The Future of Construction, Democratic or Autocratic?
Keynote speech by Pedro Aibéo, at BILT EUR conference in Riga, 07.05.2024
1 Introduction
2 Modes of public consultation
3. Automated Democracy
4. Constructive examples
4.1 Urban dots
4.2 Decisions City
4.3 Architecture By Kids
4.4 Gamified Cohousing
5. So where is Democracy and Autocracy in the construction industry today?
5.1 Democratic elements
5.2 Autocratic elements
6. How did we get here and where this is heading?
7. History of Democracy
8. The future of construction
9. The question is "worng"!
10. Conclusion
Introduction
I would like to start this keynote with a show of hands. A vote. Who in this room thinks that the future of construction will be democratic please raise their hand? Ok, 37%. Who then thinks it will be autocratic? 42,5%. And who thinks I made up these numbers to make the point that much is needed to prevent the misuse of the word democracy? [1]
The world of AEC (Architecture, Engineering and Construction) is multi-faceted and deeply political: It creates and divides spaces of our everyday lives in shaping who we are (Fainstein, 2008), it allocates vast amounts of natural resources with climate change implications (Fritsch, 2010), it is embedded in one of the strongest economic developers worldwide (Larson, 2004), it mingles public and private interests, it uses IT at its core, it is fashionable and it is based on biased reasoning (Harvey, 2010).
Such multi-faceted condition of the urbanized world has been regulated on the search for a fairer process: Top-down, with the creation of zoning laws (Fischel, 2004), and bottom up, with co-design schemes involving citizens in the decision process, e.g. participatory budgets (Keane, 2009). Both approaches are far from effective. The former is unable to avoid corruption; the latter is of expensive application (McTague, 2013).
Let’s examine this via a graphic representation. How is this house usually built in most countries currently?
From the big bubble of citizens, some of them, and this is not in scale, are local citizens. Some are regional and some of the users of this future building are local, regional, or plain citizens. Then we have the decision makers, people who have a mandate, either via voting or via a contractual agreement, to decide on matters related to the citizens. In other words, politicians and public officials with a mandate. The developers, meaning people with capital or the resources, private or public, for example a real estate developer. Then the facilitators, people like us, architects, and engineers.
The politicians are usually voted for by the regional citizens, the developers lobby the politicians and allocate the resources to the designers. And what do we do, we the designers? We check what the market needs and build the maximum with the minimum, meaning, the maximum number of sellable spaces with the least amount of resources.
Modes of public consultation
If there would be no regulatory bodies, for sure we would have a situation worldwide worst than some areas of Hong Kong. The people in charge of this regulation are usually nominated by the political body. After the approval of a building by the urban planning department of a city, there might be several forms of consultation with the public, depending on local regulations and the nature of the project:
Many times, these are in the form of a billboard on the location with the description of the plan and contact.
A better approach is a letter that the city sends to the local people with this decision and a deadline for complaint.
More time consuming, are public hearings or meetings, where members of the public can express their opinions, ask questions, or voice concerns about the approved building project. These meetings may be held by the city council, planning commission, or other relevant governing bodies.
Another way is via community workshops where community members can engage with planners, architects, and developers to discuss various aspects of the approved building project, such as design, amenities, and potential impacts on the neighbourhood.
Sometimes online consultations are done where residents can provide feedback and ask questions about approved building projects. This allows for broader participation and convenience for those unable to attend in-person meetings.
Other ways are Open Houses, where developers or city officials may organize open houses at the project site or nearby locations to showcase plans, answer questions, and gather feedback from the public in a more informal setting.
Surveys, where residents may be invited to participate in, or comment related to the approved building project. This allows for a structured feedback collection and can reach a wider audience than traditional meetings.
In addition to public consultations, developers or city planners may hold meetings with specific stakeholders such as local businesses, community groups, or advocacy organizations to address their concerns or gather input on the approved project.
In all these strategies, we have one essential feature of democracy being implemented, which is dialogue. This is good, but is this dialogue placed at the right time when the design work has been already done? We might all be aware, I hope we are, of the obvious fact that the earlier the changes take place, the less the costs are (see diagram bellow (Song, 2023)) .
So, should the dialogue not start earlier? How could we change this?
Automated Democracy
Let us examine the picture 2 further, there we have the top-down decision making through zoning laws and regulations and some bottom-up ones via the public consultation of citizens at the very end. The former is corruptible and lacks detail (the decision makers are often not aware of the details and are subject to external pressures from the developers to bypass and do personal favours), the later, the consultation, is expensive and lacks oversight (it simply takes too much time to discuss things through with groups of people, and usually these are not aware nor maybe then can imagine the bigger picture a city needs to think about).
Other problems are the time regular citizens are able to afford on these matters, as the working class will most likely not be able to spend much if any time on these interactions, meaning, we get mostly the input from well off or elderly population.
The most important part of this cycle is, and so often overlooked, is the allocation of resources, which is not under direct public scrutiny. Even if all goes well in this picture and this allocation is done somehow well, how to evaluate the quality of the implemented solution, the building? The usual way, is that the public evaluates it through photos. Luckily, we now have more tools like energy certificates to guarantee that this evaluation holds more objective reasoning (even though there are plenty of problems with these certificates). And then there is the other needed step, how do we evaluate the quality of the process? In other words, how has the democratic process been, and I say this fully aware that democracy is never ready and never perfect.
The rooms where most of our lives and decisions take place in, are being planned by individuals who hold, not the knowledge, but the necessary capital (financial and political) for such, while architects remain most of the time as facilitators. There is limited accountability for social equality and the sustainable allocation of resources, which cities consume a huge amount of (2/3s of the world’s energy and 70% of global GHG emissions) (Abanda, 2013).
Developers, architects as well as citizens are too embroiled in the everyday life to question and act on the status quo (Piatkowska, 2012). This, along with the scale of the city, is making us lose a human natural political propensity to discuss city affairs (Popper, 1966). (Even now, as I write, the Museum Of Architecture of Helsinki wants to build an extravagant new Museum despite holding many debates and exhibitions about green goals and green construction!).
And this matters because, and paraphrasing here the sociologist Robert Park, the kind of people we want to be is the kind of cities we should be designing for.
What we are currently seeing, more and more, is that most of the decisions done, specially related to the allocation of resources, are automatic, either by the clicking of a checklist or by improvements of such a process in the name of efficiency. Both at private and public levels. And this touches the now rather popular BIM and BIM policies at its heart.
Gradually, citizens will be made redundant in the decision-making process, not just because it is expensive to sit down and talk, but also or mainly, because the new tools are too complex to even grasp the whole or to even embed citizen’s discussions into it. The current inclusive methods are mostly at a late stage, a sort of a green washing which we professionals, pressured by deadlines and results, wish to avoid pinpointing.
The quest for efficiency makes humans a nuisance. We are not efficient but love the idea of it.
Through this trend, our lives are then becoming increasingly overdetermined and over planned, where any decision is better than further discussion, away from an open system which allows adaptability (Sennett, 2012). Communal life is fading, noticeable on the ever more forced co-design and co-participation trials to increase a green washed citizen engagement and the rising trend of the single apartments in the real estate markets.
How then to design truly accessible and inclusive urban interfaces on a scale of everyday life, which empower citizens to organize themselves and act on it (de Lange, 2013)?.
Before we continue with this rather pessimist analysis (“A pessimist is somebody who complains about the noise when opportunity knocks.” Oscar Wilde), let me go through some examples of projects which try to tackle this in a constructive way. Hopefully a source of optimism. With this I mean, adopting a early-stage public participation.
Constructive examples
4.1 Urban dots
This interactive urban planning game by Architectural Democracy is suitable for both kids and adults for playing and research. Developed by Architectural Democracy at the MIT City Science Lab, players are divided into 2 teams with assigned roles such as lobbyist, mayor, and builder.
Players plan the city using legos, which are displayed on the screen along with their requirements and benefits. The currency used is the lego dots. The mayor makes the final decisions, the builder provides advice, and others lobby. A block is considered sustainable if what it gives equals what it takes, resulting in a net zero impact.
4.2 Decisions City
Advocate for sustainable cities by challenging the dominance of concrete and steel. Decisions.city empowers people to vote on city development, promoting transparency and aligning design with values.
4.3 Architecture By Kids
Architectural Democracy was invited by the Qatar Foundation to conduct a workshop at the 2019 WISE summit, where we presented "Architecture By Kids".
Parents can choose to join full-time wearing yellow hats, taking orders and executing tasks, or leave for a coffee while kids act as the architects. The camp simulates real architecture challenges and covers basic concepts like scale, dimension, light, material, and space. It includes workshops on urban planning and city design tasks. Teachers incorporate everyday life scenarios to imagine how the new city unfolds.
4.4 Gamified Cohousing
Picture this: residents living in their own house can earn points for active participation in decision-making and completion of tasks, fostering a sense of shared responsibility. Read more here
So where is Democracy and Autocracy in the construction industry today?
Today the construction industry exhibits elements of both democratic and autocratic tendencies, depending on factors such as technological advancements, societal preferences, and regulatory frameworks.
5.1 Democratic elements
Collaborative Decision-Making: The democratization of construction decision-making has been facilitated by advancements in communication and information technology. Technologies such as Building Information Modelling (BIM) allow stakeholders from different disciplines to collaborate in real-time, sharing information and feedback throughout the project lifecycle. This collaborative approach enhances transparency and fosters a sense of collective ownership among project participants, leading to more inclusive and informed decision-making processes (Eastman et al., 2011).
Community Engagement: In response to growing public demand for greater transparency and accountability in construction projects, there has been a shift towards more inclusive and participatory decision-making processes. Community engagement initiatives, such as public consultations, neighbourhood workshops, and online forums, provide avenues for residents to voice their opinions and concerns regarding proposed developments. By involving communities in the planning and design stages, construction projects can better reflect the needs and values of the people they serve, enhancing their democratic legitimacy and social impact (Healey, 1997).
Sustainability and Green Building: The embrace of sustainable construction practices reflects a broader societal commitment to environmental stewardship and social responsibility. Green building certifications, such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), incentivize builders to prioritize energy efficiency, resource conservation, and indoor air quality in their projects. By integrating sustainability principles into the design and construction process, stakeholders can mitigate the environmental impacts of buildings and infrastructure, contributing to a more sustainable and equitable future (Cole, 2009).
5.2 Autocratic elements
Technological Control: Advancements in construction technology can democratize decision-making but also raise concerns about data ownership, privacy, and concentration of expertise. The use of BIM and digital tools has led to worries about intellectual property rights and power consolidation among industry players, potentially resulting in more autocratic management structures. (Bryde et al., 2013).
Government Regulation: Governments shape the construction industry through regulatory frameworks and building codes to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare. However, regulations can limit individual freedoms and innovation, favoring established industry players over smaller firms and startups. While necessary to address market failures, regulation must balance competition and innovation. (Cheng et al., 2015).
Large construction companies have significant influence in the industry due to financial resources, technological expertise, and market dominance. Operating in oligopolistic markets, these corporations raise concerns about market concentration, anti-competitive behavior, and conflicts of interest. Corporate influence can prioritize shareholder interests over societal goals like environmental sustainability and social equity, potentially undermining democratic principles. (Loosemore et al., 2003).
How did we get here and where this is heading?
If you are ignorant about the past inevitably you misunderstand the present and the future. Let us therefore expand this discussion from a historical perspective, tracing the evolution of democratic and autocratic influences in the construction industry and examining how they might shape its future.
Ancient Civilizations: The earliest forms of construction, such as the pyramids of Egypt and the ziggurats of Mesopotamia, were monumental undertakings that likely required centralized authority and autocratic leadership to organize and execute. Pharaohs, kings, and emperors wielded absolute power over their subjects and could command vast resources for ambitious building projects, often driven by religious or political motives (Baines & Malek, 2000). In ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome, early forms of democracy emerged. These societies seem to have differed mostly because they prioritized public infrastructure projects to serve the needs of their citizens. The construction of roads, aqueducts, and public buildings was central to maintaining civic life and facilitating trade and communication. The democratic process allowed citizens (even if with restrictions) to have a voice in deciding which projects to undertake and how to allocate resources.
Medieval Guilds and Master Builders: During the Middle Ages, the construction industry was characterized by the guild system, where craftsmen and artisans organized into guilds governed by strict hierarchies and traditions. Master builders, skilled artisans who oversaw construction projects, held significant authority within their guilds and were responsible for training apprentices and upholding quality standards. While guilds provided a degree of democratic self-governance among members, they also enforced rigid rules and regulations that limited individual autonomy (Curl, 2006). While not democratic in the modern sense, urban centres grew and city governments gained more autonomy, construction projects such as cathedrals, walls, and marketplaces were often undertaken with input from local authorities and citizens' assemblies.
Industrial Revolution: The advent of the Industrial Revolution brought significant changes to the construction industry, including the introduction of mechanized construction techniques and the rise of large-scale infrastructure projects. Industrialization led to the emergence of powerful corporations and industrialists who exerted considerable influence over the built environment. While technological advancements enabled greater efficiency and productivity, they also concentrated power in the hands of a few elite individuals and companies, leading to concerns about worker exploitation and environmental degradation (Reynolds, 1997). Who does not recall the pictures of the history books on the 1st cities hit by smog from the uncontrolled pollution. It was at this time, in the 18th and 19th centuries, as parliamentary systems evolved in Europe and North America, that elected representatives began enacting laws and regulations that shaped urban planning, building codes, and public works projects.
The 19th century witnessed rapid urbanization and industrialization, leading to the expansion of cities and the need for extensive infrastructure development. Democratically elected municipal governments took on the responsibility of planning and executing large-scale projects such as sewer systems, transportation networks, and housing initiatives to accommodate growing populations.In the 20th century, periods of economic crisis and war prompted governments to intervene in the construction sector to stimulate recovery and address social needs. Programs like the New Deal in the United States and post-war reconstruction efforts in Europe led to the construction of public housing, schools, hospitals, and highways. These initiatives aimed to create jobs, improve living standards, and promote social equity, reflecting the priorities of democratic governance.
While autocratic regimes may pursue ambitious infrastructure development initiatives, they often do so at the expense of accountability, regulatory compliance, and respect for human rights, leading to potential long-term social, economic, and environmental consequences.
We often think autocracies have been the responsible for the mega projects we so awkwardly feel proud in our cities, such as cathedrals, coliseums or stadiums. But both democracies and autocracies have been known to undertake mega projects, but the motivations, processes, and outcomes can differ significantly between the two types of regimes. Autocracies may prioritize projects for political purposes and may be more willing to bypass democratic norms and regulatory constraints. Democracies, on the other hand, tend to balance the pursuit of mega projects with considerations of public interest, accountability, and sustainability.
History of Democracy
Based mostly on John Keane’s work, democracy initiated, not in classical Greek, assemblies were born in the east, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The route of the word comes from people, but democracy is a way of life, where people think of themselves as equals, entitled to dignity, to freedoms, that govern themselves. Democracy challenges the god given right to rule others.
Democracy has had three stages so far, assembly, electoral and monitory democracy. Before political parties, freedom of the press etc., was what we know of the ancient Greek democracy, similar for today’s council meetings, the assembly, or so-called deliberative democracies. Later representative democracies came about in the 12th century, then in the 18th century electoral democracy.
Till the 1930s, this generated a wave of institutions, civil society, political parties, etc. Then almost all electoral democracies failed, there were 11 electoral democracies left in 1941.
Democracy is against perfection. People are good enough to rule themselves. But they must be permanently on the watch. Power is an aphrodisiac, it changes people. And this is being improved by what we have today, a monitory democracy. Where many different types of institutions and bodies do this constant watch.
The future of construction
The future of construction will likely be shaped by a complex interplay of democratic and autocratic forces, influenced by technological innovation, regulatory frameworks, societal values, and economic factors. While collaborative decision-making processes, community engagement initiatives, and sustainability efforts reflect democratic ideals of inclusivity, transparency, and social responsibility, they must contend with the autocratic tendencies inherent in technological control, government regulation, and corporate influence. By balancing the competing demands of efficiency, accountability, and equity, stakeholders can work towards a more democratic and sustainable built environment that serves the needs of present and future generations.
This last sentence was written by ChatGPT and this matters. AI is gaining mastery of language. Language is the tool to give instructions to everything. Language is the operating system of the human system. From bank access to money to human rights, what gives value to this are the stories we tell about these, it is the language. AI knows therefore, and it is improving, how to exploit story telling.
AI just wrote this convincing story that the future of construction will be a complex interplay between democracy and autocracy. The oracle is pushing the end of human history, as Harari stated, if AI takes over culture, it will eat all our culture, digest it and create new cultural artifacts. We humans always experience reality via culture. These cultural cocoons were headed by other humans, ideas, stories, press, etc. but now this has changed with AI. We have lived in the dreams of other humans. Soon we will be living in the dream of this new inorganic life.
AI just dictated us that this is the future, that construction will be a mix of democratic and autocracy, and it is ok. This is a curtain of illusion, like of Plato’s cave shadows. The conclusion mentioned before, perpetuates a notion that a pseudo-democracy is a good outcome. And, in such a conference I can ask you without deeper explanation, what is the number one rule in BIM?
No pseudo BIM!
Democracy in essence is a conversation between many people what to do, and this relies on language. When AI hacks language, this destroys democracy. It makes us humans redundant. If we go back to the previously shown graphics, if we accept that the future will be so, we will fail. Is it not our obligation, in these meetings and future ones, to shape the future we need?
Toomas Ilves, the former President of Estonia (2006 – 2016) answered a question to the Hoover Institution in 2019 about what to say to a 19-year-old Estonian why democracy is the best option? His answer was that every time that Estonia has been invaded, it was by an authoritarian regime, and that democracies have never been at war with each other. Anders Rasmussen, the former Nato chief, was simpler in his answer, that Danes would never accept authoritarianism.
Democracies prioritize individual freedoms, human rights, and the rule of law, while autocracies often prioritize stability, control, and centralized authority. These differences lead to friction in diplomatic relations and often result in disagreements on various issues, such as human rights violations, territorial disputes, or trade policies. And these later ones are something we would wish to eradicate. Even though autocracies rise from democracies, because it is inherent that freedom to contest power, we should not see this coexistence as one like our left and right brain, one focused on the broader picture the other one more in detail, and its coexistence and eternal conflict leading to an optimal.
The question is "worng"!
The question should thus not be what the future will be, but what do we need the future to be.
From the past to the present, construction has changed, yes there has been a strong autocratic behaviour from most relevant decisions in history, eg. Haussmann’s urban plan for Paris (pic. 9 on the right) and its large new avenues or the previously mentioned monumental buildings, to today’s regulation of construction, from structural, hygiene, safety etc. which has increased dramatically in the last centuries. But the nature of these decisions could have not been more different. Today’s regulatory bodies are democratically elected, for better or for worse, there is a discussion and an avoidance of arbitrary use of power.
What the future of construction is, is not a simple exercise if the current strategies of BIM will be more open to the public or not, or in leadership in overall. It is a question that makes us think on how democracies and it’s side-kick capitalism (or the new techno feudalism according to Varoufakis) will evolve over time. Will we be heading to a Star Trek or a Matrix scenario? Will BIM and AI turn our lives into a harmonious coexistence where we harness technology and become space explorers or into ignorant slaves of machines?
Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem (also known as social-choice theory) shows the impossibility of fully determining a common will while using a set of fair and democratic procedures. Democracy is a system for people who are not sure about what they think and want. They are not sure about what is good for society. We talk and we slightly influence each other along this dialect process.
Conclusion
I urge my colleagues here, about the importance of our work in shaping civilizations, cities shape people, we have the power to shape the answer to this question. If there are n Dimensions to BIM, include and exploit the human dimension too. Democracy is the rule of the many. How can we do this?
Make a shift towards more user-centric design and development processes. BIM software developers should actively involve end-users in the design and testing phases to ensure that solutions align with real-world needs and workflows.
Provide users with customizable tools and features within BIM software that can empower them to adapt the technology to their unique requirements, rather than being forced to conform to a one-size-fits-all solution.
We need to foster an environment that encourages competition and innovation. This can be achieved through initiatives such as open standards and interoperability, and governmental support, which enable different software platforms to seamlessly exchange data and work together, against the dominance of a couple of big players.
To avoid the Matrix trap and keep the Star Trek dream alive, we must embrace democracy as a never-ending Hegelian dialectic. Democracy is not a translation of individual desires into societal goals. We need debates, disagreements, and the transformative power of discourse.
As tech and finance weave their tendrils into every market, especially the environmentally challenged construction industry, what's our game plan? How do we reconcile the old fear that too much democracy kills democracy with today's hyper-connected world?
Technology is fantastic, but its not democratic and does not seem to be heading there any time soon. If you doubt that, take the best-case scenario, our democratically elected leaders once in power, many, if not the majority, have a “a genuine platonic contempt for democracy” (Varoufakis). So how would we expect anything better from unelected CEOs?
Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what is right. Against the seemingly unavoidable convergence to all and everything AI, be a moral disobedient.
Pedro Aibéo, Riga, 2024
Speaker:
Pedro Aibéo is an internationally awarded Architect (MSc / Diplom Ingenieur) and Civil Engineer (MSc Eng) with over 50 buildings built in 22 countries (currently finalizing the design & construction of a hospital for the Korean Government). He is the Founder of the Gamified Cohousing LtD and a Deputy Member of Lohja's Urban Planning Board (Finland). He is currently completing his PhD on ”Architectural Democracy” under the supervision of the renowned Prof. John Keane of the Sydney University.
References:
Baines, J., & Malek, J. (2000). Cultural atlas of ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File.
Cheng, M. Y., Tsai, Y. H., & Lan, L. W. (2015). Building information modeling in green building: A review and bibliometric analysis. Automation in Construction, 59, 70-81.
Cole, R. J. (2009). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Information, 37(5-6), 532-541.
Curl, J. S. (2006). Oxford dictionary of architecture and landscape architecture. Oxford University Press.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., & Liston, K. (2011). BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors. John Wiley & Sons.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press.
Loosemore, M., Lim, B. T. H., & Lingard, H. (2003). The role of regulation in driving innovation in the Australian construction industry. Construction Innovation, 3(1), 13-24.
Reynolds, D. (1997). The industrial revolution. A&C Black.
Abanda, F. H., Tah, J. H. M., & Keivani, R. (2013). Trends in built environment semantic Web applications: Where are we today?
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 40(14), 5563-5577. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.04.027
Fainstein, S. S. (2008). Mega-projects in New York, London and Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 768-785. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00826.x
Fritsch, J., & Brynskov, M. (2010). Between Experience, Affect, and Information: Experimental Urban Interfaces in the Climate Change Debate.
Larson, K., Intille, S., McLeish, T., Beaudin, J., & Williams, R. (2004). Open source building - reinventing places of living. BT Technology
Journal, 22(4), 187-200.
Harvey, D. (2010). Social Justice and the City: University of Georgia Press.
Fischel, W. A. (2004). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Studies, 41(2), 317-340.
Keane, J. (2009). The life and death of democracy. Simon and Schuster.
McTague, C., & Jakubowski, S. (2013). Marching to the beat of a silent drum: Wasted consensus-building and failed neighborhood participatory planning. Applied Geography, 44(0), 182-191. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.07.019
Piatkowska, K. K. (2012). Economy and architecture. The role of architecture in process of building the economic potential of space.
Popper, K. R. S. (1966). The open society and its enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sennett, R. (2012). The open city
Song, Yifan & Lau, Siu-Kit & Lau, S.s.Y. & Song, Dexuan. (2023). A Comparative Study on Architectural Design-Related Requirements of Green Building Rating Systems for New Buildings. Buildings. 13. 124. 10.3390/buildings13010124.
Avineri, S. (1974). Hegel's Theory of the Modern State: Cambridge University Press.
McCullough, M. (2013). Ambient Commons: Attention in the Age of Embodied Information: MIT Press
de Lange, M., & de Waal, M. (2013). Owning the city: New media and citizen engagement in urban design. First Monday, 18(11).
"The future of Democracy" Geraldine Doogue AO and John Keane, presented by Bookoccino, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJjutUtZEJ4&t=2128s
[1] If not familiar with, the Engineering of consent, as in 1928, by Edward Bernays, the invisible government that pulls the wires that control the public mind. Fascists like these words.