>Audrey Tang

> I see tension, conflict, and so on, as necessary for people to feel their co-presence and the in-fear togetherness. Without such shared urgency, people’s energy will not be able to contribute to co-creation from a plurality. People just discuss, and do whatever they’re doing.

> With this shared urgency, we now see people believing that democracy is not on the backslide after all, that it means something to be part of the democratic network. That it means something for liberal democracy to hold its own values and that it’s not out-of-date.

>Jo Swinson

>I’m interested in the point you made about the resilience and the participation. Could you say a little bit more? From what you’re saying, you’re basically arguing that participation is good not just from a morality perspective, but also because it provides resilience. Is that right? Are there other examples that you have?

>私は、回復力と参加についてあなたが指摘したことに興味があります。もう少し言っていただけますか?あなたの言っていることから、あなたは基本的に、参加は道徳の観点からだけでなく、回復力をもたらすという点でも良いと主張しているのです。そうなんですか。他に例はありますか?

>Audrey Tang

>That is correct, basically, (laughs) or even more than resilience. Antifragility. This kind of participation is what allows people to find a clarity of purpose of a shared urgency whenever there is a emergency.

>それは基本的に正しいです(笑)あるいは、レジリエンス以上の話です。反脆弱性。このような参加により、緊急事態が発生した場合に、人々は共通の緊急性の目的を明確に見出すことができます。