By the way — what you’re about to hear is who I’m looking for in my ongoing co-creation of Planet Waves. –ef
A chief innovation officer?
67 thoughts on “A chief innovation officer?”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
By the way — what you’re about to hear is who I’m looking for in my ongoing co-creation of Planet Waves. –ef
You must be logged in to post a comment.
hi patti.t16, that informal stat is from landline days, replace “see” with “use”. State it like this, “Half the world’s people will never even use a telephone”. I doubt conditions in the world have gotten any better in the past thirty years. Knowing just a few of the stats from the linked site, it is all too easy for me to extrapolate that statement.
A few of the eye-opening stats:
1)80% of the world’s people live on less than $10 USD per day. EIGHTY percent!! If you had to live on $10/day(or less), would you be able to afford a phone? What would $300 a month buy in your city?
2)A quarter of the world’s people live without electricity. That’s about 1,600,000,000 people who live with NO electricity. I’ve done that, but only for several months a few times in my life. Lemme tell you, it’s HARD work to live like that. How are you gonna plug in your cell phone?
3)”Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.” Think about that the next time you get a drink of highly treated and processed water from the infrastructure in your locale. Or when you urinate or bathe and all the “waste” water is piped “away”.
We will not survive unless/until we all have what we need to be alive. The way we are living is killing us. Technology in and of itself is not a bad thing. Buckminster Fuller was inspired to find new technologies to support what he called “livingry” as opposed to “weaponry”. We could house millions of people in geodesic domes or we could build a another stealth bomber and a few more drones. We have plenty of problems in our world, we need to focus on developing solutions.
Still no takers on the Fukashima building #4 competition I see. C’mon nuke industry peeps, somebody’s got to touch that with a ten foot pole soooooooon!!!
Thanks Carrie!
liminali, if that’s true, then all the more reason to question whether the digital revolution is comprised largely of a relatively few privileged children playing with their toys. Don’t misunderstand me. I’ve got all the toys to keep me connected when I need/want to be connected. And as far as that goes I love my toys. I just think we get too obsessed and a bit masterbatory (in the bad way!) about technology’s role in solving the world’s problems. IMHO this notion is an outgrowth of leaving the free market to sort everything out. It will only dig us into a deeper hole.
Pam,
Will do and thanks!
“And RE: Friedman’s ‘this used to be us’ lament, well, more contentiously I would ask what if it’s time for America to let someone else lead (has the US done such a bangup job that it should be allowed to continue in this role)? Or put another way what if Americans have other, bigger (inner) fish to fry at this moment? What if America’s leadership role is not now destined to be in the marketplace but in the soul? Things change. Just a thought…”
Wow. :::head exploding::: That’s a really great thought! I like the way you think!
I doubt a quarter of the world’s people are connected to the internet when more than half of the world’s people will never even see a telephone. The digital world of human communication has only been existent for about thirty years. The digital communication infrastructure was built in the early 1980s with what was called ESS (Electronic Switching System)phone lines. This was the equipment that provided the interface for the use of digital phone services(call waiting, caller ID, voice mail, etc.) with those newfangled push button phones. 🙂
My response to the innovation!connectivity!everyone!expression!competition! frame of brain is, How is that gonna feed the kids? Do they have clean water to drink? Enough to eat? A safe place to sleep at night? Do their sources of energy cause health problems? Environmental degradation?
We’re not going to survive until/unless we figure out how to meet peoples’ basic needs. The inequities are killing us. Literally. We need to help balance our world. I live in a so called developed country, and like many others, struggle to make ends meet, live paycheck to paycheck, make choices between meds and bills every month, etc. To a woman in Afghanistan or a mother that walks three hours every day to get water, I have some high class problems. Until we live so each of us has enough of what we need to be alive, we’re dooming our survival. Gotta think global, act local.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
The stats on global priorities are mind boggling. We could choose survival, it IS possible. It would take a tiny fraction of what we spend just on killin’ folks to feed, hydrate, clothe, shelter, educate, and doctor pretty much everyone on the planet. Not to mention what we spend on cigarettes, booze, and drugs.
Oh, and I wanna see a competition to contain the 11,000+ spent fuel rods in Fukashima building #4, PRONTO. C’mon, all you nuke industry “competitors”, how about it? BTW, when are you guys gonna work out that nuclear waste disposal thingie again?
Carrie,
I don’t know if you can be interested in that (besides the bars – great!): in Italy there are people who do preschool for small groups of little kids at their home. If the group is small they don’t need to stay at the official-preschool-regulations.
(Re foods… forget it. You can’t even bake a cake and bring it at your child’s school for a party, any longer. Only industrial products!!! Crazy).
Carrie tell us whe you do mail order too, I’ll buy some!
Hey Patti… thanks for the food for thought – I guess ‘us’ is everyone who uses a keyboard and screen of some kind to log on to the internet: Web, email, VOIP, chats, IRQs, Usenet, gopher and Google (as the freestanding entity that it is). “Only” a quarter? So about 2 billion people? In twenty years that is pretty amazing. I wonder if 25% of the world had telephones in 1897?
And as someone who has raised two children on either side of the modem-in-every-home divide, I can vouch for the psychological distinctions – the physical is so global that I don’t think it can be measured (by the very thing that is itself, changing, the vertices of human perception).
But yes, I saw the slimesters in their 3 piece suits coming to UT in the early 90s, trying to figure out how to colonize this new realm. And they’ve done a damn fine job. Except for one teensy-weensy little problem: there is no end to it. In order to colonize you have to have boundaries, and there ain’t none. The artificial boundary is bandwidth and frequency, but the fact is all parts of the spectrum can carry these signals, not just what the FCC designates.
(So. Colonize that, assholes.)
Okay, I’ve cogitated enough for tonight. Sorry to drop the ball, but the dreamstate –the *other* dreamstate– is calling.
***
**
*
Thanks Mytes, Agreed re: ‘NOT just’ but distraction is part of the equation. Also I’m not sure the web is changing ‘us’ as much as ‘we’ like to think. Define ‘us’ I guess… Only about a quarter of the world’s population is online and only about half of these use social networks. So the web ‘revolution’ isn’t reaching the majority – that’s a lot of change not happening. And we are still entrenched in senseless wars, poverty and malnutrition is still rife, the economy is collapsing, the natural world is being raped, our inner/sexual/social revolution seems a long way off. Now that the web-osphere controllers have figured out that people who use the web like being able to find information quickly, there are increasing moves to make them pay for it – thus we have the issue of ownership of information and this nagging problem as I say of ‘closed communities’ again. Not to mention, the fact that our web activity is being tracked centrally by website owners, advertisers and (probably) government… I don’t mean to paint a bleak picture but…
I guess my question (as much to myself as anyone else, by the way) starts with what if this is as good as it gets? What if this is the biggest audience you can expect? What if this is the most money you can make? What if this is the most friends/likes/followers you can attract? What if the revolution you start is like water on stone rather than a raging forest fire? How then would you orient your life/thought/work/actions? Would you say you had failed?
And RE: Friedman’s ‘this used to be us’ lament, well, more contentiously I would ask what if it’s time for America to let someone else lead (has the US done such a bangup job that it should be allowed to continue in this role)? Or put another way what if Americans have other, bigger (inner) fish to fry at this moment? What if America’s leadership role is not now destined to be in the marketplace but in the soul? Things change. Just a thought…
Mystes, I was so touched to read about your lovely daughter. My heart goes out to you. You’re an inspiring and wonderful woman.
Carrie, sounds fantastic! Keep us posted. (Good for you Mystes!)
HappyDancing w/ you, Madame Carrie. Awesome! I want to see those yummy bars in Whole Foods Market by 2014. Go get ’em!
Mystes,
You are NOT gonna believe this. Was it Saturn that went direct today? I was looking up Arizona’s laws on selling baked goods and right under my very busy and stressed nose last year a law was passed. This law allows the baking and sale of specific baked goods (cookies, cakes, fruit pies, candy, and bar cookies) AT HOME as long as one registers with the state online system, has a food handler’s permit (really easy to get that), and follows specific labelling directions. These can even be marketed to local retailers.
Go figure. A door opens and my specialty bars (actually pretty famous with a lot of kids in this town) can be baked and sold. Yippee! I LOVE baking cookies, decorating cakes, and all that. I can hardly wait!
:::doing happy dance::::
Thank you, HS. There are several women (and men?) who’ve been part of this community and lost children, some more terribly than Sarah’s demise. This is where the myth of comparison breaks down, you know? A suicide is more terrible than cancer? A car accident is less heartbreaking than AIDS? It is all insupportable.
And yet, it opened a space in me for which I am truly, deeply, continuously grateful. She was long-legged, soft-hearted, cello-playing masseuse who dated every variation of human being out there. And the only thing she loved more than being-in-love was me and her brother.
Well, I just needed to say that. Hope it wasn’t too ‘off-topic.’
oh Mystes, I am so very sorry. I can’t even imagine this for you. Thank you for telling me. A big warm hug to you.
I work in a multi faceted arts organization. This particular young woman is an incredibly talented jewelry designer. There are about a dozen artists in residence too. I sat down and talked with her briefly late last year and is probably one of the most sweetest people. I kinda stalked her website (sorry, I know…can’t help it, I’m a Scorpio!) and noticed a blog entry about her mom. Anyway, before this gets too creepy, I’ll just leave it at that.
Thank you again for so much support.
Yours very warmly,
HS
Mr. Hugging, I *had* a daughter named Sarah. I have the ruinous habit of speaking of her as if she’s still among us. But no. She died of cancer –age 20– at the end of the last millennium.
But she’s still a *huge* part of our lives. And she taught me how to mother, so my gratitude is bottomless.
***
You work at an arts residency? or there is just one artist in residence?
I looked at Kundalini Yoga a few years ago, but I just can’t get with the Bhajan. Met him when I was 18. Funny story.
One woman in our farmers’ market uses the Pizza Hut kitchen after hours. Not everything has to be done in a certified kitchen. Be sure to read the regulations for your state. Farmers’ Market makes a good homeschool project for teens too. Two teens in our market divvy up their goods and go to different markets to produce more income, and I must say they are awesome kids. Most craft items can be sold, but food is the main thing people want to buy.
Mystes, do you have a daughter named Sarah? If so, its just kinda funny. I know a Sarah whose mom is studying Kundalini Yoga. Well, I don’t really know her. She is an artist in residence where I work.
Carrie, again, you have to think your way around these things. I used the kitchen of a restaurant that was closed from midnight till dawn. Rented it for $20 a night. And you have to read the codes carefully. Things that are *cooked* have to be produced in a certified kitchen. Things that are dried or simply mixed dry, no. That isn’t considered “cooking.” Grow mint, dry it and mix it with dried citrus fruit powder (grind in your blender). Wallah: Better-than-Koolaid, for $1 a packet.
For example.
Everywhere you see a rule, there are 50 ways around it. Focus, girl.
***
**
*
Mystes,
Ah I see. I am good at so many things…hard to choose. Can’t sell food in AZ without a “professional kitchen” so that’s out (way too expensive to rent one and as a renter I can’t fit my own kitchen for that) but that still leaves a LOT of things I can do. Hard to figure out what will sell here. ::::thinking:::: Thanks.
Hmmm… Carrie, I wasn’t suggesting that you write for a living. I was saying that *my* vocation, writing, is more than half drudgery. That ‘doing what you love’ often means just that.
But people run households and small businesses all of the time. Just pick something and do it. Do it for free in your spare time for a few months until you get the hang of doing it quickly, then start charging for it. Pickle tomatoes, walk dogs, grow starter plants, do personal shopping, repair awnings, earrings, sweaters. I don’t know what you’re good at, and maybe you don’t either. Just do *something* that is marketable, then make yourself available. CL, Back Page ads, flyers on cars, call in to local radio stations, put cards freaking everywhere.
And finally :: Get your kids to do it with you. Sarah was helping me make masa for 4 hours every week when I had a gourmet tamale business (for the first five years of Q’s life… I wanted to stay home, so I made tamales as one of my part-time gigs).
There are a million reasons to not do something. “I don’t have the money,” always being the biggest one. Do it anyway.
Or not.
Mytes,
It just dawned on me that you didn’t know what I was referring to when I said I can’t do what I love and get paid. I was referring to being a full-time, stay-at-home parent as a career choice. I cannot do that (and it is what I love) and get paid. Not in America.
In fact every time I bring up getting paid to do that most people freak out and act like I am expecting a hand out for doing “nothing” of any value. Parenting full time has ZERO value in this country. People are agast that I would even suggest such a thing. What? Get PAID to parent my kids full time? They act like it is a sin to even consider that.
When I talk about investing in kids, that other countries do that, etc they get all defensive and make it into a working moms vs stay-at-home moms argument which is not where I was going.
Parenting is not valued and by connection kids are not valued (except as consumers via their parents’ money) in this country.
“Now Carrie, you know it’s not all Y/N on this issue. There are seasons and seasons for making a ‘creative’ or entrepreneurial living. You may be closer than you think…”
If you are referring to writing, hale no. I know I
1) haven’t the time to do it well because of my first career (parenting full time)
2) haven’t the drive to do it every week
3) haven’t the creativity to do it (I do my best work responding to others’ creativity; like some have said of the Asians…I don’t invent things, I improve on things)
4) haven’t a thick enough skin to do it
5) haven’t the patience (or time) to deal with reeeesearch
6) haven’t the patience to deal with the editing process
7) get fed up with people always acting like I am too uneducated or inexperienced to know anything much less something of importance. Having a degree hasn’t changed that one whit
8) don’t do well with the stress of time constraints because my time is already very constrained by my first career
9) I hate competition of ANY KIND (turns my stomach into knots and raises my stress level) and writing for pay IS competitive.
10) get tired of people telling me to write with my own voice but then when I do, they say they don’t like it or I should tone it down or it won’t sell, blah-blah-blah.
The message in all that is: be smart and know my limitations; don’t try writing for pay.
As for my current career choice, there IS no way to be paid for it unless I were already a German national in Germany when I had the kids (or some other country where women actually get money (GASP!) if they stay home and raise their kids.). So it is a Y/N thing, KWIM?
((LINDA… My broadband connection is still 400 kbps… slower than a ditchdigger on on Quaaludes. No VOIP yet. Can’t even get my gmail to open, drops the connection while waiting… I have *no* idea why I can get on this page, everything else is crashy as hell.)
Now Carrie, you know it’s not all Y/N on this issue. There are seasons and seasons for making a ‘creative’ or entrepreneurial living. You may be closer than you think…
I’ve been self-employed more than half of my adult life. Doing ‘what I love’ still involved doing a lot of what I did not so love. I think Eric might be romancing the idea a little, eh?
It has *always* been thus: about 70%/30% drudgery/excitement in the writing world. Sometimes the research/pre-writing phase partakes of both sides. But pitching is always a pain in the ass. Always. Might as well sell vacuum cleaners. Or pooperscoopers. So. Much. Fun. }8(
(Until someone says yes, then you backwash all of the hell into ‘wonderful hell.’ Funny how that works. . .)
Obviously, if I write 3,500 words about the history of DDT and the associated astrology charts, I am not trying to reach everyone…
” We do have to make our own jobs. I’ve been noticing that part of the unemployment problem is that the concept of a job is becoming obsolete. And as I said on Coast to Coast AM, I would love to see statistics on how many people who are now unemployed actually liked their last job. Maybe we would have a stronger economy if we did what we truly love to do, or what we are good at and at least enjoy doing.”
That’s all well and good to want but reality is, doing what I love doesn’t pay the bills or feed the kids. If it ever did that then I could “do what I love.” The way things are done in the current economic paradigm means the vast majority of people have to “do a job” they usually don’t like just to support themselves and if there are dependents it is even worse.
Raising children is not seen as important because it doesn’t generate taxes or money; kids are consumers not producers for a long time (20 years at least) so no one wants to invest in them because short-term gains (instant gratification) is the paradigm of the times. Never mind that they will ultimately grow up and become gains or drags on society (depending on how we invest in them); that’s just too far in the future for most people to want to wait.
Instead, our paradigm invests in for-profit prisons on the back end because as a society we would rather make a buck than invest in education and good care for our kids at the front end (because the front end is not for-profit).
Until that changes I cannot “do what I love” and feed myself or the kids. Nor can my husband; doing what he loves (teaching kids) is being shredded every day with rules, tests, cuts, “accountability” standards and less and less pay. Not to mention less and less positions available (he is currently unemployed and uncontracted).
That is a pipe dream- being paid for doing what you love. At least in this paradigm anyway. Until that changes MOST people will never be able to “do what they love” and survive on it, much less raise kids.
Please know I am not forgetting the American super-size lifestyle, it does factor in things but WE are not living that super-sized life style and we still cannot do what we love and raise kids. We are always one paycheck away from being homeless or hungry. That has to change for the dream of everyone doing what they love to happen.
Patti.T16 – Deep Bow.
With re: to C’space, I still think Howard Rheingold is one of our better belleweathers – and there are always a dozen discussions happening on the Well.com (whole/earth/lectronic/link) and Jon Lebkowsky at EFF is also a voice to be heard.
This realm is NOT just a distraction or advertising space. It really is a qualitatively distinct zone. It is not a replacement for flesh&blood encounters, but it is recalibrating what the human body can do and know. As I said in an old article: what happens when you go from 256 colors to millions of colors on a screen? Our ability to distinguish shading changes. Sometimes not consciously, but that comes later.
I am not (pleaseplease don’t misunderstand me) arguing that more or finer granularity is “better.” It is simply where we are going. What that can and will do to the sensory array is still an open question.
As for the 20% analysis I couldn’t agree more. Thank you!
Sorry again. Living on the other side of the world I lag behind in these comments sometimes. Eric thanks for clarification. Carrie I absolutely get what you are saying – I think there is a meta-message here that is subtle and unsettling – and Alex I think in spite of what you say Friedman is not being entirely clear (or maybe the word is honest). Talk about Eros and Logos! (I’m reminded of Deborah Tannen’s book You Just Don’t Understand – Women and Men in Conversation). I believe it is up to the speaker (Friedman) to be clear; it is NOT up to the audience to turn endless backfips and somersaults in order to contextualise, to essentially reshape our beliefs to fit into what we think he might be saying. Fuck that.
If Eric had not clarified his position I would have felt quite worried about using Friedman as an example of what he wanted for PW. I’m still not sure it’s the best example. That fact that it is probably the only example of what Eric is trying to grapple with is in itself pretty disturbing. BUT Eric I don’t think you do have 13 million competitors (and wonder if that isn’t the corporate seduction of what Friedman is saying taking hold) any more than I believe the Friedman has a potential global audience of millions hanging on his every word. Does Friedman really believe that if he didn’t have all those virtual competitors that the whole global audience would be his to claim?!
There’s that old chestnut about how society is ordered: 5% are open to change and will willingly seek it out. 15% will be open to change if you can make a compelling enough argument and 80% honestly don’t care and will go along with whatever everyone else says. If you can get that 20% to be interested you can probably have a revolution. I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to focus impeccability on the 20% rather than being drawn into the idea that you have to compete and reach everyone.
I get that the internet has changed everything. I love it for the things it does well. But I just don’t see cyberspace as an extension of the neighbourly chat over the back yard fence. Indeed rather like advertising, and the corporate/capitalist agenda, cyberspace has created a definition of community that focuses on exclusion rather than inclusion. Does anyone believe that we are not being manipulated through cyberspace (to stay connected/ to not lose out/to be the first to know/ to get more hits than the next guy or worse to be deliberately distracted by all the garbage that is out there so we don’t focus on what is really going on), in the same way we are being manipulated through advertising? When mass murder was being committed in Syria a month ago what was Twitter trending? The Eurovision song contest!!
I realise I’m not coming at this from a service provider’s point of view – but for me I am trying to use cyberspace less and in a more intentional way, which I hope is a kind of personal impeccability.
Gwind, thanks for the acknowledgement.
First I want to point out two or three things that I resonated with in this video. I did not swallow it whole. I analyze and deconstruct everything while I’m learning it, though a few points stand out.
— At a certain point I figured out that AOL and Planet Waves are both top-level domains. I also figured out that every Planet Waves promo is competing with every other advertisement that everyone sees.
— Netflix charges $8 a month. We charge $10 a month. Why should people pay $2 more a month to get a content stream about astrology and news, versus the ability to see nearly every movie ever made? We have to answer that one all the time.
— When you speak to the whole world, as opposed to one local region of a county, you have to adapt. People expect us to cover Australian politics, European politics, etc. I would — if I had the writers. It’s easier (and less responsibility) to type comments on a blog than it is to write an article about the banking situation in Spain.
— We do have to make our own jobs. I’ve been noticing that part of the unemployment problem is that the concept of a job is becoming obsolete. And as I said on Coast to Coast AM, I would love to see statistics on how many people who are now unemployed actually liked their last job. Maybe we would have a stronger economy if we did what we truly love to do, or what we are good at and at least enjoy doing.
— The Internet has changed everything — and the Internet changes every day. It’s one thing to be a consumer or “end user” in this environment. As a content provider, I have to figure out how to service every platform and many constituencies on a relatively small budget with a small staff. We have to constantly keep up. People go to Amazon.com and expect every website to have that kind of integrated functionality.
— Excellence is a given, and at the same time it’s an alien concept. School teaches mediocrity. To get As you don’t have to learn the material; you have to learn the game. My background is in noncompetitive education and I take a noncompetitive approach to doing Planet Waves, however that means we have to strive for excellence and all do considerably more work than we get paid for. That takes devotion that goes above and beyond the calling of a “job.”
— Please note the screen shot of Google above. A search for Astrology + Horoscopes gives 13 millionreturns. When Rob Brezsny was getting started, he did not have to go against 13 million ‘competitors’. He could actually write to an editor or call and make contact. With 13 million other places to get information about astrology ‘for free’, we have to answer the question, why expect anyone to pay for what we do here at Planet Waves? And to do that, we have to be different, excellent, innovative, and move quickly.
Jude – Exactly! The Hubris is strong in that one… I’ve always aligned hubris and humus in my mind, mainly because they can both be created out of crap, and the result is often a smelly, dark mixture. Ultimately however, one is a good thing while the other is no longer needed.
Oh jeez, Stripe the kitten of doom is rampaging around the work table. I’ve got to distract her quickly.
Bye for now.
With all the tension and debate has anyone asked Eric what he needs to feed his vision in having PW not only exist, but grow with innovation? To me that is the key here. A perfect format is here at your feet folks, supplied by someone else’s sweat. What do we do with it? Kind of reminds me of the premise, don’t tell me what is wrong with the world, tell me how you are making it a better place.
I would like to know what Eric’s vision of PW is using this man’s theory. I would like to know how I can become more spontaneous; more at my core of creativity. I would like to know how I can contribute to this energy.
Brendan, thanks for your balanced evaluation of TF and for drawing out once more what he was actually driving at. It seems to me that geography is intimately related to ecology. Our cyber-geographies are clearly opening up broader vistas of inner space and social spaces that can provide ample resource to connect more richly and expand/evolve our capacities. If those who are committed take the leap consciously then the old market economy can be revitalised by creatives who also have strong ethics. We do jot need to shrink back from any important message simply because the messenger is imperfect. You have to wonder why the great religions required perfect guru figureheads! Probably because it has long been known that humans discredit messages by discrediting the messenger. This is time honoured and forgets readily the notion, as Ralph Blum phrases it, that “even scoundrels and arch-thieves can be the bearers of wisdom.”
Interesting comments, here — virtual {{hug}} to all of you. I can’t load long YouTubes on dial up, so I didn’t get to listen to old Tom … but — no offense intended and after years of reading him — I think old Tom’s a weenie. If you ask why, I guess I’d have to say … I don’t want to live in the world Tom’s words create. Had to giggle, Brendan, about his being a Serious Journalist because those who DON’T think so have declared him a Legend In His Own Mind. I give him props for moderation and creativity but there’s something kinda bloodless there; can’t cozy up against his vision and feel any welcome. So — weenie. Just sayin’ …
“A true community will outlive the mode of communication, and not be dependent on one instance, like Facebook, for it’s sole reason for being.”
Yes. An example of that would be that group of posters from the old AOL Dare I Say It: Religious Experiences message board that I mention from time to time. The people there went through several different mediums of communication after the boad closed down. Some did LiveJournal. Some did a Yahoo group but for several years we didn’t post anywhere. We did exchange Christmas cards sometimes.
Then Face Book came on the scene and a few of us created a private group and slowly began looking up all the members. It was not easy because we only knew each other by those old AOL screen names but we managed to find everyone and the community is back stronger than ever. Some of us have met in real life, too. We all like and respect each other so much we just didn’t want the connections between us to die off.
It has even morphed from a debate group to a support group of friends who still care after 16 years. We started in 1996 and are still connected. Amazing. Many of us look in wonder at pictures of the kids we have because we remember when they were first born. Many oif us have even changed religions and gotten married or divorced or comeout of the closet or had more kids. Old friends keeping connected no matter what the medium.
That’s the future of community happening right now.
One thing from me, after reading all the comments here, is to put forth that TF has a wonderful reputation as a journalist, but his futurist writing has often been panned. I won’t say that he doesn’t have important things to say, but he does tailor his speaking/thinking towards particular audiences (h/t to Redtailhawk here), and that can be off-putting if you are not a part of that audience (and don’t want to be, either!). Remember, he is a Serious Journalist, so he must be serious…which does not always endear him to a lot of folks. At times I detect a certain amount of hubris in his recent writings, but then haven’t we all been seeing that from our society for years now, and isn’t it destroying us?
I think he’s putting forth a valid point in that we need to utilize our collective neural network in order to better derive new ways of humanity, innovation, and function. His terms are way more middle-of-the-road, and aren’t intended to freak anybody out – that is simply his best frame of reference within his experience. To see it as exclusively being a business oriented formula is limiting, I prefer to see the internet as way more than that, as a new way to form communities and have outreach that spans the globe, instantly. A true community will outlive the mode of communication, and not be dependent on one instance, like Facebook, for it’s sole reason for being. FB is losing members now, the bloom is off the rose, and I fully expected that. It’s a time suck, endlessly absorbing precious time and energy, and frankly, I’ve got better things to do with my time (yes, I have an account, but I don’t go there very often at all). Very ADD focused.
Look at how PW has evolved over just the last 5 years or so: more interactive fora like this, more subjects and interests brought forth for us all, and an even tighter community with tremendous members of many stripes. We do have a core of astrology that revolves pretty much around our own dear EF, but there’s a lot of action on the outside that sweeps around us all and keeps us interested. Isn’t that the idea?
Peace all, time for bed here. ‘Night.
“I think it’s dangerous to make “average” a bad word.”
Exactly. Thank you!
Redtailhawk,
“Stop buying into the insanity. Can’t someone just stand up and say “No. I will not praise, participate in, or perpetuate a system that perversely refuses to set a place for everyone at the table. That makes of life a constant, anxiety-driven game of musical chairs.”
I think you articulated it perfectly there. That’s exactly how I am feeling when I watch that video.
My reference to partriarchy and the Divine Feminine was only because in other discussions on PW we have talked about the “rise of the Divine Feminine” and I was just posting an observation that may be linked to those other conversations.
Alex,
“The intrinsic motivation you speak of with such confidence is not simply something you can breed into people.”
I never talked about breeding it into people. If Tom Friedman is going to talk about education (and he is talking about our children here) then I have to say that intrinsic motivation CAN be taught…because a lot of people I grew up with were taught that. I would rather see the next generation taught to do the right things in life because they are the right things to do; not because it may make us superior to other nations. We have done Tom’s kind of education (hyper-competitive paradigm) and it isn’t serving us as a people very well; hence our high disatisfaction as a nation.
While I knew Tom was addressing a specific audience (and not PWers as you say) I also know that the youtube video reaches another kind of audience which often consists of the “average” people. His message is said in one context but going out to another which is disturbing because it promotes the old paradigm.
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree then.
While I agree with some of Tom’s observations about the mess we’re in, I disagree with his thoughts about competitiveness. For two reasons:
First, “average” is a completely subjective judgment, which will always be determined by the person with the most power. I could be Suzy Asshole, the world’s biggest asshole, but if I have the power in the room, I can throw an “average” sticker on your face.
Second, my high school band director achieved the same quality-seeking results with our high school band, in an entirely different manner. I love to share these facts with people, because most people have never experienced such a thing, and find it hard to believe.
In most high school bands, at least back then, kids lived under Tom’s model and competed for first chair. My band director did not believe in this. He didn’t want the same rock stars playing first chair all of the time, and then everyone else just settles into their lesser roles. My band director would assign parts, and also work with the section leaders assisting them with assigning parts.
Did the rock stars sometimes get the juicy parts? Yes. Did the average players sometimes get the juicy parts? Yes! And maybe they didn’t always sound as “innovative” as the rock star would have played, but if the student was doing their best and it sounded good, then that was what mattered most to this teacher.
I’ve mentioned this teacher before in a previous PW post. Part of his philosophy involved grading us on a pass/fail system. His system was unique though, because if you passed you got an A, if you failed you got a B. That’s right, you didn’t get an F, you got a B. And this was in the 1970’s. The “slacker” 70’s. Were we all slacking off getting easy B’s? Not at all. In my four years, I saw two students get B’s. Were they slackers? Yes (meaning: skipping rehearsals and not practicing – as opposed to being judged as average). Each quit soon after receiving their B’s. Every marking period, this teacher would get a letter from the school board asking him to review his grades because, essentially, they could not believe the entire band was that good. Every marking period he would post the letter on the bulletin board, laugh at it, and tell us we were that good.
Oh…and think of that for a moment. Here was a person being innovative, but he didn’t have the power in the room….so he was repeatedly told he was doing something wrong.
And by the way, we *were* doing a good job. And we did not have the benefit of a high tax bracket budget, either. Honestly. We played an eclectic and often difficult variety of music – ranging from usual breezy pop standards to John Philip Sousa (not always so easy) to Tchaikovsky to…you name it. We played it. We even once played a very modern piece with atonal clusters and vocal shouting. And we won awards and got some cool gigs too (eg halftime at a Giants game once).
And no, we weren’t just a bunch of prissy types who had nothing better to do than run home and practice. We had rock ‘n roll/substance-loving partiers in the band, believe me. I was one of them. We just learned how to work *together,* and to work hard to do our personal best…..even if that sometimes ended up sounding “average” to someone else.
Because rest assured, not everyone in the band was a rock star. I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation to carry around in life. I think it’s dangerous to make “average” a bad word.
Carrie, I want to thank you for your thoughts expressed here. I watched the video earlier today and came away from it disturbed and distressed, with a visceral sense that there was something very wrong with what I’d just heard and noticing my anxiety level had gone way up. What a relief to come back to the comments section later and find I wasn’t the only one with a negative reaction.
Because I’m not very good at organizing myself coherently, here are just a few thoughts that came to mind for me….
Thomas Friedman is the Old Paradigm On Steroids.
Under the guise of innovation, he is actually complacency writ large.
How ironic – and sadly how typical – is it that a talk based on the notion of connection (all of us, all together) was so much about competition (me on the top of the heap).
There is something fundamentally wrong with a description of “how life is” that fills me with dread. I so yearn for a description of life that fills me with enthusiasm, to which my gut reaction is “Yes! I want to be part of that! I want to contribute to that! Sign me up!”
But I’m a very average person. I can’t be the kind of person Thomas Friedman says I need to be or else I’ll fall behind. This great vision of his… you have to “be” this way, you have to “do” this way, otherwise there won’t be a place for you. How does this differ from you have to be this way and do these things otherwise you will not be beloved of “God”; you will not go to heaven; you will go to hell. This is the paradigm of fear and anxiety that we’ve been in so long we think it’s the only way.
To say you need a BA to cut the grass at Johns Hopkins… well I was going to argue that point, but ultimately, I don’t feel it’s worth the effort. I find it sort of ridiculous on the surface and hollow beneath. But ooooh Thomas Friedman said it so it must have some gravitas to it. Borrowing his image, I just want to kick out the tent pole and let that tent collapse behind me while I walk off in search of the true visionaries.
Stop buying into the insanity. Can’t someone just stand up and say “No. I will not praise, participate in, or perpetuate a system that perversely refuses to set a place for everyone at the table. That makes of life a constant, anxiety-driven game of musical chairs.”
Carrie, I know what you’re saying about patriarchy. I like to use linear / non-linear rather than patriarchal / matriarchal because it eliminates the distraction of gender issues. I think linearity makes people crazy. The fear, the desperation, the anxiety – the constant musical chairs mentality. But there’s more than that to it – it’s the being without context. Humans seem to like context. They form groups, they tell stories. Linearity – isolated points on an endless line – strikes me as wholly without context. When I close the line inward into a circle, I find process and continuity and context and place. And interrelationship. And I feel like we’d all be a lot healthier and happier and make better choices under those conditions. For the good of all.
So, I don’t want to contribute any more energy to the linear paradigm. If I fall by the wayside because of that, so be it. But maybe the linear paradigm will fall by the wayside. And I will already be somewhere else. We’ll all be somewhere else.
I suggested not that your dichotomy was between divine feminine and patriarchy but materialism and spirituality (which is PRECISELY the classic dichotomy born of patriarchy!)
It is surely no defence, Carrie to pull rank by claiming that you are only commenting upon what you see and if I can’t see it there is nothing you can do about that! That is special pleading.
For some reason, you appear not to take the concrete context into account – which I would have thought was the key factor in interpreting the guy. He is talking to a bunch of CEOs, not a bunch of PlanetWavers. The vast majority of regular westerners would be more attuned to a prosperity vision than a critically literate one. Messages get tweaked to impact your audience and sometimes that is the long and short of it.
So I really do not see how your construal that this is somehow your gift of ‘seeing deeper’ adds up. We can all state why our insight is more penetrating baldly, but I suspect you are reading your own agenda into what Friedman is saying at root. He is talking in his audience’s terms of reference. Maybe many of them DO have extrinsic motivations. Welcome to the human condition, Carrie. This is not so uncommon! Neither is it something we should entirely lambast as being the very essence of all that is wrong, or has gone wrong, in our world due to rampant human avarice.
The intrinsic motivation you speak of with such confidence is not simply something you can breed into people. This is to violate the basics of human psychology and freedom. You have to ALLOW people to choose their motivations or you are one step away from fascism, the fascism of “the spiritual way is best and the materialist way corrupt”, which as I say is a false dichotomy anyway. One can’t split reality down a middle you happen to find conducive! That’s not how reality is Carrie.. You have to work with what is there, not what you wish was in place.
“The point is not that anything is good or bad as dwelling in polarised categories but HOW we SHAPE the direction of things. As the clip points out, we have an opportunity at a crucial crossroads to shape our realities with greater innovation and effectiveness.”
That would be the point had he been able to get himself out of the old paradigm. Instead he used the “we must get back on top” argument as his motivational tool. That is just not where we need to be going. Innovate, yes…shape the diretion of things, yes but do it just so we can piss on the rest of the workd and say “we are better?” Absolutely NOT.
I am all for innovation and effectiveness but within a new paradigm which is not based on the focus he is using. His focus is the old, use-up-the-earth-to-be-on-top focus and it is just not sustainable. You know that. That is what I am unhappy about in this video clip. I never said I disliked innovation or effectiveness. I have said and will continue to say I do not like the old way of thinking he is stuck in because we have done that and it is bad for us and bad for our planet.
“How is abdicating this opportunity anything other than letting corporatist entrepreneurs drive the new modalities just like they did the old?”
You are only seeing that part of his message and I am seeing the whole message. If he didn’t connect that part with the “we have to be better than the next guy” and “we must excel in order to succeed in having the middle class life” I would grant your contention. Problem is, he isn’t separating the two. He is using the extrinsic motivation of the U.S. again being “on top” (read “superior”) and the carrot of “middle class living;” both of which are the old paradigm.
If he had just said we have entered a globally connected world and we need to step up to the plate and use that connectivity to make positive changes in how we govern ourselves and how we manage our resources then I would be on board. He just cannot seem to separate the materialism mind-set that is eating this planet every day.
I would like to point out that it is you who has used terms like Capitalism and Corporatism; I have not. I am not talking systems only here; I am speaking to a mind-set, an attitude toward life and the earth and a paradigm that no longer serves us.
By all means, excel and be the best we can be but please, not for the “middle class lifestyle” as the reason and not to make the U.S. the “top performer” as though it is about winners and losers and haves and have-nots. That’s the mind-set I take issue with.
“He is talking about cyberspace having changed the nature of the world and that much mediocrity has been encouraged in comfortable affluence. The point is to be driven to excel. Excellence is productive and inspiring and sets high standards. You seem to be saying that this is BAD? This is an expression of oppressive patriarchy? Drivenness to succeed is a depravity borne of extrinsic motivation merely to succeed at the expense of others?”
I know what he is talking about. Seems to me you cannot see the bigger message in it. Being driven to excel is fine but (again) his reasons for doing it are not fine. HE is the one citing extrinsic motives for doing so; I didn’t make that distinction I only brought attention to it.
If you cannot see the difference between being driven to succeed for an intrinsic motive as opposed to being driven to succeed for the extrinsic motivation of having a specific standard of living or being superior to other nations then I cannot explain it to you.
And yes, I do see it as the difference between the Divine Feminine and the patriarchy we have had for millennia. Sorry you see this as being dichotomous. It is what it is. I am only saying what I see and commenting on that. I have always been good at seeing both the details and the larger picture.
And as usual, the marginalized always know about the dominant paradigm but the dominant paridigm almost always has no idea about the marginalized. That’s sociology 101 right there. In a male dominated paradigm (based on power-over) it isn’t a stretch to realize that you might not see it as clearly as a female raised under that paradigm will see it. Hence my comment on the gender split on this issue. It was just a comment on what I see, I did say YVMV.
Carrie, many of your concerns are valid in their own right and important to take seriously but I can assure you that they have little to do with what Friedman is actually saying here. He is talking about cyberspace having changed the nature of the world and that much mediocrity has been encouraged in comfortable affluence. The point is to be driven to excel. Excellence is productive and inspiring and sets high standards. You seem to be saying that this is BAD? This is an expression of oppressive patriarchy? Drivenness to succeed is a depravity borne of extrinsic motivation merely to succeed at the expense of others?
Why are these messages to stand out and drive forward innovation proof of all the evils that you happen to see in Corporatism and The American Dream?
I don’t doubt that a massive shift in cultural values is the most desirable development for Western culture, largely driven my a women-sponsored value base. In the meantime, not all things male-sponsored are hopelessly power-laden. It is not really productive to dichotomise the ‘material’ and ‘spiritual’ worlds as your language seems to promote. Material IS spiritual. The point is not that anything is good or bad as dwelling in polarised categories but HOW we SHAPE the direction of things. As the clip points out, we have an opportunity at a crucial crossroads to shape our realities with greater innovation and effectiveness. Mediocrity and resting on the momentum of the past is going to lead to stagnation. WE can choose to be propelled by the challenge or shake our fists as if this is some mere corporate ruse. Cyber-connectivity has become a source of a more genuine democracy and field of opportunity for everyone to express themselves creatively. How is abdicating this opportunity anything other than letting corporatist entrepreneurs drive the new modalities just like they did the old?
“devotion to quality.”
This harkens back to the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. For several decades, our kids have been rewarded for just participating so they have not learned any intrinsic motivation. Devotion to quality comes from intrinsic motivation; you do quality because it is the right thing to do and you feel good knowing you did your best. Our society no longer rewards that but instead pushes extrinsic motivation; “what’s in it for me?”
I was raised with intrinsic motivation so everything I do for myself and others I do with my best effort because it feels good to know I gave my best for it. The reward is the knowledge that I did my best; not external recognition or pay. That’s what Eric is looking for if I understand him/that part of the video correctly.
Our society would do well to focus on again fostering intrinsic motivation in our kids. That is a move away from materialism and power-seeking and toward cooperation for the sake of the greater good.
Is it just me or are the opinions falling on gender lines here? Could the rise of the Divine Feminine be evident in the women here and our very different view of Tom Friedman’s video?
Tom’s view includes the very essense of patriarchy (dominance, power-over) whereas the Divine Feminine espouses a more power-from-within model of thinking. Just an observation. YVMV.
I am in the midst of writing a paper on eugenics and discovered a term called ‘useless eaters”. I am reading of all kinds of ‘philosophy” and political views that barely mask these philosophical views of mankind.
I also earlier this afternoon watched a You Tube movie titles “Surviving Progress”; an interesting piece also describing Uranian out of the box thinking as a solution for mankind.
Perhaps Uranus thinking squared by the transformative power of Pluto can create a solution.
But for me it seems that the only lasting changes (and survival) will come because of a major shift in ethics and values amongst modern man. Will Saturn and Neptune create that balance???
We need instead to apply the law of thermodynamics which says that energy never goes away, it merely changes form. As energy changes form it can either continue the cycle of use and reuse or the cycle can be corrupted so that the whole system goes down and we find ourselves in an environmental crisis. Money is the same; it is a form of energy which must be spread around for the system to live. Hoarding it or stopping the flow makes the system break down and we fall, as every civilization has fallen in the past, for the SAME REASONS.
We have had over 5000 years of written history from which to learn and we haven’t progressed one whit. We still create civilizations on the backs of slaves, achieve greatness, and then die off from corruption and greed. Will we ever see that there IS a better way? A way which doesn’t include marginalizing others and the planet so that the few can control and hoard the resources? That way is doomed and always will be. America is declining, not because we are not above average but because we keep thinking that success as a human being is measured by the wealth you amass or the power you have over others. There is where we make our greatest mistake. Power must come from within, it isnt about being over others. Success comes from being of service to others, not from amassing “the middle class life.”
Until people everywhere see out of the box and see, as Mandele said “We are ALL connected,” we will keep destroying ourselves and our planet. I don’t know what the new way is but I know there is one and thinking like Tom Friedman isn’t it. His way just assumes that the Middle Class life is the end goal and that if we have to keep being above average (and then when everyone else is, we have to raise the bar again) to get that goal, everything will be good. He completely misses the point that that goal is what is wrong thinking. That mentality is what is raping this planet. It HAS to STOP. The “middle class life” requires using 25% of all the earth’s resources for just this one country. For everyone else on the planet to live this kind of life we would need four planet Earths to sustain it. Can you see why I say he is not thinking out of the box?
Not to mention that when human beings focus on materialism instead of on spirituality, relationships, family and especially service, they end up being unhappy because things will never fulfill that hole that only spirituality (not religion, they are vastly different), love of family and friends, and service to one another can. Scientists have shown this over and over.
Service, sharing, and collective concern are not rewarded in this country. Rugged individualism, hyper competitiveness, wealth and power are. Problem is, human beings are herd animals; not meant to be individualists and alone. We survive best in close collectives (family, community) and achieve our greatest works when we cooperate and collaborate. Every advance in our human history was because humans cooperated together in some way. The lone inventor is a myth; they all got ideas from others, found incentive from others, were encouraged by others, were supported by others. There’s a reason for the old adage “divide and conquer;” divided we will fall but together we can survive.
Tom’s vision is “more of the same” and I will never aspire to that. For my children’s sake I cannot.
“but then spends the rest of the talk trying to convince us that we need to be better than the other guys if we want to be on top. It the same old kind of macho competitive bullshit that got us into this mess in the first place. Get ‘them’ before ‘they’ get us. Get yours first because there’s not enough for all of us. Hurry or you’ll be left behind. It uses fear and discontent to ‘sell’ the point in the same way that advertising does. Really not liking it! And all this stuff about innovation seems to ignore any coming restrictions on fuel/energy/etc. It sounded to me like more infinite growth is good messaging which is as impractical as it is off putting. Sorry…”
Please do NOT apologize. I see the same message coming through and it sickens me.
He (Tom Friedman) completely misses the point that having the middle class lifestyle is not sustainable.
He completely misses the point that if everyone becomes “above average” then no one will be above average.
He completely misses the point that raising the bar means it will keep being raised; are we willing to kill ourselves just to be noticed and be competitive in order to have that American Dream and is that Dream really worth losing our souls and the planet for?
He completely misses the point that this world he is advocating is the old paradigm of materialism above spirituality. Scientists have seen that the more materialistic people become, the less happy they are but the less materialistic they become, the happier they are with their families and their inner selves. Hence Americans may be the richest nation on earth but conversely we are also the most unhappy one (and the most medicated to alleviate that unhappiness).
He also misses the point that we don’t have to be “the best” to be worthy as human beings. He is measuring worth by the usual materialistic standards and those must stop for our species and this planet to survive.
The world he envisions is not the kind of hyper-competitive, dog-eat-dog world I want to see. I propose we aspire to live with a smaller footprint on the earth, not a larger one. I want to see us go in a different direction; one which includes cooperation, living smaller, being mindful of the earth, and placing spiritualism (not religion, they are vastly different), family, and SERVICE above materialism.
That’s what I hope the Uranus-Pluto square changes. And I will not apologize for being able to see out of the box. The new way of being may not be one we can totally wrap our brains around yet or envision but it can be realized and we can do better than what Tom Friedman is selling.
And just to reiterate and move away from the somewhat red herring anti-Capitalist subtext here, the point is human geography. In astrological terms this is more Neptune in Aquarius leading into Pisces, much more than Uranus square Pluto. The point really is the nature of psychic and other realities in a now borderless world. The drive to succeed in this environment is really the drive to shape the world. Dharma offering us the chance to transcend Karma…
mystes, I take your point about measurability and bias, I really do! Perhaps if Lions could ride motorbikes or fly planes they would begin to conquer the planet. It is a difficult extrapolation to make! The roots of Capitalism are really essentially found in Adam Smith’s notion of the Division of Labour. The roots are different to the branches we have experienced historically. There is something about productivity as related to efficiency that is intrinsically satisfying and ethical. There is something about this that can drive the individual to achieve like little else. Once the evils of Capitalism brigade camp out, mistakenly equating it with the experience of Corporatism then we end up espousing mediocrity and complacency, for fear of praising excellence and drivenness to achieve and succeed.
On a Christian incarnational model, God is in fact a materialist. And this is noteworthy! Capitalism is merely a mechanics. Consumerism and Corporatism are entrenched ideologies erected to maintain control on a macro level by societal planners. For me, there is too little precision in use of these descriptors and so Capitalism gets bashed unrealistically because of it being hijacked by power agendas.
Unfortunately, the Corporatist agenda is theft and domination. The modus operandi have involved creating mass mentalities and an ever-aspiring middle class to consume products and act as a buffer between the disenfranchised and the elites. This has meant that the goal of existence for many has been reduced to merely the acquisition of wealth and comfort by any means. Consequently, there is an entitlement attitude in the West. Capitalism does not in fact, promote such. It is its parodies that do due to controlling agendas. Consumerism/Corporatism and its buffer culture of middle class affluence has rendered many westerners lazy and narcissistic. Let me tell you, the true spirit of Capitalism would never have promoted and spread abroad the utter distortions of privilege without genuine merit and productivity plus pride in work well done.
It is human nature that has corrupted Capitalism not Capitalism that has corrupted human nature. Period.
And what Eric succinctly states is exactly what is to be admired in this video.. the aspiration to rise above mediocrity, sameness and comfort zones. We have reaped what we have sown, in so far that we chose a comforting atrophy of ease.
Totally agree re quality and what you’ve had to say lately, Eric, about impeccability has really spoken to me. But for me this echoes more with the idea of development – not growth. So often the two get conflated. For me growth is ‘so last century’ now – it amazes me that anybody is still singing that tune!
I realize the issues with his ideas, however one thing comes through for me — which is devotion to quality. That’s my take away.
First: Alex, humans *can* live up to the standard of animals. I just say we don’t really know what those standards are because of a deep, invisible anthropocentric bias to our instrumentation as well as perception. I have been engifted on several occasions with creatures behaving *very* differently than the ethnological models allow (I’ve even had a world-famous herpetologist tell me –flat out– that what I saw with my very own eyes (and my son witnessed it as well) could NOT happen.
Maybe not to him, but we are humans who know that we are blinkered by language and have the capacity to stop thinking in words. Once you master that trick, many other things reveal themselves.
Including the fact that competition is far from the only way in which humans develop and innovate. But the way the “other” path works is you do (~insert mystery activity here~) for a while, then you notice what you’re doing. Then do more of it. Pretty simple, but the kicker is that you have to be able to give up pride & vanity (of ownership and identification) so that your body (your animal) can engage this other order of activity.
Capitalism is based on two untenable premises: infinite expansion (as Patti mentioned) and the Invisible Hand. Untenable? make that ‘outright lies.’ Competition is not really its principle evil, just the thing that we can sort of use in a ‘naturalistic’ way.
But it’s not. Alex of all people seems best equipped to recognize that.
I watched this through this morning very early in the UK. It left me absolutely cold but life has been so hectic on so many fronts I wasn’t up to a PW battle of words as well. Anyway here goes…Friedman begins by saying we are served up a daily dose of two political parties trying to put a crowbar into each other’s plans (this being a bad thing) but then spends the rest of the talk trying to convince us that we need to be better than the other guys if we want to be on top. It the same old kind of macho competitive bullshit that got us into this mess in the first place. Get ‘them’ before ‘they’ get us. Get yours first because there’s not enough for all of us. Hurry or you’ll be left behind. It uses fear and discontent to ‘sell’ the point in the same way that advertising does. Really not liking it! And all this stuff about innovation seems to ignore any coming restrictions on fuel/energy/etc. It sounded to me like more infinite growth is good messaging which is as impractical as it is off putting. Sorry…
oops! sorry for the dangling fragment at the end….:)
As a business consultant having just left a well known consulting company to start my own firm, I help clients explore alternatives to capitalism and creative business models within the frameworks of constrained capital markets. Many companies I’ve worked with, know that capitalism in its pure form is not the way of the future, but external infrastructures such as lending mechanisms, wall street, Federal regulations, etc, make it hard to operate in new and creative ways that would be better for society and business long term. And this is especially true for publicly held enterprises.
So the conversation always includes a discussion about how to change the external reality – that is the external constraints enterprises face – so they can put long term good changes in place. And the path always includes hybrid operational frameworks that bridge capitalism to some other kind of economic model that’s viable long term. Friedman is just one step in that evolutionary path AWAY from traditional capitalism towards a model where businesses compete, but also mostly work together, with their employees and communities, for the common good. On the other end would be someone like Charles Eisenstein and the Sacred Economics model of the gift economy. Another is Michael Porter’s concept of ‘shared value’ which is a classic sustainable business construct, where the board of directors (1%) is replaced with a board of the people (99%).
In the short term, creative businesses will utilize ideas from all these models and put them together in a customized way that allows them to realize their visions. So the economy, and the entities operating in it, will evolve over time.
But I entirely agree that capitalism – at least the wall street version of it – is a broken model that does not serve the greater good. Until something better replaces it, visionary organizations like Planetwaves will create new and interesting models that align with the future they want to create.
My opinion in Friedman’s hypercapitalism idea is that its one
mystes, you are SO darned civilised! You know, if humans behaved MORE like our fellow critters I am sure our planet would be in a much better state. Take for example what we may consider to be brutality in tearing other creatures limb from limb. Have you noticed that animals generally take only what they need? Their competitiveness knows natural boundaries within a specific ecology. Your view seems to betray an ‘ideology’ that humans are capable of loftier nobility than a bunch of dumb animals. But let us not overpress the analogy, eh!
Animals or no, competition drives activity geared toward ends other than simply stewing in your own ennui. It gives purpose and productivity. The human desire to differentiate, stand out or excel is a core motivator in terms of a work ethic. All the hippies smoking dope in a commune spouting “peace man!” doesn’t really inspire any kind of progessive vision, no matter how inert and cooperation loving it appears to be. We need new motivators, new work ethics, new ideas to evolve. I hardly see that blending in is more virtuous than standing out. Unless one labours under quaint communitarian ‘resistance’ ideology.
Personally, there are many animals I would aspire to being both as natural and as noble as.. competitive warts and all! 😀
AdeW, very eloquent.
If we can live on moments of discovery rather than fear, we are successful. Sometimes that is the only point of hope I can find, so I dig deeper.
Eric, may your message grow exponentially.
Sparks of imagination for all!
Ah, Alex I was with you till you hit the ‘nature’ default. If we’ve seen animals in nature do it, it must be authentic/real/useful/inevitable… When anyone takes that branching path, the vague scent of Ideology begins to perfume the morning air.
Wait, wait, is that Heisenberg* I hear spinning in his grave?
“Animals” perform in a variety of ways, depending on who (or who’s technology) is observing them. As our larger, non-verbal body, they often reflect *exactly* what we need to see and ‘animalize’ in our character. Now I know it is going to take another 50 years for ethnology to catch up to this fact (yes, yes I am a self-important snot about this kind of insight, but a lifetime of recurrent verification has left me no choice but to trust what comes in through the back of my head) – but it will. Might not even take that long.
Competition is fine as long as it is friendly and *ultimately* rooted in cooperation. And I do realize that our fossil record presently indicates that competition has ruled the day. But there’s more than one model operating on this planet, and when enough of us fully occupy the co-selfing state, those other ‘scientific facts’ will begin to emerge from their unintelligibility and disuse.
*Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: that greater accuracy of measurement for one observable entails less accuracy of measurement for another. For example, it is in principle impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time with perfect accuracy. Any pair of observables whose operators do not commute have this property.
In other words, the observer *influences* the observed.
I liked the statement about his 70 million competitors. Just the thought of all the energy of 70 million people working toward a somewhat common goal just blows me away! I don’t think we have to be the most innovative, we just need to harnass the energy and creativity. A small work team in an office environment can produce astounding work. 70 million of us? Wow. I once interviewed one of the team members from 3M who invented the floppy disc. Think of it – they worked on the disc but it kept tearing – and they finally came up with the idea for the sleeve that fit over the disc. That was HUGE at the time. HUGE!
Thank you, Alex. Your analysis is the best I have ever seen of the difference between Corporatism and Capitalism. Your reference to the animal tribes’ process of territoriality which in fact maintains healthy balance for all, is particularly heart=warming for me to read from someone as intellectually clear as you are (which often means aloof or out of touch with the “masses” to me). Again, thank you.
Well folks! Great video, easily misconstrued. Let me first say that any view equating this with corporatism is grossly simplistic. Corporatism, to make reference to Karl Marx here, simply stole (over time) the means of production. This is more a matter of oppportunism than innovation – much facilitated by the imbalances of privilege and access in the old paradigm. Now let me quickly consider your lament against competitiveness, Carrie. Consider animals and birds everywhere. They largely compete for territory and the health of many animal tribes is directly related (intrinsic actually) to such dynamics. Unfortunately, corporatism has given Capitalism a worse reputation than it deserves. In Capitalism, the functioning of the individual in the most efficient and productive way is the lynchpin – this is nothing to do with oligarchical manipulations of the means of production. Marx saw the ‘logical’ progression into abuse and predicted unsustainability. But that is not relevant so much to a capitalist kernel but to the nature of human greed. But now, in this world, the technological and ontological are no longer qualitatively different.
What has changed is human geography. Granted, Capitalism still drives the individual, while some archaic ethical systems may idealize the collective in some way that is not true to the nature of what makes up a collective – individuals. The fact is, just as Friedman suggests, people across the board in affluent cultures got complacent. In the ‘Land of Milk and Honey’ your birthright was a measure of affluence. When in Rome.. rest on your laurels and assume an unassailable advantage was rife. COMPLACENCY. Now, this is NOT about soulless materialism; it is about growing ‘fat’ and under-exercised, with metaaphorical potbellies and atrophied muscles! Corporatism was the undemocratic face of Capitalism, where the technological revolution has levelled the playing field… the Earth IS flat!
So the human geography question is central. See the Web as a neural configuration and we see that every new connection is a radically new potential that may go exponential.. or viral if you like. This is a metaphor for vastly expanded creative potentials and growth – in a word, the reinvention of the human being.
Challenging times await, times that may invoke fear and paralysis in many. But the paradigm is shifting. The 3-fold example at the end, especially that ee are all new immigrants in this strange new world, is priceless advice in making the adjustments. Innovation is the new invitation to all to take the reins of their life and grow. You can always choose to stick your head in the sand and moralise this as bad. That would be a critical misjudgment of the times we find ourselves in.
Carrie, I completely agree, and felt the same. And could not have said better than you described. Sadly tho it is the current reality, this hyper activated inter-connectivity, causing increasing competitiviness and the pushing of (s), and must be (s) above average feels more like stepping on instead of stepping up! …rightly said where does it end?
I am not buying into this mentality. It is not a frame of mind, country, or a world I want to live in, or can be proud of contributing to. Certainly we do not want to continue to teach, or push this reality onto our poor children.
What would have been interesting would have been in continuing his discouse discussion opening the conversation to examining the potential progressions away from this our current trend. And, rather towards the solutions and benefits our evolving globalization and increased connectivity can offer. I believe the true innovation of globalization will be achieved in discovering our true purpose, the united voice through educating, exploring, inspiring and visioning just that… the alternatives.
An example of how raising the expectations doesn’t always work would be Dominoes pizza. They had a good thing going but then they felt they needed something above average to stand out so they guaranteed delivery in 30 minutes or the pizza would be free. That worked for a bit…until their drivers started having accidents because of the pressure to be on time. In Flagstaff it was especially stupid in the icy winter to make that guarantee so the Dominoes here got smart and canned that idea.
Another example was cited by Tom himself when he said the research hospital won’t allow anyone without a Bachelor’s degree to cut the grass. When bachelor’s degrees are no longer worth as much it will take a Master’s degree. Then a Phd. What degree will they “invent” as another, higher bar to get into debt for just to get hired?
Our local school district just raised the bar on teachers. Now all their elementary teachers must be dual certified (meaning two degrees) in both elementary ed and special ed. That is very costly for the teachers but the district will only pay a small stipend extra for that new requirement.
This is insanity and unless someone, everyone rises up and says a resounding NO; it won’t end. That resounding NO is what I hope Pluto-square-Uranus is all about.
Less is more. Maybe if we all stopped thinking in terms of being the best and greatest, we could just be happy with being who and what we are and with what we have instead of wanting more, more, more.
I always liked Tom Friedman’s writing; well the writing I have read anyway. He wrote “From Beirut to Jerusalem” and so captured how it felt to BE in Jerusalem and explained so much about the conflict there.
This video is chilling to me. Instead of making me want to step up to the plate and be what he says we “need to be;” I question the entire premise of “being competitive in a global world.” That’s the old way. Competition in order to have the “middle class lifestyle” is the old earth-raping, human-being-squashing, dog-eat-dog paradigm that is dominionism, capitalism and patriarchy in a nutshell. I admire him but he is not seeing out of the capitalistic, success-is-middle-class-having-material-stuff box. The world he is describing is so abhorrent to me that I fiound myself tensing up with every word he spoke.
I do NOT want to teach my kids that they have to be “above average” to even be noticed in the world Tom Friedman describes. Yes, the Realist in me knows that Tom is right about how the world has changed but the Idealist in me hates that it is like that and hopes and prays and works to make it be different.
If everyone works to be above average then no one will be. The stakes will just keep getting higher and higher; at what point will we humans stop and see that we are killing ourselves and our earth to “be competitive in a global world?” When will average be good enough? When will enough be enough?
I think the lack of a spiritual meaning in our lives; due to the over focus on materialism, is why we are never satisfied. Scientists have seen that the rise in materialism is in direct proportion to the fall of happiness and satisfaction in humans and the converse is true.
That direction Tom Friedman sees is not the way I want to see us go. I hope I am not the only one to see through the vision he paints to the hyper-competitive, soul-killing drive that will never satisfy and never end.
In his way lies futility, hyper-competitiveness, dissatisfaction, and destruction.
No thanks….I will pass.
Eric, the tape just posted, will listen to clip now. But have to say i been thinking about you and your interview with David at the conference last month in regards to your envisioned intention for PW and it’s dynamic development potential. I intuitively believe I may be of help and my talents of service, I would love to be apart of this project’s development and promotion in some way. Would it be possible to speak with you personally, offline, or via email to better understand your current needs and if may be of synergy?