The Green and the Blue: Naïve Ideas to Improve Politics in a Mature Information Society

  • Luciano FloridiEmail author
Part of the Digital Ethics Lab Yearbook book series (DELY)


In this chapter, I present some ideas that I hope may help improve political thinking and practice in a mature information society. The ambition is quintessentially philosophical: trying to understand and improve the world, to the extent that each of us can contribute, in this case with some intellectual work. That is all. It is not a little, I realize, but it is not much either. It is the usual paradox: how important is a vote, or, in this case, a conceptual contribution? As much as a grain of sand on the beach: one counts for nothing, two are still nothing, but millions of grains can make a significant difference, if only because, without them, the beach would not exist. This is the relational value of aggregation. The ambition is therefore philosophical, but also aggregative, because I hope that the ideas expressed in this chapter may be useful and find some follow-up.


Democracy EU Politics Environment Digital technologies 



This text is a revised and updated version of a pamphlet that I published in March 2018 in Italian with the title “Il Verde e il Blu—Idee ingenue per migliorare la politica in una società matura dell’informazione” (Rome: Formiche). The project was begun in 2016, after Brexit and before the election of Trump and the huge success of two populist parties (the Northern League and the Five Star Movement) in the Italian general election of 2018. The idea of this text took its initial form during some meetings with Alessandro Beulcke, with whom I conceived the project, discussed its contents, and shared the enthusiasm for the value that an informed, rational, intelligent, and open dialogue may have to improve politics. Without Alessandro, I would probably never have had the courage or the confidence to embark on this project. So, I consider him co-responsible, but only of the good bits, the rest is my fault. The support by Allea, Alessandro’s communication company, was crucial for the logistics side.

Besides Alessandro, several people helped me to improve the ideas contained in this chapter in a profound way. They did it with a lot of patience, kindness, intelligence, and a remarkable investment of time. I really do not know how to thank them. For privacy reasons I will not name all of them. But I will nominate a group (which I have sometimes called G 18:3, with reference to Matthew 18:3) which has contributed to various versions of this text in a critical way, in addition to Alessandro himself: Alessandro Aleotti, Monica Beltrametti, Barbara Carfagna, Luca De Biase, Adrio Maria de Carolis, Massimo Durante, Ugo Pagallo, and Sergio Scalpelli. In addition, I would also like to thank Fabrizio Floridi, Kia Nobre, Stefano Quintarelli, and Mariarosaria Taddeo, who have read many versions and provided more suggestions on how to improve them than I can remember. Finally, David Sutcliffe commented and edited the English version with so much acumen that it became a new edition. To all these people, named or not, goes my deep gratitude. If the things I wrote in this text are not entirely wrong, it is thanks to our discussions and the feedback I have received from them. None of the people mentioned is responsible for the errors that remain, which are only mine, and I mean it. And above all, none of the people who helped me have approved or subscribed to the ideas presented here, and for which I take full responsibility.


  1. Cassirer, Ernst. 1923. Substance and function, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  2. Floridi, Luciano. 2008. Artificial intelligence’s new frontier: Artificial companions and the fourth revolution. Metaphilosophy 39 (4/5): 651–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2009. The information society and its philosophy. The Information Society 25 (3): 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2011. A defence of constructionism: Philosophy as conceptual engineering. Metaphilosophy 42 (3): 282–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ———. 2014a. The Fourth Revolution – How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2014b. The onlife manifesto – Being human in a hyperconnected era. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2015. Toleration and the design of norms. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (5): 1095–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2016. Tolerant paternalism: Pro-ethical design as a resolution of the dilemma of toleration. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (6): 1669–1688. Scholar
  9. ———. 2017. The logic of design as a conceptual logic of information. Minds and Machines 27 (3): 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halmos, Paul R. 2017. Naive Set Theory. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Internet Institute, Digital Ethics LabUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.The Alan Turing InstituteLondonUK

Personalised recommendations