Left Right Out
Posted: March 12, 2014 Filed under: Explorations, Observations | Tags: big picture, change, conversation, development, my philosophy, politics, progress, society Leave a commentOver the last few years the battle between the left and right of politics has escalated. The current Australian government swept to power with parts of the community fearing a right-winged take-over. The Murdoch backed press have co-ordinated an attack on the so-called “green left”, which apparently run the ABC. In these years, I’ve watched as the low-brow nature of our national political debate has given prevalence to short-term, populist slogans as a replacement for the considered policy of real social and economic improvement. This observation comes as I’ve realised we’re being hoodwinked into the belief that the paradigm of left/right politics still exists. I’m no longer sure that’s the case.
Let’s take a 30,000 foot view of political history in the last 100 years. (I’m sure I’m about to commit some historical inaccuracies, but I’m hoping my wider point prevails)
World War 2 brought the end of the colonial era of history. The period of WW1 through the great depression and rise of the Third Reich, saw a shift in global politics from national to ideological. The colonial era pitted nations against each other, drawing power from global empires. Following WW2, the global political landscape was redrawn on ideological grounds. Our boundaries were political ideologies, not national boarders.
These ideologies gave us the first world of capitalist democracy; the second world of socialist communism, and the third world of those who hadn’t aligned. For the next 50 years, global politics and conflict was was a clash of the “right” of capitalist democracy, (which espoused the virtues of the free market), and the “left” which represented the values of communism. The Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, The Cuban Missile Crisis were all permeations of the clash of “right” and “left” ideologies.
In western democracies, this ideological conflict was diluted to progressive and conservative alignments (Whigs & Tories, Republicans & Democrats, Liberal & Labor). While political debate raged along these ideological boundaries, your view on policy was determined by a stark difference in how you believed the world should be.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 and Eastern Europe opened to the free market. We began the slow but steady shift away from ideology as a basis of global politics. This accelerated as China softened from a hardline communist society to a far more liberal one. Today, the main remains of this ideological struggle survival only in the political backwaters of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Largely the world has conformed to a liberal democratic philosophy, or is steadily moving in that direction.
As this shift in global politics has occurred, the differences between our western democratic political parties have moved from ideological to semantic. The general conformance to a liberal democratic philosophy has eroded the the ideological base of our political parties and has left politicians clambering for the centre. No longer are national debates fuelled by ideology, but by opinion polls, as politicians attempt to carve out a point of difference.
The rhetoric of politics is still Left vs Right, but that political division has disappeared.
So, after that brief foray into global political history, where does that leave us?
If our politics can no longer be defined by competing ideologies, must we now find a new division? Or perhaps we’re offered the opportunity to engage in a conversation about our commonly held values and examine the foundation of liberal democracy which we’ve (unwittingly?) accepted.
There are some deep and pertinent question that we have the opportunity to tackle:
- What do we believe as a society? How do these values shape the foundation of our political system?
- How should our modern world be governed, when the estates of aristocracy, theology and peasantry which underpin the established Westminster system no longer apply?
- What type of leadership do nations and the world need to meet the challenges of the 21st century?
- If political life doesn’t need to be defined by competing ideologies, how could it be defined?
This is the biggest opportunity to shape our world since the end of the second world war. The difference is that instead of the end of a world war to ignite the conversation, the world is being shaped by decisions to which we’re blind. We can’t allow pockets of power to make decisions in domains where we all should have authority.
The left and right of politics is dead. In it’s place we need a global conversation to build the type of world we want to inhabit. We need to draw thought leaders to the front pages and move citizens from their lounge room into their community, to be engaged in shaping the type of world of which we’re proud to be a part.
Alcohol Fuelled Violence
Posted: February 12, 2014 Filed under: Contemplations, Observations | Tags: change, society Leave a commentIn amongst the explosion of words written about alcohol fuelled violence in Sydney, almost every angle has been covered. From the merits of mandatory sentencing, to the arbitrary boundaries for enforced lockouts, to the need for additional education, we’ve heard all manner of arguments and rebuttals. However, in between all the potential solutions floated, I’ve seen a common, re-emerging theme of state-enforced actions. This is greatly troubling because I see the community wanting to take the responsibility for solving such a problem out of our own hands in favour of additional control from state authority.
This attitude suggests that we have given up on preventative solutions, or options which address the core issues. Any approach to alcohol fuelled violence is multifaceted and requires the support and work of multiple parts of society. It also requires short, medium and long-term strategies before real change could be affected.
If we constantly give ourselves over to the nanny state, we’ll lose the ability as a community to respond to issues which confront us. When we’re faced with problems which speak to the heart of community values and behaviour, we can’t hope to find a solution without examining how we collectively need to change. Outsourcing the solution doesn’t invite that conversation and it reinforces the idea that we are unable to rise to meet challenges and we need the state to save us from ourselves.
I can’t offer a solution, too many need to be enacted to address such an issue. But if we want to reduce the instances of social disobedience, there is a change which needs to come from the community, one that reaches into our values and actions as a society. Unless we’re willing to examine ourselves, we’ll be unable to create any lasting change.
Near Enough is Good Enough
Posted: February 10, 2014 Filed under: Contemplations, Observations | Tags: change, development, diversity, ecosystem, environment, learning, natural balance, systems Leave a commentIn parts of the ecological movement, the strategy of re-wilding is promoted as the best way to restore our natural environments. It proposes to introduce species to areas to restore balance to the ecosystem. Where a near relative of an extinct species isn’t available, a suitable replacement is proposed. The goal here is to ensure that the environment has all the elements it needs to balance and take care of itself.
This strategy has been proposed for use in Australia. As Aboriginal and European settlement have lead to the removal of two key ecological elements. The decline of the Diprotodon leaves Australia without a large herbivore. The extinction of the animals like the Tasmanian Tiger and the decline of the hunting practices of indigenous Australians have left us without a top predator. Without these two elements, it’s difficult for our natural environments to operate. Since it’d be difficult to widely restore Aboriginal hunting practices and the Diprotodon is lost, it’s been suggested that Elephants and Komodo Dragons could be introduced as the large herbivore and top preditor elements in the ecosystem.
It sounds counter-intuitive to introduce non-native animals in order to restore natural balance in the ecosystem, but the logic is quite sound. The goal of such re-wilding programs is to restore balance to the ecosystem in a way that will allow it to continue to thrive. While it is preferable to have the closest relative of the missing animals, it is more important that the system works.
The lesson here is quite simple. Near enough is good enough. Whether it is an ecological or organisational system, the number one priority is that the system works. In order for that to happen all the key roles need to be played. If it happens to be a different actor, that’s ok, as long as the part is being played. Natural systems have an amazing ability to adjust and adapt, but that is only possible if the system is functioning. If we’re too focused on making the system perfect, we miss the opportunity to make the system work. It may not be as elegant or as beautiful, but a functioning system gets the job done far better than an extinct one.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/rewilding/5086576
Slow and Steady
Posted: February 6, 2014 Filed under: Contemplations, Observations | Tags: ambition, big picture, development, habit, learning, practices, progress, space Leave a commentThe quest for interstellar travel throws up different ideas and challenges for how we can explore the outer reaches of our solar system. Recently, Josh and Chuck from Stuff You Should Know explored the solar sail as a form of space propulsion. A solar sail is a hyper thin reflective metal sheet which uses photon particles from the sun in a similar way to wind in a ship’s sails. The photons particles transfer their momentum energy on both their impact and reflection, to propel the spaceship along. Individual photons carry a minuscule amount of energy, but a wide enough sail can capture enough photons to propel a spacecraft.
Solar sails are radically different to our current, rocket based, propulsion systems. Rockets can accelerate at a rapid rate, but only for a limited time. The main restriction is the fuel load which rocket ships are able to carry. Solar sail powered ships require no fuel, but their acceleration is much slower, at only 1mm/second. The key difference, however, is their capacity to accelerate constantly.
In the vast expanses of space, this makes a huge difference. The Voyager spacecraft which was launched in 1975 is currently at the outer edge of our solar system, a journey which has taken it nearly 35 years. If a solar sail powered ship was launch today, it would catch Voyager in just 8 years, due to its constant acceleration. This ability for constant acceleration gives us the possibility to achieve speeds of 1/10th the speed of light, a benchmark for interstellar travel.
While listening to this story, it struck me that the principles behind the solar sails work as an important lesson for organisations and for individuals. Too often we follow the model of the rocket ship, with bursts of rapid acceleration followed by longer periods of cruising. It starts out excitingly, as we leap ahead quickly. We soon run out of steam, however, as we become comfortable with what we’ve attained and settle into a cruise. This breeds complacently and vulnerability to be overtaken, be it by competitors or by our dreams and ambitions.
This process of boom and cruise doesn’t allow for the development of practices which reinforce healthy habits for both individuals and organisations. The solar sail model provides a different way. Like the tortoise, starting slow and stead and allowing for the building of a solid foundation for how you operate. By constantly accelerating at a slower speed, it’s possible to build the practices of growth and success, to continue acceleration, even as greater speeds are reached. Like the solar sails, this means far bigger goals are ultimately achievable, faster than a rocket ship organisation or individual. It might not feel like the wild roller-coaster ride promoted in the stories of big business, but it is one which could be far more successful.
http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/solar-sails-stars/
New Science
Posted: January 30, 2014 Filed under: Contemplations, Observations | Tags: big picture, co-creation, data mining, diversity, innovation, science, scientist Leave a commentMy image of a scientist is a white-coat, working at a lab bench with beakers frothing above bunsen burners; or the astronomer peering into the night sky through a giant telescope atop a hill. It’s the image of a lone investigator, exploring in the hope of finding something new. This is quite a romantic image of a scientist, but one which doesn’t quite do the profession justice; science is changing.
Increasingly, science is becoming a profession of data mining and analysis to coax out new knowledge of the world. This focus is deepening our knowledge of the world. Investigating data in this fashion gives us far more knowledge much faster than previously possible, making it an effective way of doing science. (As explained on Future Tense’ A Golden Age of Astronomy show).
One drawback is the deeper as we peer into our accumulated data, the more we lose the close relationships with the data collecting instruments. While a scientist may be able to draw inferences from a vast array of numbers, they are less likely to understand the depths of how that database operates. This science through data approach allows us to deepen our knowledge of scientific realms in unprecedented ways. However, the loss of relationship with the instruments means that scientists spend less time observing the fuzzy edges, which lessens their ability to make leaps of intuition or to explore hunches.
This seems to set up a dichotomy between speculative, big science and deep, slow science. The trick is that you can’t have one without the other. Science needs data mining so we can discover the deep secrets of the world and master them. Science needs speculation; we need the giant leaps forward to give us the grand narrative of science, continuing the quest to go beyond human understanding. The two must exist together,
We see this pattern so often in life, two opposite approaches to a discipline, both presented as the only way it should be done. Our society finds itself caught in the belief that there is one way. The challenge is to recognise the value which each approach brings and how they both contribute to the discipline. Only then is it possible to see the full benefits which can be gained.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/a-golden-age-of-astronomy/5086610
Crowd sourcing’s place
Posted: January 28, 2014 Filed under: Explorations, Observations | Tags: co-creation, crowd sourcing, innovation, networks, openness, science, space Leave a commentRecently I caught Radio National’s Future Tense episode, A Golden Age of Astronomy, which explores the way astronomers are managing large amounts of new data. The Galaxy Zoo project makes use of amateur interest and desire to contribute to the cause of space exploration to categorise pictures of millions of galaxies. It didn’t start that way, as Dr Chris Lintott explained. After collecting over a million images of galaxies, work began by categorising them, simply as either spiral or elliptical or irregular. This involved a student to flick through each image and determine its shape. He made it through less than 100,000 before deciding there was better things to do. Computer classification also failed, machines prove ineffective at classifying pictures, particularly when they are often poor images of integallactic structures hundreds and thousands of lightyears away. So Galaxy Zoo was formed, a crowd sourcing website inviting people from around the world to view pictures of galaxies and classify them. It was a huge success, astronomically faster than any other method of crunching such data.
The human brain is wired for pattern recognition and there is no scientific knowledge needed to determine if an image is a spiral or an ellipse. This method also provided far more data than previously possible. It could be determined how obvious the galaxy type was, based on the number of people who had classified it. They could also turn the attention of the willing crowd to further questions of numbers of arms, which previously would have seemed like an impossible task. This revelation freed the presiding scientists for activities more suited to their skills, allowing them to analyse the data, make more detailed examinations and ultimately draw conclusions from what had been discovered. The menial categorisation could be left to the amateur enthusiast, simply wanting to be part of the story of man and space.
This reveals a more moderate but extremely important perspective on the merits of crowd sourcing. Too frequently crowd sourcing is suggested as the catch all solution to any problem in the corporate or not-for-profit world. Want something to be done cheaply and quickly – why don’t we just crowd source it? This is rarely as successful as hoping, mostly because there are particular elements which are needed for a successful crowd sourcing project.
Galaxy Zoo demonstrates that the task needs to be something humans are wired to do – pattern recognition for example. It also needs to be something which the mass amateur is far more efficient than the single expert. Importantly, this frees up the experts to focus on areas where their expertise is more valuable. Finally there needs to be a larger story, for Galaxy Zoo it is the ability to contribute to space exploration. This mission captures people’s imagination and compels them to donate their time. Crowd sourcing is a powerful tool, but only if it used correctly. It isn’t a solution, only some of the bricks in the road. We can’t outsource everything to the hive mind, but there are some activities where a lot of people doing a few simple tasks can greatly assist the wider project. Crowd sourcing is successful, not as the replacement of actual expertise, but as a tool to free the experts for the more nuanced tasks.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/a-golden-age-of-astronomy/5086610
Favourites
Posted: January 22, 2014 Filed under: Contemplations, Observations | Tags: communication, customers, service, sport Leave a commentGrand Slam Tennis always throws up great matches, wonderful stories and plenty of conversation around the office water cooler. In the current era of the Men’s tour, we’re spoilt with some of the greatest players displaying superb examples of tennis. Watching the big 4 – Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer – it is easy to forget that athletes make mistakes, so infrequently do these four produce anything short of a perfect game. When they play each other, it is mesmerising to watch the ball fly around the court.
It’s intriguing then, that people have quite clear favourites from among this elite group. Beyond nationalistic sentiments, most tennis fans will tell you they prefer one or two over the others. For me: Federer is chased by daylight, followed by Nadal. That isn’t to say that I don’t think Rafa, Novak or Andy play beautiful tennis – they do – but I normally find myself supporting the guy facing them across the net.
Considering they all present fine examples of tennis, why do I feel a strong connection to one over the others. I know none of them personally, so I can judge them only by their conduct on the court and a few words in press conferences. It is that perception which leads to preference – something which holds true beyond tennis.
People want to have a favourite, somebody they can turn to, get behind or follow. Think of brands, vendors and coffee shops, people tend to have a number they would use, but usually one or two that they will turn to continually. That relationship is not built on performance or ability, people will often shun a superior product for their favourite. Instead, the relationship is built on softer aspects of relatability, friendliness or perceptions of quality. It comes down to “do I like you?”.
As the tennis world shows us, you don’t have much opportunity to allow your customers to like you, but they will pick up clues in the smallest interactions and that will influence their choices considerably, for a long period of time. No interaction is too small to consider the effect it has on a customer, because regardless of how strong your performance, if people don’t have a reason to like you, you won’t be their favourite.
Where Good Ideas Come From
Posted: January 21, 2014 Filed under: Observations | Tags: books, co-creation, creativity, habit, innovation, practices, review Leave a commentIn Where Good Ideas Come From, Steven Johnson outlines his 7 patterns of innovation, suggesting the environments and habits which successfully generate ideas.
His 7 Patterns include:
- The Adjacent Possible – Exploring what is possible with the adaptation of current available technologies. There is little advantage to dreaming possibilities where the technology lacks to develop them properly. Innovation comes from exploring the edges of possibility – that which is immediately adjacent to the possible.
- Liquid Networks – Cultivating networks which are able to form, strengthen and alter different pathways, allowing for information to flow through dense populations. The brain is the classic example of a liquid network.
- The Slow Hunch – Ideas aren’t always an overnight success, in fact more often they are the product of a partial idea percolating for a long period of time. It bounces through liquid networks, connecting with other partial ideas, until the breakthrough becomes apparent – the 10 year overnight success.
- Serendipity – This connection of partial ideas through the slow hunch is often based on serendipitous occurrences. This doesn’t mean it is always by chance, the collection of many pieces of information and inspiration enhance the chance of serendipitous connections between ideas.
- Error – Making mistakes can lead to new ideas. The environment of innovation is messy and prone to error, it doesn’t always take place in a sterile lab. To make mistakes, it means you must tinker with hunches, try things out and be prepared to fail, because you just don’t know what could happen.
- Exaptation – The combination of existing ideas, re-purposed from one application to solve a problem in another field. The cross-discipline approach allows a person to see something in operation and imagine its use in another context. Gutenberg didn’t invent his printing press, he re-purposed all the existing parts. The innovation was combining them in a new way for a new application.
- Platforms – Creating an environment that provides opportunities for others breeds innovation. The coral reef is the natural example, who’s structure (platform) creates evolutionary opportunities for many types of sea life and maintains the conditions for that life to survive, grow and evolve. The key is the open access to resources, creating something of a sharing economy. The coral reef doesn’t charge yet for fish to make it their home as the fish don’t infringe on the reef’s ability to live.
These 7 patterns provide a great platform to build innovative systems within an organisation or innovative personal habits. This isn’t a checklist or a criteria, but commonly recurring patterns which emerge through the long history of innovation. Just because you’ve developed one of these patterns doesn’t mean you’ll be innovative, but it’ll be more likely.
Johnson’s conclusion and comparison about different modes of innovation is equally as interesting and has sparked a number of thoughts. It underlines his approach that there isn’t a single way to view innovation, but you can optimise for the more likely approach.
Well worth the read.
Commercialising Innovation
Posted: January 20, 2014 Filed under: Contemplations, Explorations | Tags: big picture, co-creation, creativity, diversity, human development, innovation, learning, my philosophy Leave a commentSteven Johnson’s “Where Good Ideas Come From”, has helped me clarify some of my thoughts on the role of creativity and innovation. In his conclusion, Johnson explores four quadrants of innovation to determine the environments which are more conducive to new ideas. These four quadrants are:
- Market/ Individual – The lone individual inventing for a profit
- Market/ Network – A network of people inventing for a profit
- Non-market/ Individual – The hobbyist inventing for fun
- Non-market/ Network – A network of people collaborating to build on ideas
His conclusion is that innovations overwhelmingly come from the 4th quadrant, which suggests that most of the advancements in our society come people collaborating to build on ideas and contribute to the world.
As the world is not quickly moving away from our consumerist, capitalist model, this begs the question of the place of innovation in society, when it’s best environment isn’t a profit making exercise.
There is a separation between the generation of ideas and the application and implementation of them. In short, ideas are cheap and plentiful; turning ideas into reality is the difficult part. There isn’t a competitive advantage in having an idea, the advantage lies in your ability to execute, and respond to a changing market. Plenty of people will tell you they thought of Facebook, but there is still only one Mark Zuckerberg.
We should be open to collaborate with as many people as possible to develop our ideas. To lend our expertise to the collective and make use of their wisdom to hatch our own slow hunches. Sharing ideas with people allows us to refine and develop our thoughts. Commercialising that idea and discovering ways to make it profitable is an entirely different exercise. It’s possible to develop business models to maintain the sharability of the idea, while protecting your ability to make money from the idea, which comes through the model in which it is applied.
Realising this is an important step, as it allows us to move away from the reclusive inventor and the locked down R&D department. Innovation needs a world where ideas flow freely between people and where we value the ability of those able to bring idea to reality, providing value for which people are willing to pay.
*first written 11.12.13
Seob Coex 