Why everybody needs access to the futures market

I wrote in one of my early blog entries back in 2005 that I thought everyone should be holding some gold, because I anticipated the disintegration (at least in the short/medium term) of the US economy. Holding gold is a hedge against declines in the US dollar and woes in the stock market.

These woes have materialized, and I think they are not over, and I still think gold will outperform the stock market and cash savings for at least another two years.

As I started to see evidence that we were in for some tough economic times, I started looking around for investments that would do well in a bad economy. Some of these are:

• Buying gold
• Short selling stocks or stock indexes
• Investing in the futures markets

The good news is that it is very possible for a reasonably small investor with just a couple thousand dollars to invest to benefit in a bad economy. Initially I thought the only opportunities would be for the rich, but I was pleased to find that is no longer the case. Through discount brokers, everyone can have access to these investments. This democratization of finance is a very good thing, because of course economies go up and down all the time. And people should not be forced to suffer because of bad decisions made by their government (e.g. extreme deficit spending, encouraging market bubbles, devaluing the currency, allowing inflation). There are ways to anticipate problems in the market and benefit, or at least hold on to what you have worked so hard to achieve.

It pains me to see that so many people are going to suffer around the world as a result of the global stagflation that is occuring. The scope of the problem is huge and there is no way to "save" people from their situations. The cost at this point is going to be very high. (If we could rewind history and do things differently over the past 20 years, I believe the pain could have been avoided at a low cost.) I believe there is little at this point in time at the policy or aid level that can prevent the impeding suffering.

BUT, it might be possible for individuals, communities and maybe even nations to hedge against the impending problems and perhaps come out on the other side a little better off.

Consumer and producers of commodities have done this for a long time via the futures markets. A wheat grower can lock in a reasonable price by hedging for their wheat and sleep easy even if prices fluctuate wildly after that. A company that makes bread can lock in a price to buy that wheat in the same way.

Why don't more people, institutions and countries seek to hedge their bets against their own economies? By being a part of an economy, we are all heavily "invested" in that economy. It's like having all of your savings tied up in the stock of the company you work for: this is generally acknowledge in the post Enron world to be a very bad idea. Don't put all of your eggs in the same basket.

Likewise, it is dangerous to be overly invested or dependent on your economy. There are ways, via the futures market, to hedge these bets (by buying or selling various financial and other futures). This could help to balance out downturns and return the global economy to stability sooner.

Of course as currently structured, futures are risky and people need to be careful not to lose their shirt. That is why perhaps pensions funds, endowments, and perhaps even federal governments should seek to make prudent hedging (not speculating) investments in these futures markets on behalf of their constituents. I'm not talking about crazy leveraged speculation that has occurred in the past, I'm talking about wisely balanced hedging. I'm not sure if there is enough liquidity in the markets to support investors of these sizes, but if this idea caught on liquidity would be added naturally.

Hedging and the futures market are not a new concepts, but perhaps we need to extend how we use them. Instead of governments always trying to put a happy face on and say everything will be fine while the economy tumbles, perhaps we should be more honest about natural economic fluctations and proactively hedge against them to lessen the negative impacts.

People should demand this of their governments. We need these checks and balances in the global economy to help smooth out the booms and bust that only serve to further enrich the rich and cause suffering for the poor.

Common leadership failures

I was a teaching assistant for Dr. Ronald Heifetz at the Kennedy School of Government. He taught a very unique model of leadership. I thought it was mind-blowing at the time and I have been reminded recently that I believe his key lessons are still really the only key lessons to learn. They can be learned at deeper and deeper levels over a lifetime, but they pretty much include everything one needs to know to make the world a better place. They are like koans to meditate on every day. I summarize the key failures to avoid in my own words below.

1. The failure to distinguish leadership from authority: Leadership is the act of producing desirable change. Authority is power conferred in exchange for particular services. Leadership is a distributed activity known as making a difference. Authority is positions, titles and some intangibles that carry weight among those who put themselves under that authority.
   
   Some people only exert authority, simply doing what is expected of them (pandering) or enforcing their will on others (tyranny). These are both problems. Leadership involves challenging people at a rate they can stand. No one likes change, but change is necessary: especially today.
   
   Other people forget or resist holding their authority. Institutions need authority figures to preserve their integrity. When people think they can be everyone's friend of pretend that everyone is equal, you will end up with organizational dysfunction.
   
2. The failure to focus on what is important: It is very difficult to keep your focus on what the purpose of an organization, your own mission, and what the world needs now. We first need to reflect deeply even to have a sense of answers to these questions for ourselves. Then we are distracted by a desire for comfort, personality differences, ingrained habits of action or thinking, busywork and general human drama. It is essential to constantly ask and remind yourself of what is important, and to keep others focused on that as well.
   
3. The failure to look beyond technical band-aids to real, adaptive solutions: Most people think at a technical level looking for "solutions" to "problem", if they think about their situation at all. But these idea of problems and solutions are a human construct which can some times get in the way of doing what is really needed. Need to look below to what would be required to generate real, lasting positive change. Most of the time what is required are shifts in values, habits and beliefs (which most people think of as "the way things are", when in fact they are just "the way I have grown to think of things"). This is difficult and often slow work: especially because one's own beliefs may need shifting! But pretending there are quick fixes or ways to avoid engaging at this deeper level just results in no change. There are no easy answers, and that is a painful pill to swallow.

Look around in your own life. See if these lessons apply. I challenge you to find a problem of leadership that does not fall under one of these 3 categories! Let me know if you think you've found one and we can discuss it.

Community Supported Renewable Energy



I read an interesting article in the Morther Earth News (June/July 2008) about "Community Supported Wind Power." I think this is something we really need to figure out in the US.

Apparently, Denmark and some other Euopean countries have a structure that allows community level associations of citizens to invest in wind power installations. They become the investor/owners in these small systems that are distributed throughout the countryside and help to provide the power they use. An organization in the US is pusing for local power like this: the Public Renewables Partnership, http://www.repartners.org/.

I know from conversations with PNM (the power provider in New Mexico), and with others who have tried to work with PNM, that these kind of installations are not allowed (yet). This is not quite true: very small systems might be allowed under rules that allow individuals and businesses to net meter their power off their solar panels, etc.

But systems of a couple megawatts, which would be great for many towns and municipalities, are not allowed. But they should be!

The future of power is decentralized generation. Because of course consumption is widely decentralized and the inefficiencies of sending power long distances over power lines are significant. We need to generate power near where it is consumed. This is especially true for renewables: unlike the power plants of the past (e.g. coal, nuclear) that have toxic emissions and negatively impact their surroundings, renewables can be co-located with human settlements with no problems at all.

If the future of power is decentralized generation, and that means renewable sources, then we need community supported renewable power!

In the same way it is very appropriate for cities and towns to govern and tax themselves, to have sewer and water districts and provide their necessary infrastructure, it is appropriate for communities to control at least some of their own power.

Making this happen will require a revolution of sorts: there are many entrenched interests that benefit tremendously from centralized power generation. They don't want to see things decentralized and will fight it. But there are more of us than there are of them. We need to educate ourselves and demand another system that serves us better. No one will do it for us.

I am hopeful that the new president will be supportive of changes like these (because people across the nation are fed up with centralized, crony capitalism), and will pass enabling legislation and regulations that force utility companies to open themselves to small distributed generators. I am hopeful, but again we will need to demand these changes. It is up to us. The pendulum is swinging back, empowering people over institutions...thank god!

And on a practical note, I am very motivated to try to make community renewable power a reality, particularly here in New Mexico. Withour 300 days of sun a year, vast open space and extensive wind resources, it's a perfect spot to make it happen. Having worked with and for communities doing real estate development, I am confident that it is doable.

As one example, Santa Fe will be increasing its electrical load by approximately 25% in the next couple years as it begins pumping drinking water up from the Rio Grande. This is a perfect project to pair with a new municipal renewable energy source. Given Santa Fe's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and its progressive orientation, I am hopefuly that community renewable power can be made real here.

What do New Mexico and Africa have in common?
Thoughts on the brotherhood of Man



I have not been to Africa. But I have been a consumer of vast amount of media about Africa. And I now live in New Mexico having moved from the east coast a few years ago. I would like to comment on media and perception, and how that affects places.



Let me start with New Mexico, since it is closer to home. I will admit that never having been to New Mexico when I was growing up, it really wasn't on my radar screen. It was sort of a blank spot on the map of the US. I had neither positive nor negative interactions with it. Then my girlfriend at the time (now wife), started raving about it. And that at least got me thinking about it. All I could think of was Arizona: was that what it was like? Wasn't it near the bottom when it came to poverty and school achievement? That was about all I knew about it. My impression was dry, harsh and barren.



Then she started to describe Santa Fe, where she had gone to college. Sounded interesting and I agreed to go on a vacation to check it out. Coming in to the airport in Albuquerque it seemed deathly dry and brown. And then Albuquerque itself reminded me of Phoenix, because of the importance of the interstates, the sprawling layout, and the climate generally.



From there we arrived in Santa Fe. This did seem different. The mountains were there, it wasn't too hot, there was the ubiquitous "Santa Fe" style homes. Interesting. Went went out to eat at some places she remembered, and some of the same servers were there...and they were very friendly! More interesting still. Then of course there is all of the history in the area, most of which I knew nothing about. And the mix of peoples you don't find on the east coast. And of course the tremendous open space and recreational opportunities in every direction. VERY interesting, and appealing.



But it was still very dry, it didn't seem like there was much of an economy, and I wasn't sure why there were still so many unpaved roads and so few public spaces. I think I understand these things better now that I have some more context and experience with the place.



And that is my main point. It is very interesting what perceptions and ideas of places and people get transmitted to people outside of that community. I feel like it has been a somewhat arduous and frought process to get to know this place more deeply. And of course I still just at the beginning of my learning. It is amazing to me how far apart the east cost of the US is from New Mexico...and not just physical distance but socio-cultural-historical distance as well. The information that gets transmitted to those outside and even to new arrivals is only a small fraction of the reality, and even that fraction is more than partially incorrect. It's as if the difference in the cultures must be crossed with as much effort (or perhaps more) as the physical distance that separates them. Real understanding comes slowly.



Now that I have been here a few years, it is funny for me to see the charactured, "Disney World" way in which the cultures here are portrayed to tourists. It is such a superficial, cute portrayal, but I suppose that it is what it must be. And I would not be surprised if the people who originated and are from those cultures did not find it funny at all. It must be very hard to see one's culture reduced to the cutsy and commodified for outsiders.



I had another experience recently that deepens the point about perceptions and those from the outside. I had the privilege of being about to attend a seminar on education at Santa Fe High School. It was very good for me to be on the campus for a day and see what school life was like. And what was remarkable to me was that it was unremarkable: it looked like what would be a pretty nice high school most anywhere. Kids were going to class, etc.



This is not the perception that gets communicated to people new to Santa Fe. We hear that the Santa Fe schools are horrible and there are only one or two elementary schools you should consider sending your kids to, and then they should go to a private school, if not private school all the way through. There is the perception that putting your child in a public school is like throwing them to the wolves and under the bus all at the same time. This is the only message I heard about the schools for nearly 2 years while in Santa Fe.



The reality that I directly perceived once I actually went to the high school was that it was fine. I am not saying it is not without problems: every school (even private schools) have problems. But having gone to public school myself, I could see that with parental guidance and support my child would be just fine there. This was sort of a revelation to me.



I started thinking about why I would have been given this perception. And the closest explanation I can come up with is either conscious or subconscious racism, classism and elitism. By reinforcing that there were only a few "good" schools to go to, in the very wealthy areas, creates an us and a them, and overclass and underclass: a two-tiered city. Which is what Santa Fe does seem to have. It's a sort of conspiracy that we forgot we are a part of.



And I think this conspiracy is much broader than just Santa Fe. I can see it perpetuated by white people against people of color, by the United States against other nations, and by men against women.



What surprised me is that I have done a lot of anti-racism work, diversity training, examined institutional racism, etc. and it still sneaks up on me in ways that I don't notice it happening. The schools in Santa Fe are the perfect example: I didn't know what was happening for two years. And to give myself some credit, no one around me, not even the long time residents and Hispanic people I know framed it this way. It seems like it affects us all at a a deep, subconscious level.



It's a kind of subjugation from the inside. I guess we call it "internalized" racism, classism, etc. because it lives within us: both the privileged and the disadvantaged. There are forces in our society and culture that perpetuate inequalities. It seems to serve the same purpose as the caste system in India. Most people reading this in the US would say, "Oh, we are nothing like that!" but that reaction is just this internalized elitism at work. There is a deep rooted assumption that we are beyond these problems: that we "solved" racism, classism, etc. decades ago.


Returning to Africa, I see a very similar dynamic at play. Most people have never been there, and the images we get of the country are outrageous chaos and atrocity. We get the impression that this chaos and atrocity has been going on forever.

I recently saw the movie Blood Diamond. As someone from the US who has liberal leanings but has never been to Africa, my general impression that it was a good portrayal of things we normally don't think about (e.g. how getting your wedding ring may have resulted in dealth and slavery). But as I thought about it more, I felt those familiar reactions welling up: "those people are crazy," "Africa is a lost cause," etc. I started to question them. And the movie also helped by pointing out things like how the Belgians brought the practice of removing a hand of captives as part of their subjugation. But of course we also know that there was slavery in Africa before any white people every arrived. So it's a complicated picture.

But bottom line, our sense of superiority in the west and our deep fear of what we perceive as unavoidable violence in Africa means that most of us will never go there. And so the entire continent gets written off. But this only reinforces its marginalization and exploitation. And so we are complicit. By distancing ourselves from the place, we distance ourselves from any responsibility.

This is something we need to look at: how we distance ourselves every day from certain places and people, and how this helps to concentrate resources around us and perpetuate inequalities.

One question I don't have answer to is: "If we stopped this habit of distancing ourselves and embraced our connections, would there be enough resources for everyone to enjoy a good life, or would we all begin slipping down into a more equal but poor existence?" In other words, is life on planet early still a zero sum game to some extent, or not? Are we still running from the problem of limited resources (which only gets worth with increased population), or is this an illusion? Would we find that everyone could be well off in a world in which we did not distance ourselves from various "others."

I think the fear that we are still in a zero-sum game is at the deeepest level what perpetuates inequality. We are afraid to try the experiment of real equality. This fear, and the habits of mind and action that support our level in the current system, are what need to change to have a real brotherhood of humanity.

Crazy thought experiment of the week: The nature of reality

Many scientists have been suggesting for the last couple decades that the universe we live is likely to have more dimensions than the three we normally think. Recent string theory suggests that there may be as many as 11 dimensions. These dimensions There is a very interesting video that can help one think about these dimensions that can be found here: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php. This video talks about a 10 dimensional model rather than 11, but that does not matter for our purposes. to summarize what it says:

• Dimension 0: a point
• Dimension 1: a line
• Dimension 2: a split (e.g. two lines connected)
• Dimension 3: a fold (like an ant on piece of paper folded to intersect)
• Dimension 4: a line (time: we see only our 3 dimensions moment to moment, but we are moving through 4th dimensional space on some trajectory)
• Dimension 5: a split (this is like different futures branching off from each other)
• Dimension 6: a fold (like folding space time so that we can jump from one life trajectory to another)
• Dimension 7: a point (imagining the space of all such trajectories and futures as a point: e.g. infinity)
• Dimension 8: a split (like imaging different universes branching from the point that is the infinity that was the big bang)
• Dimension 9: a fold (like dimensions 3 and 6, this is where this space of branching universes is folded so that we can jump from one universal state to another)
• Dimension 10: a point (this is the infinity of infinities that are universes)

This is just one way to look at these dimensions, but I think it is helpful. What is interesting to me is that these it seems to me that these dimensions are just a framework for imaging everything that can be imagined. But as we all know, imagination evolves and expands over time. Even 100 years ago no one would had imagined the cell phone, which is quite real to most people all over the world now. What is to say that our scientists and theorists won't imagine additional dimensions in the future? I think they will. In the meantime, I hope scientists with the supercollider in Europe can begin to provide some experimental evidence to support these theories.

That seems to be how we progress: we imagine something, then we test it empirically. When we can verify the theory empirically we can then "stand" on that "fact" and from there extend our imagination even further.

What this says to me is that we will likely find more dimensions, or even more likely, that we will throw out the notion of dimensions as outdated and invent something even more truthful and accurate.

Look at this process in action, it seems to me that we will find that perhaps we will find that imagination or will (which I think are really two sides of the same coin) is really the substance of the universe. Or said another way, that the universal will, or universal consciousness of which we are a part, is God is the universe. Which is what most people believe anyway! But wouldn't it be nice to "prove" it! I think it is possible.

A further extension is that we are God to the extent to which we realize we are God and learn to act together. This learning to act together is like learning to do anything: it is hard and takes time. But if we hold it out as a possible, then we can begin to figure out how to do it. In the same way we are learning in our normal three dimensions how to collectively produce the results we would like to so, we can do this at a deeper, more universal level. Perhaps we will find that these are actually the same task, just examined from different perspectives.

Another way of conceiving will is as energy. Someone who has a strong will, is essentially someone with a strong energy to achieve something. The video mentioned at the start of this discussion suggestions that it is the superstrings of string theory vibrating in the tenth dimension that is everything. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I just wanted to make the connection between these vibrating strings and energy.

Another way to think about energy is as vibration. This is a common "new age" way to think about energy. People say that we are energetic beings, and make references to being "in tune" with other people. To continue our thought experiment, maybe another way to think of ourselves is as energetic masses when viewed from higher dimensions. I know this is starting to sound more and more kooky, but just go with me a little further.

Ancient healing methods like Reiki, Qigong, accupuncture are energetic in nature. They seek to work with the likes of energy in the body. More and more people are practicing these methods and seeking help from these practitioners. And insurance is even starting to cover it!

So let's say that it is not obviously false, at least, that we can view ourselves energetically, and that is possible to sense this energy in ourselves and in others somehow. BUT, that it is not necessarily obvious or automatic to be aware of this energy at a conscious level.

And I think it is also worth considering that maybe groups of people who share interdependencies may be energetically connected. What kind of interdependencies do I mean? Anything and everything: a shared culture, watch the same TV shows, part of the same economy, part of the same community, genetically related, etc. So then we are all connected to greater or lesser degrees.

I will share a personal example. Over the past year, I believe that my mood and experience of life has been colored by the bursting of the economic bubble here in the US. That is not a radical statement, but what might be more radical is to say that I suspect that it is not just because I watched it on TV and know some people who are out of work, but fundamentally because I am a part of the living organism that is the United States. And a result, I am energetically connected to everyone else that is a part of this system, and we are all sharing some of the same experience if we pay attention to how we feel.

This is not to say that the United States is a living organism that is separate form the organism that is Germany, for example. The relating, even on the surface, is that we more and more interconnected to everyone on the planet. This process seems is accelerating in obvious ways (the internet, global commerce, global warming, etc.). Information and materials transport is interconnecting the globe, much like veins, arteries and cellular transport mechanisms support multicellular organisms. Even if the Earth has always been Gaia, it is being organized in more and more ways that make it more and more discernable that we are becoming part of the same organism.

In the time scale of the Earth, all of this change and new organization is happening at an EXTREMELY rapid rate. It would not be surprising that there are major growing pains. We can look at these growing pains in the three dimensional world, and they are obvious. But I think it may be helpful to look at them from an energetic/higher dimensional view as well.

Most people would probably agree that things feel pretty hard right now, all over the world and for them personally. Of course there are some people who may not feel this, but they are the minority and probably because they are less tuned into how they feel in general.

Here's one hypothesis. It's a kooky one, but no one else seems to have a compelling explanation yet, so it's worth a try. Imagine that as energetic beings, when viewed from higher dimensions (and felt at some level), that we have literally been thrown together. Our various energetic parts are interpenetrating and this causes us discomfort, especially as we all wiggle around in our discomfort creating additional discomfort.

In this view, our task would be to first calm down. Then to assess our feelings and our situation. See if we can get in tune with our energetic selves. Then to begin to align and coordinate our energetic selves. It is the overlapping, lack of alignment and uncoordination that is the problem. But once we discover this, we have the power to change it.

Something that exascerbates the problem is that many people have the reaction to the situation to harden their boundaries and try to force the interlopers away. I would say people of a fundamentalist orientation are doing this, probably mostly because they have not attempted to sense themselves energetically or experience the world in that way. In their cut and dried three dimensional world, that is an obvious response. BUT, it is also not effective, because it they are not addressing the real problem.

And of course we need to work on solutions in the three dimensional, standard view of problems. The whole point is that these challenges are the same, but viewing them through different lenses can give us more power and effectiveness.

I'll give you an example that may surprise you. As energetic, vibrational beings we respond to music. I think that is part of the reason why music is so powerful. Someone who I think deeply understands the power of music, and the need to create more alignment and energetic coordination is Michael Franti, whether he would use words similar to mine or not. I have listened to his music since he was the Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy. In that earlier stage, he was angry and very overtly political. But something changed. I don't know his whole story, and I don't know him, so it is a bit presumptuous to have an opinion about it but I do. From Spearhead on to his solor work, his music became more celebratory and "party" oriented, but while still staying human, conscious, aware.

I think he understands what the planet needs: we need to resonate together, to party together! (In particular I think of his song, "Everybody Ona Move"). We need to go beyond the rational, beyond the surface three dimensional to a level that may be more "true" and is certainly more fluid and flexible. This is not the full answer, but is certainly a part of the answer. To get us more coordinated and aligned, we need to reach into our energetic natures to first create resonance and connection. From there we can figure out the details.

So that's my long and rambling crazy thought experiment of the week. I'm not saying its true...but what if it is? Even if it's wrong, how can it help us learn what is needed? Let's continue the conversation, and find ways to seek resonance.

Work/Life balance in the future

The recent downturn in the economy has gotten me thinking about work life balance. I believe that 40 hours a week (and certainly more than 40) is too much of one type of work for most people. I do not believe it is a sustainable model. I think we will see a continuation of the trend away from factory-type repetitive labor (much white collar work is still repetitive labor) towards more diverse work.

Diverse work that is intrinsically more satisfying. People are not machines and were not meant to do the same thing over and over all day. I believe we are biologically more suited to a diverse mix of activities to be undertaken each day.

This is especially true for the many, many people who have "attention deficit disorder." But I think this disorder is not so much a disorder as a simple reflection that people were not meant to sit in one place and do repetitive tasks for 8+ hours a day! It is not that these people are disordered, it is that society is disordered and has gotten so out of wack that many people are having difficulty functioning productively.

What is the alternative? How does this relate to the economic downturn? Basically, I think that in the post peak-oil future in which energy is more scarce, there will be a natural reduction in the intensity of economic activity. There will also be more focus on regional economies. There will be less work. But that may not be a bad thing...

I think we will see people starting to grow more of their own food. I think we will move away from the world of the mega pop star to a world where people make more of their own art because it is a satisfying thing to do. In general I think we will see people gradually shift from being itensive consumers and corporate cogs to being well rounded producers of many things they need and want. And this will be radically more satisfying.

People will stil have "jobs" but they will be what we consider part time now. This will allow time for the relationships and community activities that provide meaning. We will gradually shift from being extreme individualists (which is what we have become under this economic regime) to be more community oriented. Parents will have time to be involved with their child's education, citizens will be able to be involved in the governance of their communities, people will have time to discover collective solutions to many problems. And this will be good.

Even without the macro changes which I think will bring this about, I suspect there are many, many people who would choose this mode of life if they had the choice, even if it meant living on less.

The biggest problem is the work culture here in the US. There is a bias towards people who will profess to be willing to devote their entire lives to their jobs, being willing to work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. This is dysfunctional for everyone involved and is not sustainable. This is especially true for "elite" jobs with the "best" companies. And in this way, those "best" jobs are turned into nightmares of their own by swallowing people whole, keeping them from their familes, depriving them of the diverse experiences that make life worth living and substituting a world of obsessive work and intensive consumerism because they MUST buy everything because they have no time to do anything for themselves. This is a mdoel of work that college graduates must reject and fight against. What is needed is to say no to participating in the myth that people that overwork are better employees. They are not.

Why not split a 60 hour a week job into two 30 hour a week jobs? I think many people would jump at that. But for some reason it is not (yet) done very often. Anyone who would choose such a position is looked down as a slacker and less valuable.

I would even like to see an entire company decide to have no job that was more than 30 hours a week to see what would happen. I think people would be much happier, there would be more loyalty, less burnout, and a more sustainable model. The problem comes when people who work 60 hours a week work with people working 30 hours a week. If we said no to those 60 hour a week jobs, we'd have a better situation.

It is interesting on the lower end of the economic spectrum that it is part time employees that are preferred, because they need not be provided benefits, can be dismisssed more easily, etc. That too is obviously a bad idea.

Let's have a movement to move away from this bi-polar model to a more balance middle way. I think we will all be better off with no loss of economic competitiveness. In fact I think we may be better off.

Creating a Strategic Solar Reserve

There is always much discussion about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the US: How much to store, when to use it, etc. Given that our country's security certainly depends on the security of its energy supply, it is certainly a good idea to have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

BUT, if we are to be more forward looking, we should be establishing reserves of renewable resources as well. In particular, I would like to see a "Strategic Solar Reserve" and a "Strategic Wind Reserve" created. When I did a web search for these ideas, I found (thankfully) that some foresighted person in the government has already thought of this idea in general terms and actually has gotten some preliminary action passed in the recent energy bill. See below:

"Strategic Solar Reserve Program: Lands under the Bureau of Land Management’s
jurisdiction must be identified that can accommodate up to 25 GW of solar energy
development. Provides favorable terms and conditions for permitting, leasing and site
identification. (Sec. 7304)"
http://www.seia.org/Energy_Bills_Memo.pdf

25 GW is 25x3414 = 85350 BTUs

I just checked, and it looks like the US uses about 100 quadrillion BTUs of energy a year in total (10^20 BTUs, it seems).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_9.pdf

So this resource would be only a small fraction of our total energy demand.

I think we can do better. We need to aim for true energy independence. Why don't we aim to develop, or least seriously look into, what would be required to be fully renewable in 10 years? I think this actually doable. Like the Apollo moon mission, which was extremely ambitous at the time, we need the Apollo moon project for our age. And I think renewable energy has to be the right choice. It is tied to our national security, the long term health of our economy and climate change. It is the only way forward. And just think what the trillions we will end up spending on the Iraq war could have done to move us there! We desperately need the leadership of the federal government on this issue. I hope Obama picks it up, I hope he wins, and I hope he makes it happen!

There are a thousand things people worry about with the potential of renewable resources, but they are all surmountable: transmission, storage, total potential, etc.

I have read in more than one source that people estimate somewhere between 60 and 100 square miles of southwestern US land would be needed to provide ALL of the electricity the US uses. http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html

Think how small that is! Anyone who has been to the western US knows that there has to be 100s if not 1000s of times this amount of suitable land available. And these calculations rely on current efficiencies of solar systems. They are real estimates. AND of course systems will get significantly more efficient, and their production more efficient, as we go about actually building them on a large scale.

We should go beyond our electricity needs to include our oil/gas needs as well. With improvements in batteries, truly viable electric vehicles are only a few years away.

Reaching Peak Oil in 2005, which now most reasonable agree on (http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php), means that conventional energy is only going to be more expensive each year from here on out. We urgently need to invest our existing energy in developing new energy sources. This is only rational thing to do: every year we wait means that it will be that much harder to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewable ones without significant pain. We need to start NOW! And we can't mess around. That is why we need a federal government level, Apollo moon project type effort, to ensure that we have a Strategy Solar Reserve to provide energy independence and ensure the safety, stability and well being of our nation into the future.

By the way, I focus on solar in particular because per area of land it is one of the most efficient renewable options out there. (I don't have a good reference for this, but I heard from Ben Luce of CCAE in New Mexico that it is true.) It is greatly more efficient that biomass, wind, or anything else on a square foot basis. and of course it is nearly infinite, falls all over the world, and will not run out or change in quantity significantly any time soon. It is out best option.

We need to start building our Strategic Solar Reserve immediately. Let your political representatives know and spread the word!

Population and Children

Humanity is to be applauded for our recent acknowledgement of our influence on our climate (climate change) and other biological systems. And the increasing emphasis on new techologies and straetgies to move to a renewable, sustainable future. Solar energy, wind energy, conservation, etc. All of these are essential efforts and very important.

But I believe the elephant is room is population. I am not the first to come up with idea, or the most famous. Lester Brown and his colleagues have been making this point for a while. http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Malthus-Dimensions-Population-Challenge/dp/0393319067

In the 70's we had books like the Population Bomb and Limits to Growth, which largely fell out of favor. The view we have mostly adopted is that we are smart enough to develop new technology which allows more food to be grown per acre, to pull more oil out of the earth, etc. that actually expand the "carrying capacity" of the planet through our improvements.

But maybe there are limits to our ability to expand the limits. :) I think we are seeing that now with global climate instability, collapse of fisheries, the rise of new diseases that threaten to wipe out large segments of the population, encroachment into margin lands that are prone to destruction by hurricanes, typhoons, hurricanes and other unavoiable problems, the current food crisis, the current energy crisis, etc.

I am definitely not ruling out new technologies that will help with all of these things. And another lesson of the 70's is that things do not change linearly: just as these problems have grown and come to the fore, they may decline due to natural cycles we don't fully understand.

BUT, I do not think technology is going to be able to reverse these trends for any period of time if population does not also decline. I would hate for these declines to come through unplanned human suffering (e.g. desertification, rising oceans, hunger, epidemics, etc.). The immune system of the planet may force these upon us if we do not take proactive action. And I would say it already is.

As from these fears and worries, I think there is a compelling positive case to be made for population reduction. Wouldn't it be nice for everyone to not only have enough food to live on, to have secure shelter and a means of livlihood, but the potential to live in beauty, to live in balance and peace, to have real choice about perfecting our environment?

The only way for everyone on the planet to have this choice is if there are fewer of us. If there were sufficiently few of us, we could all live in paradise like Hawaii (or Siberia depending on your preference).

Is there a humane, just and attractive way to achieve population limits? I don't know, but I think so.

The next elephant in the room once we start talking about population is children. Children can be wonderful and have been a major component of nearly everyone on the planet for millenia. When we talk about population, we have to talk about not having children. And that's where people start to go ballistic. For the record, I really like kids (in small doses), and certainly understand there many, many people for whom children create most of their happiness in life. I understand and respect that. But it something we may have to look at. I am also undecided about having children at this point: I could go either way. In the same way we are being forced to look at our patterns of living, driving and consumption, we may need to look at our child bearing patterns.

We can go a long way to reducing population through increasing the education of women, providing them with their own access to livlihoods (e.g. microfinance), family planning education for everyone, contraception, etc. These are the easy options because they basically just help people to make their own choices.

But we still may be left with too many people who want to have children (although if you look at the developed world, this does not seem to be true: the greater development, the fewer children people seem to want on average). I think the next step is cultural self-reflection. We need to help people see how their own opinions have been shaped by their upbrining and circumstances, and religious/cultural values. And because culture and our preferences are ultimately choices we make (and remake), this may open people to making other changes. We need to look at ourselves and figure out what's going to work for us. There will probably be grieving involved, but we can come out on the other side empowered and freer.

Depending on how things shake out, we may even need to go further. This could be one-child rules like China, required sterilazations, etc. Again for the record, I neither advocate nor reject these strategies: we just have to look at what is needed with clear eyes.

And the most radical is reducing the existing population, even if we need change faster than be accommodated through the influencing of child bearing. Here is a very radical option: who among us would be willing to voluntary end their lives for the sake of those remaining? Is it possible that the benefit to those remaining would be greater than the cost to the individual? This is something we would need a deep and long social conversation about. I can conceive that adjusting population this way may be more just and fair than the "default" strategy of letting the burden fall on the poor through starvation, etc. It is something I would personally consider, with great sadness, if we as a shared humanity determined this was the right path forward.

But lets hope we never get into a situation so dire where we are forced to take these options seriously! And lets work like hell right now to try to make a better future for all of us already here, and all of us who will follow.

Social Technologies

People forget that technologies do not have to physical devices that you hold in your hand: they can be techniques, processes, methods, organizations structures and a variety of "intangible" things. The dictionary definition of technology is "a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge". Seems pretty clear. Why do we so easily forget about these other forms of technology?

In this view of technology, there are certainly technologies that apply to individuals and groups, in other words Social Technologies. Examples can be as wide ranging as:

• 6-sigma processes
• meditation
• the concepts of mental models and blindspots and double loop learning
• the idea of a corporation
• conflict resolution techniques
• voting
• consensus decision making

All of these are technologies, at various stages of development, that enable people and groups to be more effective.

I would argue that the biggest challenges facing humanity today are not so much in the realm of physical technologies as in that of social technologies. Our methods of organization, self-management, and learning need to catch up to the complex, interdependent reality we find ourselves in now.

I have attached a paper I wrote in graudate school about this topic, not because it is great literature, but because its a reminder to me that I consistently loop back to these topics as I go about trying to figure out how to make a difference. Perhaps it may be interesting to you.

The greatest problem is convincing people to invest their time and energy in developing and putting social technologies to use. Or even participating. No one thinks about them this way, few people have good experiences with group process, so no one engages. But I challenge everyone out there to engage in the quest for innovative, better social technology that allows us to be more effective. Instead of throwing your hands up the next time you are in a poorly run meeting that accomplishes nothing, or watching TV and lamenting that we will never get consensus on important issues, please stop yourself and instead recommit to experimenting with others regarding better solutions. If you don't know how to do something, search out methods and people who do seem to have new approaches.

Another secondary problem is that there are many charlatans out there, and people who will exploit others for their own gains. When you start getting into sophisticated human processes there is room for abuse. The solution to that is an open forum regarding peoples experiences with different processes and people. That way we can collectively learn even if we may be prone at time to fall under one spell or another. Because the reality is that it is not as simple as honarable people and charlatans: there is a continuum and we need to begin to be able distinguish what works and what is good from what is damaging or just plain evil.

Let's experiment! Even if you are somewhat skeptical, lets make a commitment to participate in each others experiments. That is the only way to learn and move forward.

Social_Tech_BAM.doc

What the world needs now: Co-creative leadership

This is the key question in this confusing and challenging time. Of course the world needs many things, but I think there is one essential, core thing that I hope we can all agree on because it is the prerequisite for everything else.

What we need is leadership. By leadership I mean the human initiative necessary to create the changes that will lead us to future we desire.

But what kind of leadership is needed at this particular moment in history? It is interesting to notice how the idea of leadership has changed over time.

• First there was the despot: someone who created change by virtue of overwhelming power and often cruelty.
• Then there was the command and control leader. There was one person and he (always he) told everyone else what to do. This is obviously outdated. President Bush and his administration has tried to reinstate this fundamentalist notion of leadership to disastrous ill effect. It does not work in a world as diverse, complex and interrelated as the one we now live in.
• From there we moved to the notion of a charismatic leader. This was someone who we invested with authority by virtue of their charisma and ability to inspire (or befuddle) us.
• This was followed by the transformational/visionary leader. This someone who who put forth a compelling vision of the future and then persuading, inspiring and sometimes haranguing us to help make it a reality.

But now we have perhaps the most radical change of all, and that is from the notion of leadership coming from an individual to the idea of distributed leadership. This is a reflection of flattening hierarchies, greater empowerment of the individual, and communications technologies that allow people to be responsible for their organization.

However, although we have much of the infrastructure needed to allow for the future to self-organize itself through this distributed leadership (think the internet), we are still missing the social technology necessary to make it happen. Instead we are frustrated, we retreat to familiar communities, we blame other and we polarize. But these are obviously dysfunctional responses to the key challenge we now face which is the co-creation of an unknown future.

The reality is that no one knows where we need to go, or how to get there. There are probably more notions of what the problem is than there are proposed solutions, and there are many proposed solutions!

Bottom line is that there is mass confusion, disagreement and that leads to paralysis or even contrary efforts. What we need is consensus on the path forward. Many people think this is impossible, but I disagree.

I disagree because I know of processes, and have experienced them personally, that can take a diverse group (in fact the more diverse and representative the better) an forge a shared vision of the future that naturally leads to the productive self-organization of efforts to bring them to life. This is because the goal, structure of the problem, and process forward lives in each of the participants allowing them to work together make the future vision a reality.

There are a variety of groups working on these social technologies from different perspectives. But the core components include:

• the recognition that we must trust and engage in a process of discovery because the way forward is not clear
• The use of open ended dialogue (rather than discussion or debate)
• The valuing of diversity and different perspectives, in recognition that no one person has the picture of the whole system and that everyone's perspective is necessary to understand what is happening (like the parable of the blind men and the elephant)
• A phased process that starts with an exploration of "Where are now?", that looks at "How did we get here?," that envisions and dreams "What is possible?", and then end with "What is the way forward?"
• The acknowledgement that we all have blind spots and limited mental models that only capture a portion of reality, and seeking to illuminate these limitations so we can develop an understanding of the whole
• Respective and using the experience of our feelings and sensations to help us identify areas we have consciously or unconsciously avoided exploring. This allows us to learn about our learning, which creates openness.
• The use of private meditation/contemplation to allow us an opportunity to integrate what we are learning and cultivate the openness that allows us to let in what others are telling us

This is not an easy or necessarily fun process, but it is the essential process of forming into a single living organism that is greater the sum of the parts, preserving individuality and choice but integrating it with others. This is a fundamental process of life and self-organization as people like Robert Wright (Nonzero) and Fritjof Capra (The Hidden Connections) describe.

Some people that are hot on the trail of the necessary process are:

• Otto Scharmer and Peter Senge: Presencing
• The people of The Art of Hosting: http://www.artofhosting.org/
• Juanita Brown: The World Cafe

What is tricky is that the process is not just something you can read a script to facilitate. We need people trained in the subtle process of working with people of diverse backgrounds in the same room (e.g. blindspots, the role of emotion, etc.). But all these things are learnable.

I firmly believe that this is the way forward: co-creative distributed leadership that promotes social self-organization and coordinated action. We need to invent the future together, and this is how to do it. We just need to get people to take a chance and try it.