In line with Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave, such a vision enables stable long run production capital decisions, for example, to have solar panels financed all over the world as deregulated long term investments to end users that address systemic problems. It can be seen that implementing such a disruptive example will disolve the climate change systemic problem. As Peter Drucker suggested the 4th Information Revolution that supports such a vision is not unprecedented as it happened with a Big Shift on the 3rd Information Revolution 500 years ago.
This vision is for the world of increasing returns that are enabled by the internet infrastructure that’s supporting the sharing economy where trust is migrating from big business to end users. The 'invisible wedge' described by Toffler in The Third Wave, that separates production from demand, was reported in the Forum to have started to disappear to eliminate under the emerging civilization the unfair advantage that production has over a huge number of emerging prosumers.
Unless we agree that a new civilization has been emerging for several decades it will be nearly impossible to develop the vision of the future and will remain stuck, for example, having central station renewable energy projects concessions and transmission lines infrastructure expansions, under unstable regulatory short run supply side financial capital decisions on the industrial civilization. Such unstable system results in privatization of the benefits and socialization of the losses. This is the world of diminishing returns that has myopically over expanded installed capacity. This is what makes all the sense for the sharing economy of the new civilization.
Being stuck agrees with Fortunes Magazine editor Alan Murray that “The world is in the midst of a new industrial revolution.” We are here proving that such idea is wrong if we agree that there is a plausible future in the horizon, which allows us to shift from the debate paradigm to generative dialogue paradigm about how to reach such a vision.
As Andrew Hill, the Conference Chair, Associate Editor and Management Editor, Financial Times, told us the conclusions of Day 1, he said that there were "important contradictions." While those important contradictions might be very negative as it divides us if we don’t have a future vision, they become very rich indeed and align us for the generative dialogue as we have a vision available for the new civilization.