A few years ago, after an interview,

the cameramen aside of the journalist

hang around to talk to me.

He was amazed at the things I said,

because he had always heard
something else, on that subject,

and he wanted some clarification.

So I brought him proof of what I said,

showed him how his beliefs
had no scientific ground,

and we pleasantly chatted
for half an hour.

Eventually, he said,
"I understand, but I don't trust you."

I understand, but I don't trust you.

Even today, I'm grateful to that person
for the lesson he taught me.

That day I realized
that I didn't understand anything,

I had it all wrong.

I don't know if I've learned
how to communicate.

but I've certainly learned how not to.

How did I feel? Was that frustrating?

Yes, a lot: but also challenging.

If the facts are here, and they're proven,

I still have to find a way
to communicate them effectively.

I mean, in such a way
that they come to help our decisions.

So I started studying: I wanted
to understand better, I was curious.

The fact is, we all carry on
with our preconceptions,

that's how we evolved.

They also have a utility:

let's say that preconceptions
are prefabricated, ready-to-use ideas

that we carry with us.

Ready to be used quickly
when we need a quick decisions.

However, they also have
a rather serious side effect:

they prevent us from considering
new information,

especially when these are at odds

with the beliefs we already have.

They make us less agile, harder for us
to change our minds.

Yeah, because changing
your mind is painful,

it's admitting that we were wrong.

That's how our minds are.

This phenomenon is called
"cognitive dissonance",

makes us suffer

and the mind will do anything to avoid it.

We need to know it.

But this is annoying:

we need to make the right decision,

or at least the rightest one
with the information at our disposal.

How can we do that?

Well, there are tricks to cheat the mind

that respect its dynamics

but at the same time allow us
to acquire new information

and change your mind, if that's the case.

For example, a strategy

is give points of advantage
to the mind, flatter it.

"You did good!

The information you had,
the beliefs you had.

were correct, acceptable,
knowing what you knew.

But now there are new infos.

Show how agile you are,
how quick you are to adjust.

Things like this: we can afford
to be condescending to ourselves.

At this point, you must be wondering
what I was talking about that day,

what will ever be so thorny, scary,

to be absolutely rejected.

Well, I was talking
about agriculture, food,

innovations related
to the food production system,

genetics, biotechnology.

I won't discuss it here today.

a TEDx is a cup of tea
that only refreshes for a few minutes,

a mouthful of ideas and stimuli.

But I want to tell you that I'm worried,

because I see how our society is facing

decisions related to food production.

Since it's a delicate subject,
because it touches our belly,

culinary traditions,

the environment and its protection,
the landscape, health,

is a subject riddled of ideologies,
and therefore of preconceptions.

We all think we have the right recipe
for sustainable agriculture.

We are all so convinced!

And so, when a different idea comes along

we lock ourselves in defense,
ready to retaliate to demolish it.

The mainstream is really powerful,

the dominant narrative
we've heard for years

in certain supermarkets ads,

for example,

or we have seen on certain
television broadcasts,

or have read in the stories and articles

of some opinionist etc.

that dominant narrative
shaped our thoughts.

And so, today, by instinct,
it seems good, clean, right to us.

We would never question it.

This applies to everyone, be careful:
it is a risk that we all take.

Faced with a verified fact that shows us

that our position has limits,

we won't change our minds:

rather, we'll find a different reason

to keep thinking the same way,

maintaining the status quo.

This is a proven fact:
there are many years of study,

and many scientific works that prove it.

That's who we are,
and it's better to know.

Democracy also has
to come to terms with it:

on the other hand, we come
from a very instructive period.

You've heard of "infodemia,"

that cacophony of information

we have been subjected to
in the last year.

It caused us such a discomfort

that in some protests

billboards with the sentence
"Enough with science" showed up.

Which, of course, is absurd.

I mean, we can take a stand
against another stand;

but science doesn't take a stand,
so what's the point of attacking it?

And yet it is a signal
of the frustration, fear

that some people feel,
it's understandable.

Sometimes, some people ask me:

"How do you choose who to trust?"

Which journalist, which communicator?

I choose those who care
about their reputation.

Those who constantly
verifies their sources,

because she fears the shame
of writing unverified things.

I choose those who can't afford
to lose their reputation,

because it's her most precious asset,

and then communicates responsibly.

Today's theme is "Second Chance".

If I met that cameraman today,
what would I tell him?

Well, I don't think I'd bother
taking his fears away.

I'd leave it to him.

I understand, we attach to our fears.

No, I think I'd rather show him
what opportunities we're missing.

what chances of sustainable
food production

which we said no to.

Lost benefits.

Yeah, I think I'd do that.

because I have learned, each of us
has fears to be respected,

and we are solely responsible for.

So, today, when I need to talk

of complex, polarizing,
scary themes, what do I do?

Well, I'm thinking of Mrs. Paola,
a lady who follows me.

and who wrote to me
after reading my article

where I was talking about agriculture,
innovation, environmentalism.

That environmentalism that often
forgets its original mission,

and rejects innovations that are also
beneficial to the environment,

in the name of ideology.

Mrs. Paola wrote to me:

"I became interested in agriculture
at the tender age of 73,

for the love of my grandchildren.

Because I understood

that much of their future
depends on this branch of science.

And speaking of fear marketing,

marketing that exploits consumers' fears,

she asked me, "Who benefits?

I don't want to be a useful idiot
in someone else's hands anymore."

I told her, you're not a useful idiot.

you are living proof that democracy
is an immense value.

You are proof of how valuable
an election vote is.

a choice of purchase,
a freedom of thought,

a choice of sharing contents
and considerations.

What's pushing Mrs. Paola?

Curiosity.

Which has no age, and is strong enough

to push us to look beyond our beliefs.

Curiosity is a precious ally

to take our fears, our mind by the hand,

and start walking again.

It's the engine of discovery, of the new.

This is not a happy ending story:
this is still an endless story.

Yes, we can't live without ideologies.

But we can keep looking them in the face,

with genuine curiosity.