Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Loki Pays a Visit to Ohio

(note: I wrote this entry early on election day, not knowing any of the returns. My concerns remain, even though the election results were not disputed.)

I am very angry. Of course, I recognize this as a secondary emotion, arising from a deep sense of helplessness and frustration over what is happening to my country. My rage at the election shenanigans occurring across the country boiled over last night, as I read this, regarding the installation of new, untested, unapproved software in a number of Ohio electronic voting machines:

“What ES&S has chosen to do here is extremely dangerous and exactly what you’d want to do if you wanted to plant a ‘cheat’ onto the central tabulator,” March says in his affidavit. 
Their custom application … would have full contact with the central tabulator database on both a read and write basis, while running on the same computer as where the ‘master vote records’ (the central tabulator database — the ‘crown jewels’ of the whole process) are stored,” he says.
“Under this structure a case of accidental damage to the ‘crown jewels’ of the election data is possible. A case of deliberate tampering of that data using uncertified, untested software would be child’s play.” 
He describes the process as “criminally negligent just from a standpoint of data security.”

To wit, John Husted, the Ohio Secretary of State, a Republican, has chosen to install EXPERIMENTAL software on LIVE VOTING MACHINES just DAYS BEFORE a hotly contested Presidential and Senatorial election. 


I thought more about it, seething. I couldn't sleep last night. Something deeper was bothering me. There's more to this than meets the eye. This morning, I got the whole picture a bit more clearly. Reflect on this thought:
State Sen. Turner was similarly suspicious: “They should not be experimenting in a presidential election. You know the secretary of state had previous years to try to experiment.” 
Indeed, one of the unanswered questions we sent to the secretary of state asked why they waited until Sept. 18 to begin this contract, since Husted’s been in office for nearly two full years, and they’ve carried out many elections, of lesser import than a presidential election since that time during which this software could have had a trial run. Furthermore, we asked, how did they manage without it until now during both his tenure and that of his predecessors?

It's too obvious. It's not about successfully stealing the election (although perhaps the Ohio Secretary of State would be fine with that outcome...), because it's too blatant, and his culpability is too obvious.

It is, I've concluded, about injecting chaos. And a masterful injection, indeed. 

Consider the range of possible responses. Consider any one, and how difficult it will be for that response to be accepted, and effective at restoring order and integrity. See how easy it will be to cast aspersions and denigrate and challenge that response. 

The minefield is, dare I say, unnavigable.

The end result of all this election tampering is not that the voting results will be changed, but that they will be disputed. Who wins when the results are disputed? When our form of self-governance is called into question?

I have my opinions. I encourage you to think about it, and draw your own conclusions.

A civil war is brewing. Loki is smiling.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Gods, Politics, and Idolatry

Here's a good read - Jim Wallis (author of God's Politics) takes a jab at the distortions that come from our political process in The Idolatry of Politics and the Promise of the Common Good.

It's an illuminating perspective. He echoes thoughts I've shared regarding the Container of Conflict that is poisoning our public processes and institutions:

"When conflict arises in our society, each political side invariably does two things: Make us afraid of the problem, and then blame it on the other side. What they don't do is work together to solve the problems -- they are always running to win, rather than finding (or creating) solutions for the common good."
I think, among all of the great points Wallis offers, that this one is the key. We are living in a society that has discovered, and been manipulated into, a culture of (a container of) conflict. Conflict serves those who seek power, because it's the perfect device through which to deceive.

Deception is all over our political process. Why? Because deception is the practice of gathering support one has not earned.

I encourage us all to step back from the rhetoric of conflict. Conflict serves the monied interests. Conflict serves the whole system that has been superimposed on our national community, our democracy, and our experience of the world. We can see it most clearly in our political dialog, because that's where the system focuses the "exchange" (or exercise) of power. It's the point of the spear of the conflict-driven system.

And it's all an illusion. We can just say no. We can embrace one another. We can talk about and deeply listen and try to understand the experiences of our neighbors, instead of demonizing their perspectives and world view.

Republicans are not the enemy. Democrats are not the enemy. Conflict is creating that illusion. To quote A.J. Muste,

"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."
The good news is we can do that with people. The bad news is that we can't do that with corporations.

Wallis says,

"...we will never be able to put values back into politics until we take the money out of it."
Sure enough. However, I am heartened by the fantastic and effective rise in citizen involvement that has been catalyzed by social media. We have created an amazing vehicle - the Internet - that can carry our collective voices directly to one another and to the people who run our corporations and our public institutions. 


And we won't turn back the clock, because it is the young people of our country that will inherit our political power. Young people work the Internet like another set of arms, legs, eyes, and ears.

I am hopeful that the people will be able to wrest control from the shadows, and bring it back into the light.

As long as we keep the Internet free and uncensored, we have a chance. Democracy has a chance.

Peace has a chance.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

After Capitalism, What's Next?

Searching for A Comprehensive Alternative

I have been looking for a philosophical and practical alternative to Capitalism for awhile now. I've been trying to feel my way into the axiomatic heart of Capitalism to figure out what exactly is "broken", and potentially, how to fix it. 

I don't think I've found my answers yet. But I have been noodling on some interesting themes. I pulled my journal out this morning and happened upon something I wrote last month. I thought I'd share an excerpt:

(I'll jump in at the moment when I was trying to figure out what to optimize for, instead of optimizing for "profit", or "shareholder return", which is what we commonly assume Capitalism does...)
Optimize for Truth?
    Optimize for Beauty?
        Optimize for Joy?
             Optimize for wealth? That makes no sense.
Optimize for sustainability? Not sufficient.
Optimize for sustainability with diversity? Not enough.
Optimize for sustainability of sustainable growth with diversity? Almost.
Optimize foe sustainability of growth-friendly diversity and diversity-friendly growth.
 And in the case of a tie, the tie-breaker is...the sign of the derivative. 
There is math here. It relates to the same Active/Receptive algorithmic inverse model I've been chewing on. I need help from a mathematician.  
This is what replaces capitalism. He who stewards growth and diversity best gets the most resources. Stewardship has to be sustainable management of resources with minimal externalization. One might wager that diversity would be built into the most successful models. That's what Nature did -- it created a kind of "maximum diversity" by maximizing the sustainable increase in entropy [every niche filled, catalyzing energy transformation...]. 
Does true sustainability require diversity?  No -- but resilient sustainability does. Sustainability in the context of external disruptions. [of] What magnitude? How dramatic a shift in the environmental conditions [should be accommodated without massive failure]? Systems have to be allowed to grow. Businesses and species need to be allowed to fail and go extinct. What is the arbiter of successful evolution, or progress, or stewardship? 
I guess if one is looking at the picture from maximum wide-angle, you'd have to go with Love. To the extent that you optimize around Love, you get the maximum return on resources at all levels because Love is the frequency of God. 
Whoa. That's a lot of integration happening. I think I'd like a short break. How much of this did the ancients know? Did they know the MATH? 
"Math - the Sorcerer's path to God."

So, there you have it - a peak under the hood of my...ummm...what would you call it? Any mathematicians out there want to help me out?

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Success in 2050

The Empathic Business Landscape

In her post "Strategies for 2050: Forward Thinking for the Industry", my friend and colleague Pam Gordon at Technology Forecasters called attention to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and their VIsion 2050 program. She invited readers to consider the impact of global and societal changes on successful companies.

What will characterize successful companies in 2050?

I thought about it for a few minutes, and a surprising word popped into my thoughts: Empathy. I had to explore my mindscape for quite a while to figure out why. What follows is my excursion.

The Commons
In 2050, much will have changed. Human population is projected to be 9 billion. Technology will have evolved at least as far as it has since 1974. I was thirteen then. Harry Chapin's "Cat's Cradle" was at the top of the charts, as was Jim Croce's "Time in a Bottle".  Reflecting back, I feel a rush of ennui.

What ennui will we feel in 2050, looking back at 2012? And what changes to society will we have embraced and endured? Looking back 38 years, it's pretty stunning how differently we lived. Isolated, really. China was still an enigma. The Soviet Union was pushing closed, controlled markets.

Home videos were made with film, and were stored in the attic.

Ozone-depleting CFCs were not yet banned.

Although we understood the tragedy of the commons, we did not yet have an unequivocal awareness that "the commons" was the entire planet.

Now, we do.

Now, we have access to a more intimate understanding (if we're willing) of our friends, colleagues, competitors, and enemies than ever before in human history. We also have a more complete understanding of the limits of our "commons".

When I think of my own high-tech career, my most successful products focused on the user experience. When I look at Steve Jobs, and his world-changing successes, I see products focused on the user experience.

What is this "user experience"? Where does the magic lie?

In a word, "empowerment". 

A great user experience brings the user an experience of being empowered - empowered to find satisfaction, success, fun, creativity, expression..and on and on. The fundamental of a great product is not just the goal of fun, creativity, satisfaction, etc., but rather the degree to which the user is empowered to achieve that goal. In fact, without the empowerment of the user, the products value-function is just theoretical.

We tend to buy products that help us achieve our goals in the most engaging, fulfilling way possible. Some goals we pursue simply because we want to - they delight us, perhaps. We pursue other goals because successfully attaining them brings the resources to pursue the goals we really want to pursue. (For those lucky enough to make a living doing what they love, there is no difference - this point will be important in a minute.)

Apple products are very empowering. And we do feel good when we use them. 

Or, we did, until recently when we learned about the nasty practices of its manufacturer Foxconn, and the impact they have on their employees.

Suddenly, it doesn't feel so good to be using Apple products. Why not?

For me, the reason is that I have knowledge of the working conditions of those workers at Foxconn, and I hate the idea that I'm contributing to their suffering. That's an empathic response.

I'm having that empathic response because technology has empowered me to understand their world. I also now understand that the world is small, and that I share a destiny with those people

In a fundamentally enhanced way, I am aware. 

This awareness is a genie that will not go back into the bottle. In fact, it will become more powerful. Why? Because the world is too small (there are too many of us) for our actions to be inconsequential to the whole, and technology is too successful to prevent us from seeing the consequences of our actions. 

And because we all can see, we're beginning to be able to see the bad actors.

By 2050, a bad actor will not be able to hide. Whether an actor is bad or simply ignorant will matter very little. An ignorant actor may have a chance to be educated, and evolve. A bad actor will either reform or perish. 

Think of the systems of bad actors like cancer in the body. Either the cancer has to go, or the body will die. If the cancer wins, then 2050 won't be very interesting to talk about - because that win means death not just to the bad actors, but to everybody else, too.

Whole systems of bad actors will burn themselves out, because the consequences of their actions will not be tolerated by the rest of us. Not just because we'll have an empathic response. The systems we depend on won't be able to afford it.

The interesting thing about "bad actors" is that the awareness will also scope all the way down to an individual. We as individual actors will be subject to the same scrutiny. Are we acting sustainably? Are we acting humanely? Increasingly, these two terms will converge, from a business perspective and on a personal level. It's a pretty bold statement. But why might it be true?

The Core Delusion
Here's where we get down to the core axiom of the future, and the core delusion of the past and present: We're not in business to make money. We're in business to deliver value. "Making money" is something monetary systems do, not companies. Companies convert resources from one form into another. There is no "net gain" in money. 

This point may sound like sophistry, but it's not. 

If a company isn't "making money" when it turns a profit, then what is it doing? It's "taking money", from some other source. That source is either the closed system that is The Commons (the planet, on which we all depend), or that source is a neighbor. Ripping off your neighbor is not a sustainable livelihood. And in the future, we're all neighbors. So you'd better be focused on delivering value, not on "taking money".  It's at this nexus that "acting sustainably" and "acting humanely" converge.

Success in 2050
What products, and businesses, will succeed?

I believe they will have three fundamental characteristics:

1) Awareness of the Commons. Resources are increasingly limited. The planet's ability to replenish itself is limited. Those who jeopardize the commons will be rejected as "too expensive" to support.

2) Empathy for the Global Village. People will increasingly realize we all share a common destiny. As population increases and technology empowers us all, we'll have no choice but to cooperate. Products and businesses that are seen as bad actors will be rejected.

3) Empowering Fulfillment. Finally, as we use the same lens on individual lives as we use on businesses, we'll begin to realize that the only sustainable path for each of us as individuals is to pursue our own wholeness, our own fulfillment. We won't be so ready to tolerate dysfunction in our working lives because there won't be as much in it for us - there won't be the idea of a big "payoff" later on - because, remember, we're not "making money", we're "taking money". In the end, the only sustainable path for each of us as individuals is to work towards our personal fulfillment - "delivering value" for ourselves, and to our neighbors, so to speak. Primarily, because everything else will be too expensive, and too painful. But fortunately, pursuing our own fulfillment will be the most satisfying, most sustainable thing we can do! So we'll really be compelled (both positively and negatively) to live "sustainably", and that means sustainably pursuing our fulfillment. Products that empower us along that path will be amazing successes. Products that don't, won't.

The End of Externalized Costs and the Emergence of Empathy
To be successful, products in 2050 will have to recognize the new state of awareness of the people who use them - and that awareness includes both humanity and sustainability.

Any large systems that are unsustainable now will have ceased to exist by 2050, because the world is too small to sustain them. New systems that are sustainable will increasingly have an advantage over unsustainable alternatives. So successful systems (and products) will have sustainability built into them. That means they will have eliminated externalization of costs that impact the Commons. They will also have to empower their users to live in a sustainable way. That means they will have to recognize what humans in 2050 will have recognized: we're all in this together. 

That's a fundamental aspect of empathy, and the cornerstone of success in 2050. Corporations that don't master empathy won't have any customers to serve. 

Post Script: What could invalidate our evolution into the scenario above? Two items that I can think of:
1) Monopoly power - Monopoly is one way resources could continue to be allocated by a bad or ignorant actor. It could be a government, or it could be an old-fashioned industrial monopoly.
2) Massive population die-off - With fewer humans, the compelling pressure to preserve The Commons is relieved, and our interdependency is masked by the power of the planet to clean up after us.