Only that the traditional channels for such expression are sealed and thus must resort to other means. Firstly, the uncertainty is now higher for the simple reason that complexity has grown. The collective participation puts on the table various options, multiplicity of criteria, almost endless variations. There is a meeting where the reliability comes and goes, where the theoretical and practical at times become adversaries and the management of communications becomes a defining element. In other words, mistakes can magnify and lead to the failure of an action. Disagreements are always healthy, something that is not understood in certain political situations of high pressure. Is what scientists, speaking of his own task, call post-normal science, that is, bet is so large that most importantly about the least important concept is not applicable, but that values become horizontal and you have to resort to evaluative commitments and on the uncertainty placed ethics. Skeptics argue that there is no collective response and that the multiplicity of criteria produces, on the other hand, immobility and lack of decision-making or, at least, the loss of its effectiveness.

Realists argue that the decisions are never neutral, that nothing is achieved if the collective is not involved and, finally, put on the table the argument of moral autonomy. That is, it is unacceptable that others make the decisions that affect our lives. Moreover, gains efficiency with the set deciding, just exercising rights learns to deal with the complexity of the problems and the only way to avoid that others decide for us is real us. If we participate in the decision making is minimizes any expression of social resistance to the purpose which is sought. If we want to say in more precise words, the world, well, to March towards a growing politicization. This is good news because the abandonment of the interest by the Polis has been the that is causing a huge amount of vices that have affected the democratic process.