From the promise of AI to the crisis of democracy, through inequality and exclusion, one central question emerges
What lies beyond capitalism? And, above all, who decides the future of the Earth? These are the two questions that today run through — and place under pressure — the debate on innovation, pushing it beyond the purely technical dimension and bringing it back to broader ground: responsibility, visions and long-term horizons. It is from here that the reflection proposed by “I Have a Dream. Harmonic Innovation as a Paradigm for Integral Sustainability” takes shape. The event, part of the Impatta Disrupt Festival and hosted at the Casa del Cinema in Rome, was moderated by Pierluigi Sassi and Luca De Biase. The discussion did not focus on solutions, but on the premises that make them possible.
The question “What lies beyond capitalism?” starts from an assumption that deserves to be challenged: the idea that capitalism is a system in crisis. More than in crisis, according to Fabio Pompei, CEO of Deloitte Italy, it appears to be a system in transformation, capable of adapting even to profound shocks. “Our capacity for resilience today is incomparable with the past,” he observed, underlining how Italian companies, despite their smaller size, have developed a greater ability to respond in recent years, becoming more digital, more international and more flexible.
This reading introduces a tension: resilience is often confused with sustainability. Being able to adapt does not necessarily mean being able to govern change.
Pompei himself identified a number of structural weaknesses, particularly in terms of skills and technological investment. Artificial intelligence represents an unprecedented point of discontinuity, not only because of the speed at which it is evolving, but also because of its ability to cut across every sector. “It is something without precedent,” he stressed, highlighting how the real issue is not so much the adoption of technology, but the ability to understand and integrate it.
On this point, one of the most widespread implicit assumptions emerges: that technological innovation is in itself a positive force. Pompei introduced a more nuanced view, suggesting that AI could offset an impending demographic problem by filling labour shortages in the coming decades. But this perspective raises another question: is this really a solution, or simply an adaptation to an unresolved critical issue? In other words, is innovation responding to real needs, or merely avoiding the need to confront them?
It is on this ground that the contribution of Pasqualino Scaramuzzino, president of Harmonica Innovation Group, comes in, shifting the discussion from “how the system works” to “why it exists”. His approach is not to move beyond capitalism, but to transform it. “We are not seeking to revolutionise what already exists; we want to transform it for the better,” he said, introducing the paradigm of harmonic innovation.
The central point is the redistribution of value: not only economic value, but also social and cultural value. In a traditional system, the benefits of innovation remain within the company or the network of companies; in harmonic innovation, by contrast, they should spread outwards, generating broader impacts.
It is a vision that seeks to dismantle the extractive logic of capitalism without abandoning it entirely. Even more radical is the question of time. Scaramuzzino spoke of “400-year strategic plans”, introducing a perspective that directly conflicts with contemporary financial logic, which is based on ever shorter time horizons. Here, a critical point emerges: is it possible to think in the long term within a system that rewards the short term? Or is this a vision that risks remaining confined to isolated experiences, unable to make an impact on a wider scale?
The same tension between vision and reality emerges in the contribution of Ettore Prandini, president of Coldiretti, who brought the discussion back to more concrete ground: agriculture. Here, innovation is not a hypothesis, but an already active practice, made up of investment, technologies and data management.
In recent years, the sector has invested billions in innovation, developing advanced systems for sensors, drone use and resource optimisation. Yet, here too, innovation is not neutral. Prandini introduced an element often overlooked in the technological debate: the material dimension. “Without water, it will not be possible to use either data or artificial intelligence,” he said, recalling that every digital infrastructure has a physical, energy and environmental cost.
This passage challenges another widespread belief: that the digital transition and the ecological transition can proceed in a linear and compatible way. In reality, the two dimensions are often in tension, and require political and strategic choices that go far beyond technological innovation. Prandini also underlined the need to recover a long-term vision, especially at European level, where the lack of planning has led to growing dependence on external supply chains. In this context, agriculture once again becomes a strategic asset, not only economically but also geopolitically.
If the first panel moved between possibilities and contradictions, the second, entitled “Who decides the future of the Earth?”, introduced a clear discontinuity, shifting the focus from the production of value to its governance. The interview with Ezio Mauro, journalist and essayist, opened up a reflection on the transformation of contemporary democracy, questioning the very idea that the future can be decided collectively.
Mauro described a profound change in the relationship between power and institutions. This is not merely a crisis of democracy, but a redefinition of it. “We are being told that democracy is slow, costly and unsuited to the present age,” he observed, highlighting how this narrative is gaining ground in a context marked by technological acceleration and global instability.
The most critical point is the relationship with limits. Democracy is founded on a system of checks and balances that prevents the concentration of power. But at a time when rapid and effective decisions are demanded, these same mechanisms are increasingly perceived as obstacles. Hence the risk of a progressive delegitimisation of democratic institutions.
Another central element concerns the role of public opinion. If power is being redefined, citizens too are changing their position within the system. “Citizens no longer feel able to have a real impact,” Mauro stressed, describing a condition of growing disintermediation and mistrust. This passage reveals a structural contradiction: while access to information is increasing, the ability to navigate it and participate consciously is diminishing.
The formation of public opinion is increasingly mediated by platforms and algorithms, which redefine the ways in which consensus is built.
To this is added a deeper crisis, linked to inequalities. Mauro distinguished between inequality and exclusion: the former can be managed within the democratic system; the latter calls it into question. When part of the population feels outside the perimeter of representation, democracy loses its legitimacy. In this scenario, mistrust in institutions also extends to knowledge, which is perceived as an instrument of power rather than as a shared resource.
So what remains of innovation once its promises are called into question? Between the transformation of capitalism, technological ambiguities, tensions between the digital and the ecological, and the crisis of democracy, a common issue emerges: it is no longer the “how” of innovation, but the “why” — and above all the “who decides” — that defines the trajectories of the future.
Cover image: © Impatta Disrupt – Casa del Cinema
