Wherever the world exhibition takes place, so too does a world dialogue – a forum for discussion in which one of the ten fields of themes is debated. The exhibition indeed permeates the immediate vicinity with one of its fields of themes.

The chosen theme is open to various concretizations. Take, for example, Planet and Nature, which can be concretized as follows: Planet and Nature – how do we manage to reconcile our effort to face climate change with economic demands? We engage in such concretizations in the light of new developments or in accordance with what people in the communities would like to discuss: we plan the world dialogue together with people from the regions!

Of course, we not only discuss. There will be exciting, sometimes illustrious or unexpected guests who have their background in the sciences, the arts, or in the civil society, and who contribute to the event with short presentations of their views. Moreover, there will be visual presentations for the sake of motivating people to participate in the discussion.

Why would such a world dialogue promote a culture of public discourse? 

We simply assume that one can be understood even in a state of anger as long as one does not direct one’s anger against other people in a personal way. Meeting-Sharing-Learning requires us to cultivate the critical approach towards other people‘s views.

However, a culture of public discourse means more. Meeting-Sharing-Learning is based on a themed world that transforms into an exhibition, finding its live moment in the process of public self-understanding. Neither the creation of a themed world nor the sciences determine what our common themes and problems are. We thus need to work together on finding consensus on this.

Social fragmentation is a basic problem of our age. No one but us will be able to overcome it. The world dialogue would be misunderstood, though, if it is conceived as being an expression of longing for consensus on each and every point. Diversity of opinions is important to us. However, we all argue in a reasonable and meaningful way only if we argue on common ground.