot with me.
3:30
When designers center around the user, he questions where do the
3:35
needs and desires of the other actors of a system go?
3:40
And he further continues to say that the lens of the user we
3:44
focus so much right obscures actually the view of the other
3:49
in the ecosystem it affects. So for me, humane innovation is
3:53
not just about solving problems with, for example, technology.
3:58
It's about designing futures where people and planet and
4:02
purpose are equally prioritized. So it's basically innovation
4:06
that has empathy as its core. I love that because like empathy
4:12
is one of the core like characteristics that we have as
4:16
humans. But then again, also that trust
4:19
is required for, right? But for me, what I was wondering
4:23
and what I came to realize is that trust is rarely mentioned
4:26
when it's in the same sentence as design or a circular economy
4:29
even. So I was wondering what your
4:33
link or what your view on the topic would be and how trust
4:37
like infiltrates into to the things we make but also into the
4:41
systems that we embed them in. Yeah.
4:44
And and you're right, trust. And by the way, design and or
4:48
circular economy are rarely linked explicitly, I would say,
4:53
but I would agree that they're deeply connected because every
4:56
product, every service, well, every system is a container of
5:00
intent and trust is built or essentially also or eventually
5:06
broken by that intent. So design is not just how things
5:10
look, obviously, it's how it behaves and how it makes us
5:14
behave. When something is intuitive, I
5:16
would say honest about its purpose and the respects the
5:22
users and it. Therefore, I would say it also
5:26
fosters trust. So design communicates values
5:30
without words because the other part would be communication.
5:34
And obviously at that point then bad design.
5:36
I think of roads trust, not because it fails aesthetically
5:39
as some people might think, but because it betrays the
5:43
expectations we have. It says, hey, you weren't
5:46
considered. And I think that is is is
5:49
important. So in circular systems or when
5:51
we talk about circularity, you know, circular systems are
5:56
usually built on transparency, accountability and long term
6:00
thinking because otherwise it won't work because you that you
6:03
always have the problem of, of of frequency and latency in
6:06
circular systems in order to loop things back, right?
6:10
So if you don't trust where materials are coming from back
6:15
or where products go off to their first life or who is
6:20
responsible in between to carry that around, the system
6:24
collapses. And I even extending a linear
6:27
system, we outsource, you know, this type of responsibility in a
6:31
circular one. We built networks of mutual
6:34
accountability. So this is how trust lives, not
6:37
just in things, but how we make it part of the system.
6:42
I love that how we make it part of the system.
6:45
And like, systems are so complex these days, right?
6:49
And like you like as an advocate for a circular economy and
6:52
regenerated regenerative models, I was wondering what you think
6:57
what a shift would be from like linear systems into complex
7:01
systems, but also what we would require from tech and design
7:04
leaders of how we can accompany that shift.
7:08
Absolutely, and you're right, the traditional model make scale
7:12
exit, you know, has treated innovation like a race fast
7:16
returns, minimal responsibility. But that might mindset of
7:20
externalization of the consequences being social ones
7:24
or environmental one, even sometimes emotional ones, right.
7:27
As we know the the the, the, the, the crisis of belonging
7:31
right now, it's kind of innovation without
7:35
accountability. But circular and regenerative
7:38
models demand a shift from this extraction towards more
7:42
stewardship. And that's not just an
7:44
operational challenge. I would say it's it's literally
7:46
a moral one. It asks leader to design for
7:49
care, continuity and consequences, because all our
7:53
actions have consequences, at least in business for sure.
7:56
And so in a world obsessed with disruption, circularity asks,
8:01
actually, what are you willing to sustain?
8:05
And that's harder and more human and eventually concentrating the
8:11
demand from tech leaders, I would say it demands that they
8:15
build slower, listen more, and design with future generations
8:20
in mind. That's a little bit like a the
8:23
cathedral thinking the husband of Kate Rayworth is alluding to.
8:27
It requires humility to accept that we are designing within
8:31
ecosystems, not on top of them. And in the end, you know, I
8:36
think we need to move from this exit strategies to endurance
8:40
strategies, especially if we want to give it down to further
8:43
generations. And it's how to how do we
8:46
actually build things that last, evolve and leave the world,
8:50
hopefully better, or at least in the same condition as we found
8:55
it, and not in a worse one. And I'm super intrigued by where
8:59
you mentioned around like those exit strategies and that we
9:03
currently designed for. But then we need to shift into
9:06
like the endurance strategies. And what are some design
9:09
defaults that you believe are quietly undermining those
9:13
systems in particular, but also the trust that we have in those
9:17
systems when it comes to tech brands and like the overarching
9:20
ecosystem? That's a very good question.
9:25
Let's think about that. It's I would say that designers
9:28
don't just shape the products, right.
9:30
We as design community, we shape the way people see things and
9:37
and how we we shape basically mindsets.
9:40
And right now that means helping shift from a mindset of
9:43
domination to the one of stewardship.
9:45
As I eluded before and in many tech environments the mindset is
9:49
still to move fast and own the market or optimize everything
9:53
and this is where we have to move on I would say.
9:57
And this is where the the role of designers also in the context
10:00
of circularity is so that users are Co creators and not just
10:05
targets. Uses as Co creators that is
10:09
intriguing, especially when we look into the way that we
10:13
customize like products so that we also design them.
10:17
And you mentioned that the designer don't doesn't only
10:22
shape products, but the shape the way people see things and
10:26
also probably experience things. And I was wondering what a
10:31
particular design mindset needs and requires, and what makes
10:36
like this shift so urgently these days, particularly when we
10:40
dive into the intersection and technology and trust.
10:46
Oh yeah, I would say that's again, I, I would go for
10:51
thinking of products that evolve with user behavior, right.
10:56
And that's, that's one aspect I think that that is important in
11:00
in our days today. Furthermore, I would say that we
11:03
have to look at platforms that support multiple futures, like
11:09
the modularity and upgradeability of tech that we
11:12
see in circularity. And maybe also that we think of
11:17
a design mindset that looks into iterative loops and these
11:22
nonlinear paths. And I give you a good example
11:24
that, you know, when we start designing something new, we
11:28
always should think at the end of the first usage loop kind of
11:33
a thing. And, and this, this is a
11:36
cultural shift because then we don't design for beginnings.
11:39
We actually design for continuity.
11:42
I often refer also to the first end, although it sounds a little
11:45
bit dramatic, right? But thinking of the ending of
11:48
something is a different mindset than of thinking of the first
11:53
bring it to market, launching it, right?
11:55
Because we're so geared up to launch.
11:57
But if we think about, hey, what if we think about the end, What
12:00
comes at the end of a usage phase?
12:03
Then we encompass the entire life stream of something, and
12:07
not just its inauguration. The live stream of design,
12:12
amazing. But again, like you also
12:16
mentioned, the design for continuity.
12:18
We're living in times where there's so much opportunity but
12:22
also uncertainty and like complexity.
12:25
And I'm currently asking myself what it would mean to design for
12:29
ambiguity rather than like certainty, especially also if we
12:33
design for trust rather than efficiency and potentially maybe
12:37
you can it trade on that when you also look into how the
12:41
design for continuity would feed into that.
12:45
So design for ambiguity, I would say is designing with openness.
12:49
It means that we, we think of an open-ended systems and not of
12:53
these typical, you know, linear. We, we know what comes
12:56
downstream and that means spaces where users can adopt or we
13:00
humans and also the environment can adapt and, and again, Co
13:04
create and, and challenge the original intent continuously.
13:08
And this is almost like a democratic approach, if you
13:11
think about it, right? Because it means that it's not
13:14
static and it, it leaves further room for emergence and not just
13:19
for this typical execution. And in terms of, you know, trust
13:24
and things like that, it's, it's, I think it's about
13:26
trusting people to bring their own meaning to, to the, to, to
13:31
the task. And that's kind of a radical
13:33
act, I think. And I would like to, because we
13:37
talked about trust, right? I would like to, to extend that
13:40
a little bit to the logic, because there's also logic of
13:43
trust, I think has to do a lot with the logic of efficiency,
13:48
because efficiency is usually about minimizing the effort,
13:50
right? And This is why how our business
13:52
environment functions. But trust is about maximizing
13:56
relationship and that needs to be designed as well in these
13:59
systems. So you optimize the process you
14:02
for example, right in that system and I trust in the
14:06
connection. This is kind of the relationship
14:09
that we can look at it. And I would further even
14:13
extended that, you know, trust doesn't usually look attractive
14:17
to businesses until it breaks because then you realize it was
14:23
literally everything. What like interestingly, trust
14:28
is something where we look into the way that we form those
14:32
connections, But then again, it takes a lot of time to form them
14:37
actively, but there can only be like seconds when it's broken.
14:43
And you talked about radicalness.
14:45
You talked also about democracy. And I do think for both of this,
14:49
like there's even this friction point and that it trades on it.
14:53
And I was wondering what's your take on it specifically also at
14:56
the intersection to circular economy, Like it also requires a
15:00
lot of time to build up those systems and like it trade on the
15:03
circularity of things. But I also think that the trust
15:08
into the functionality of it is broken quite fast.
15:10
If you know you're also frustrated by the design
15:13
process, how do you cope with it?
15:15
Also when you collaborate with companies on that?
15:19
So in collaboration, the first is that we really have to
15:22
understand it's all about the relationship between industries,
15:26
not only between single companies, but between the
15:29
industries, they lying, the underlying governmental
15:32
structure that we have, the customers or consumers often,
15:37
right? And the planetary boundaries as
15:39
well. And this is this, this is
15:42
probably the difficult or the most difficult part to make them
15:45
really aware of that, that they get a step out of this.
15:49
Hey, I want to own it all, I want to be in control of it all.
15:52
And this is, this is, this is where we have to start.
15:54
And, and, and that means overcoming also that
15:58
corporations are looking for this typical quarterly growth.
16:01
That's another thing, right? If you, if you look at it a
16:03
season of an apple tree, right, If you would, I mean, we all
16:07
know an apple tree has a year 2, I mean 12 months from if you
16:13
want in summer when it when it bears the fruit to the next time
16:16
it bears the fruit. So you could also put quarterly
16:19
section to it, But if it would only be measured by quarter, you
16:22
know, you wouldn't get anything out of it.
16:24
So you have to wait the entire year, the entire succession to
16:28
actually get an apple out of it. And we don't look at it in in,
16:32
in that concept. So, so this is, this is one part
16:35
that I think is important. The other one is that most
16:39
companies and that that's the underlying structure rate,
16:42
right? When you, when you build
16:43
partnerships that within the companies, there's no openness
16:46
in partnership neither because they mostly have silos, not only
16:50
data silos, but really collaboration silos.
16:54
And this is where circularity demands, I call IT systems
16:58
literacy, because if you don't read the system and across the,
17:03
the entire thing and act collectively, it's going to be
17:06
really, really difficult. And ultimately, Eva, there's one
17:09
thing and that's very dear to me is, is that we today, we still
17:15
go say like value is actually equalling ownership.
17:20
And I understand that, right? We, we are, we are basically
17:25
conditioned with that. But if, if you know, in, in
17:29
German, as they say, your last shirt doesn't have a pocket,
17:32
right, or doesn't have pockets. I think it illustrates quite
17:35
nicely that actually we don't ever own anything.
17:40
We just have the access to it for a certain amount of time.
17:44
And if we would apply that thinking a little bit more
17:47
deeply in, in all our actions, also corporate actions and how
17:50
we collaborate together, I, I think that would open up a lot
17:53
of opportunity for circularity and trust.
17:56
Building. I think that point of view is so
17:59
intriguing, particularly because it's so seldomly applied and it
18:05
also requires, it requires A radical shift in how we treat
18:09
things right. And I was, I was wondering what
18:12
what's your take on how the regenerative future should look
18:16
like and how we can shift our mindset into a more long term
18:21
view on how we treat things? Right.
18:25
So to sum it up in, in an extractive model, values
18:29
measured again by growth speed and the ownership.
18:32
And usually, you know, the, the, the goal is to scale fast,
18:36
capture markets and maximize shareholder values and returns
18:41
and whatnot. And in a regenerative model,
18:46
value isn't what you take, It's actually what you enable, if you
18:50
think about it, because it's already there, right?
18:51
It's not that we create anything new.
18:53
I mean, we take things, but it's what we enable.
18:56
We enable, you know, a rare earth to become maybe a lithium
19:01
battery, you know, and it's measured in my term, the
19:05
regenerative model is measured in circular flows, thriving
19:09
ecosystems, and of course also in a social context, in healthy
19:13
community unities and probably also longevity and not just
19:17
these margins that we usually have.
19:19
And so we have this, this topic of durability and not
19:23
disposability or transparency versus opacity that we often
19:27
find. And of course the typical
19:29
repair, reuse and adaptability in context.
19:33
And if we take, if we talk about stakeholder relationships, it
19:37
should, if anything, it should be the purpose and we should
19:40
acknowledge that stakeholders are also, for example, the, the
19:45
biodiversity, so our environment and not just this typical
19:49
shareholder return. And then of course, ultimately,
19:53
it's all about impact over the typical intent that we have.
19:58
That is so interesting. And I want to dive a bit further
20:01
into the shareholder part because that is currently at the
20:05
core of how we also think about collaboration of how we also
20:09
organize our ways of working or even like the whole institution.
20:14
But it's also how we measure value.
20:16
And I was wondering what you're thinking about value creation is
20:21
when we move from like an extraction kind of way into the
20:24
regenerative circles and and what becomes valuable?
20:29
When we shift and and what would be obsolete in the future?
20:35
So if you think a bit of again, the natural system, the, the,
20:40
the value is that we need to retain, for example, axis, axis
20:47
to parts of the system. And the axis is not again, by
20:52
owning it, but by having this mutual, almost like contracts in
20:56
that, because value is always, I think, at the intersection of,
21:01
of multiple actors, stakeholders, whatever you want
21:05
to call it, coming together because they're using that part
21:08
right. And, and it, it sounds a little
21:11
bit weird, but I have a, an example that comes to mind to me
21:14
that somehow resonates on that context.
21:17
A little bit of this shift in thinking is from William
21:21
Mcdonoghue, who was one of the Co inventors of, of the cradle
21:26
to cradle principle. And he when, when asked whether
21:31
he sees the hat, the glass half full or half empty, he said the
21:36
class is always full, not half full.
21:38
It's always full. It's full of air and water.
21:42
So he's not making a section of which part of it.
21:46
And it shows the inclusiveness, the, the, the inclusiveness of
21:50
the system that we have to thinking in value.
21:52
So it's, it's, it's, it's almost more like a yes, you could say a
21:56
lever on a scale from one to 100, but actually it's always
21:59
the hundred you have. And it's just like a give and
22:02
take that it's in continuity. It's not like that now it, it's
22:06
my part. And this is where I again think
22:08
that this ownership versus accessibility makes it so
22:14
powerful. And then on a second level, and
22:16
this is also directly related to value is that we have to kind of
22:21
dematerialize the, the, the notion of naturality.
22:27
By that I mean that you have to think of trying to make value
22:33
without this extraction and, and putting it away of, of material.
22:38
If you just say like that value that the, the, the, the, the
22:41
piece of gold, the piece of wood, whatever it is, I have,
22:45
it's not about the material, but what I can do with it and not by
22:51
handing it over and and then it's gone, but by sharing the
22:55
glass completely full, if, if you know what I mean.
22:59
I completely understand that and I do think it's so like
23:02
refreshing, but also freeing to see it that way because there is
23:06
not like either or it's like the sum of its part becomes a whole.
23:11
And then it's also something that intrigues me from the way
23:15
of how like we shape our relationships that we build upon
23:20
to create the wholeness that we all experience or could
23:23
experience if we see it that way, right.
23:25
And like you also touched upon like the way that designers make
23:29
us see those things. So it's like inherently or
23:32
something that I just learned from you.
23:33
So thank you for sharing that. But then again, I'm also like,
23:37
you know, looking into the future and think about how can
23:41
we bring us and like our society along to all bring to that point
23:46
to see it that way and also enable new forms of
23:49
collaborations that we probably would need in like business, but
23:53
also in tech or the public sector to make any of those
23:57
shifts possible. And I was wondering what your
24:01
take on that is of what kinds of collaboration that would require
24:05
and also how trust would be potentially the board like at
24:11
the basis of it all to form those collaboration
24:15
partnerships? I, I, I think there are many
24:19
types. So let's, let's, let's let me
24:21
try to brainstorm here a little, little bit.
24:23
So we have, for example, a collaboration between business
24:27
and design where we where we need to transform it probably
24:32
more to empathy, because this is where design can help a lot.
24:35
So we need businesses to stop probably treating design as a
24:40
decoration and start seeing it as a systems thinking what it
24:44
always was, by the way, because designers bring the ability to
24:47
navigate ambiguity that we talked before, righty.
24:51
And this is exactly the moment what we what we need, basically.
24:54
Then we have the collaboration between tech and ethics,
24:57
something we both know about or worked on, right?
25:00
And I would underline, find it under or or phrase it with the
25:04
code with conscious. So we need tech leaders to work
25:08
hand in hand with ethicists and designers and of course
25:12
communities to ensure we're not just building what's possible,
25:15
because that's that's what we usually have as a mantra, but
25:18
what actually is also responsible.
25:21
So it's not exclusive, it's mutual there, right?
25:24
And of course, public sector and innovation is also a
25:27
collaboration we have to foster because especially now that we
25:31
have kind of of weird geopolitical situations going on
25:35
and we need to create policy that kind of listens.
25:38
And maybe lastly, just in that brainstorming, what about space
25:44
and systems? That's a form of collaboration
25:47
as well. Because if we talk about new
25:49
generation, we need to rethink public space, not just in its
25:53
physical infrastructure that it's of course needs to supply,
25:57
but as a platform for, of course, my topic of my heart
26:01
circularity. But also that means learning
26:04
for, for example, if you want to do repairs and a community
26:08
resilience. And I guess those like
26:13
communities, especially to have them resilient towards a
26:18
constant shift and mutual trust in like an understanding, but
26:23
also in the way that like you and I are, we form those
26:28
ecosystems together as something that I do think is essential at
26:32
its core. And according to your
26:36
experience, but also maybe your personal opinion, what do you
26:40
experience is needed to form trusted systems or trustable
26:45
systems? And beyond tech and design, but
26:50
also how we relate to each other through what we envision and
26:54
also what we embrace for. Yeah, I I would say trust first
27:01
doesn't come from perfection, right?
27:03
We have to acknowledge that we as humans are not perfect.
27:06
I would say it comes from consistency, clarity, and most
27:11
umm. Or for mostly care.
27:13
Umm, because a trustable system isn't one that never fails that.
27:17
That's weird. I think I would mistrust that
27:19
right? And it's one that owns its
27:22
failures, that learns and that or, but it stays accountable.
27:28
And so for me, the definition of a trustful system broadly is a
27:34
system that's transparent in its purpose, inclusive in its
27:39
design. So it needs to, to, to, to have
27:42
that in mind, right? And, and this is ultimately
27:45
important today, regenerative in its impact.
27:49
Whether it's a piece of tech, it doesn't matter, a service, a
27:51
city, it literally doesn't matter.
27:53
People should feel safe, respected and, and, and also
27:57
seen. And that's the important part
27:59
today. I think a lot of communities are
28:01
not seen enough. So it's not about can I use it,
28:05
you know, to design terms. It's can I question it that, you
28:09
know, is, is important and, and in terms again for circularity,
28:13
can I repair it, for example? That needs to be questioned and
28:17
answered. And yeah, I, I think everything,
28:21
you know, we make ultimately tells a story about how we see
28:26
each other. So this scene is is is
28:28
important. What would it require to make
28:32
those communities seen that you experience that are lesser seen
28:36
or maybe even unseen currently? I would say it's again about not
28:46
building things for people, right, but with, with the people
28:51
and, and, and, and staying in the loop when it's wrong.
28:54
So this, this relationship that we're building is, you know,
28:58
it's easy to say build a relationship, but it's actually
29:00
when you have it built with people and, and by that also
29:06
extending it with other stakeholders.
29:08
So I, I really have to emphasize that and even myself, I
29:12
sometimes forget it in, in, in, in the hectic life that it's not
29:16
only about the people we design with, you know, that we should
29:19
consider, but with all the aspects of a community that is
29:23
also nature, because we are part of nature.
29:26
And therefore we have to look at all these stakeholders or actor
29:30
as we talk about in system thinking that we include them in
29:35
doing it. And of course, you know,
29:37
sometimes you ask, oh, how is that possible?
29:40
You know, I mean, you can't ask a bug of its opinion, right?
29:43
But that's wrong. We have rivers that have become
29:46
legal entity in certain countries.
29:48
So they obviously become part of our community and on a on a very
29:53
legal basis. And that's great, right?
29:55
And that means we now can design things with them.
29:59
And when we do that, it builds a relationship and with a
30:03
relationship comes true. Yeah, definitely.
30:08
And I like wonder of if like, you know, the inclusion into
30:12
also the legal systems will be something that's enlarged across
30:15
the globe. And I'm curious to see that
30:18
become formed. But as we like come to an end of
30:23
our episode and also the beautiful conversation.
30:26
Thank you for sharing all your expertise on the matter.
30:29
I want to have some in between moments with you and in between
30:33
moments are like 4 topics that I briefly would ask you and would
30:38
ask you to answer briefly back in a way that you only use a
30:41
word or maybe an iteration. So that we also learn something
30:46
about you and, and moments that you might have had.
30:49
Because you may have had moments where you lost trust in a
30:52
product or a system. And what was that?
30:56
Or can you remember one of them and what it has taught you about
30:59
yourself? Yeah, actually travel at
31:05
travelling during Corona time within Germany from one location
31:12
to the other one and I was not allowed to.
31:17
So that was it really, it really it that destroyed a lot of trust
31:24
because, you know, you think like it's so simple to, to, to
31:27
do. It's you take it for granted.
31:29
So this is what it taught me basically is that you can never
31:33
take anything for granted and that it's all about
31:36
relationship. Even if the system breaks
31:38
eventually or or or hinders you, you have to then go back, build
31:42
relationship again so that you can build trust.
31:46
Definitely, I remember those days too.
31:48
Good. Myself as well.
31:50
Another moment might be an object.
31:53
And is there one object in your life that feels like it is
31:57
designed with integrity? Honestly I think a lot of well
32:03
designed chairs to put it very simply are designed with
32:07
integrity, especially if they're designed out of wood or so they
32:13
have a very clear purpose. They you can trust a system by
32:17
its mechanics basically and there is some regenerative part
32:20
in it as well because it balance CO2 and you can give it back to
32:24
nature at the end of. I feel that so much there is
32:27
like one chair that I trust personally, so like
32:30
indefinitely. Do you have a book or a space or
32:35
maybe even an idea that changed how you view design?
32:40
Honestly, I have a place, it's the Biennale, the the Arts
32:44
Biennale in Venice that I visit every two years because it it,
32:48
it helps me always to, to, to do so many things that have to do
32:52
with relationship building, with questioning trust and morality,
32:57
and ultimately also in designing experiences because it's always
33:00
about storytelling too. Yeah, one of my favourites as
33:05
well. And lastly, 1 value that you'd
33:08
like every creative or founder to carry with them.
33:14
Courage. Courage is the ultimate value in
33:19
creative industries or in creativity, because courage for
33:23
me is tightly related to creativity, because you are
33:29
creative. If we are not afraid of the new,
33:33
and in these times, we also have to look into the new in order to
33:37
build trust. What like I, Yeah, thank you for
33:43
sharing that. I do think that courage is
33:45
something that, like lays on like the heart of so many people
33:48
these days. Maybe let's end with one
33:51
question that I would love your view on because if you would
33:57
also see trust as a practice, what would it mean to be a trust
34:01
builder in a world where systems often feel like extractive, fast
34:05
or opaque to you? Being a trust builder today, I
34:10
would say, means choosing to design with care in a world that
34:15
often rewards speed. So it's hard that it's the only
34:19
kind of innovation that lasts. Perfect ending to what I regard
34:26
as like a really inspiring conversation.
34:29
Thank you so much, Cadell, to dive with us and like in general
34:33
into your expertise, but also into the courage that you bring
34:38
to shaping systems and also bring circularity to the
34:43
ecosystem and beyond. Thank you, Brock, it was a
34:46
tremendous pleasure. Really enjoy the conversation as
34:49
always with you. Thank you.
34:50
And I hope to see you next time again and thank you so much.
34:54
Thank you. Bye.
34:55
See you.