BAM! Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:38:00 +0000

Opensource 2.0: Open sourcing devices

My readers are probably not surprised that a populist and advocate of self-organization like me loves the idea of open source development. I have watched from the sidelines, but I am also looking for opportunities to get actively into the game. I'm not there yet, but I wanted to mention a few things I am particularly excited about.

Connecting developers with average users

A major impediment to the impact of the open source movement has been the huge gulf between open source developers and the "Average User." Open source developers are wonderful people, but they are generally technical wizards who have little interest in ease of use and the limitations of the Average User. Unfortunately, there are probably 100 or even 1000 Average Users for every open source developer. This means that the solutions developed by the open source community have had a relatively small audience. This is a problem not only for the average user, but also for the developers because they receive only a tiny fraction of the feedback that should be available to them in perfecting their designs. This means that innovation has proceeded more slowly than it otherwise would. And as a result even the developers cannot benefit from the innovation that didn't occur.

I don't know if anyone has invented the equivalent of Moore's Law for feedback and innovation, but let me try to formulate something here.

The Law of Feedback on Innovation: Innovation accelerates exponentially with the number of reviewers (the number of people using a product and providing feedback). I suggest exponential acceleration because each piece of feedback enables the next generation of feedback, and also because each feedback item that is open to the public can itself be evaluated by the public. In this way good ideas and important improvements will rise to the top and get handled sooner because they will be endorsed by more and more people.

But I think, at least in the realm of software, that this impediment is starting to get torn down as the gulf between the average user and the open source developer is shrinking. There are three trends contributing to this change:

The tools of development are getting more user friendly, which enables people who are not quite as technically savvy but more attuned to the needs of the masses to make improvements.
Developers have started developing not just for themselves but for the average user. Consider Ubuntu and Open Office. I recently had a chance to try it out and I was pleasantly shocked by how familiar and easy to use it was. This is in stark contrast to previous versions of Linux that I have tried that required significant technical expertise to install, configure and use. Ubuntu is graphical, has a robust installer, includes major office software that most people use and that is compatible with the dominant Microsoft standard formats, handles updates and fixes automatically, and also allows people to download other software easily in the form of complete compiled packages. I consider this set of features to be essential in gaining adoption by the Average User. This will result in much more feedback and accelerated innovation as the market for Linux expands dramatically.
Functional chunks: Open source development has reach a qualitative change as a function of incremental improvements, and I believe the cause is the creation of meaningful, functional chunks of code that provide substantial real and visible value. It is all well and good for the operating system kernel to be well developed and stabilized, but when user interfaces can be easily adopted and reused, for example, then there exists a bridge to those average users.

Open source devices

This leads me to the second major thing that I am excited about, and that is the development of open source, physical devices. The Chumby is a very early step in this direction, but I think we have much further to go. I look forward to the day when a teenage gal in her garage can assemble a new open source car, for example, as easily as one can develop a new software program today. What we need are device components (like a chassis, motor, motor controller, etc.) that are standardized and make use of standardized interfaces so that people can easily plug and play with them.

The open source car is really the holy grail, in my opinion. I am tired of waiting for Detroit to do the right thing: let's do it ourselves! When we can be assembling, testing and driving our own cars, then the Age of Open Source Devices will truly be upon us. The driving portion may be one of the biggest hurdles here, given safety regulations. The regulation of cars will need to change as their mode of development also changes. I know there are at least two groups already working on the open source car. SSM and OScar.

I look forward to the day in the near future where it is common for technical wizards, average users and genius artists and industrial designers to collaborate on open source projects of all types, both software and hardware. That will be real progress.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:45:00 +0000

The Bush Presidency as Totalitarianism

I would like to suggest that the Bush presidency had more than a few elements of totalitarianism. Some may wonder how this could even be possible in a democracy.

I believe that three factors were enough to create a governing regime that could legitimately be considered totalitarian. These factors are:

The consolidation of the media. Although we may seem to have many news sources, when you consider how few individuals and companies have controlling interests in those sources, we might many fewer choices than it initially appears.
The "echo chamber" effect. With the deluge of news and possible news stories to cover, news outlets have taken to watching their competitors at least as much as they are watching news unfold in the "real" world. As a result the coverage of our news outlets converges on a limited subset of stories.
Lazy and cheap journalism. When we consider how few dollars are left for in-depth investigative reporting, combined with the ease in simply parroting the announcements of major authorities (like the president), we have a media that acts more like the mouthpiece of the authorities than independent watchdogs and investigators.
Fearmongering as a tool of control. The Bush presidency made extensive use of fear as a tool of control. By creating and exaggerating threats, they were able to amass powers, act in secrecy and pursue an unified agenda that would not have been possible if citizens were not perpetually afraid for themselves, their family, their values and everything else they held dear. I don't think the effects of fear in a populace can be overstated. I know it affected me personally in ways I am only beginning to recognize after the fact.
American exceptionalism. The Bush administration considered the US to be special and better than other nations and was therefore free to do whatever it wanted. We know that Bush felt that he had a special relationship with God and was authorized by Him to do what he felt was right (all evidence to the contrary). There is nothing more blinding than the belief that what one is doing is intrinsically good, or that you (and your people) have the Truth. There is also nothing more prone to hurt others.
Neglect and discouragement of citizen input. Consider the millions of regular Americans who came out to oppose starting a preemptive war in Iraq. The will of the people was quite clear. But the Bush administration chose not only to ignore this statement of popular will that was unprecedented in the period since the 60's, it then used all the tools at its disposal to discourage and distance expressions of dissent from the media and other Americans. They interrupted the social influence of Americans on Americans and replaced it with the influence of the state.

If we add these factors together we find a federal administration bent on controlling the populace to achieve its aims, and enabled by a centralized media that was a mouthpiece for their views, frames and agenda.

A definition of totalitarian is as follows: "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: 'A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'"

Absolute control may be overstating the actual situation, but I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the Bush presidency sought - if not achieved - totalitarian control.

It will take many years for the citizens of our country to recover their autonomy and bring our democracy back to its full vitality.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:00:00 +0000

The Middle Way for Modern Times

Or, out of the unsustainable sustainability trap

I am committed both to living a balanced life personally and to helping to make the major changes that are needed to create a more sustainable way of life for all of us (in terms of energy, land use, etc.). On the surface, these things seem like the are closely aligned, and they are.

But on another level, they seem to require very different types of energy which to reconcile require a new kind of balance.

At the personal level, living in balance would involve: spending time with friends and family, which requires not working excessive hours, nurturing myself as a whole person including hobbies and side interests, learning to grow some of my own food, biking rather than driving when possible, taking time for reflection and rejuvenation, living in a small town rather than a large city, stopping to smell the roses and admire the sunsets, getting enough exercise, etc.

But the paradox is that trying to promote sustainability at the societal level seems to require abandoning most of these things so that there is more time to work intensively on specific, focused initiatives that will attract broad attention and adoption. If we look at the "start up" business model, we find people working obsessively working long hours to perfect a product, please the necessary investors, and beat competitors to market. To create something new in a world where getting the necessary attention from a distracted and ADD public and media requires superhuman effort, how can personal balance be preserved?

On the other hand, working unsustainably at a personal level to promote societal sustainability must surely be bound to fail. All that unsustainable work requires an unsustainable use of resources. (Think many and frequent plane flights, lots of fast food meals with wasteful packaging, miles of driving, reams of paper, electricity hogging computer use.) And this does not even include the way working unsustainably drives others to also work unsustainably (your competitors, all of the service industry folks you rely on, consultants, etc.). When you factor that in, you end up with exponential contributions to unsustainability in the name of sustainability.

One could possibly imagine getting everyone working in this field to join a "Slow Work" movement similar to the Slow Food movement. It might have some impact and promote a kind of detente that might be helpful, but there would be a contrary motivation even still. To create real solutions that begin to move us towards sustainability will also have to be financially sustainable and generate its own capital towards development. This means they are likely to be businesses or social enterprises. This usually means competition, and in a competitive arena agreements to go slow are certainly bound to be broken.

But there are other problems as well. One relates to the short attention I mentioned earlier. All efforts in this age of overstimulation need to be extremely engaging to hold the attention necessary to get work done, and to be more engaging than other distractions takes a great deal of effort. I am not sure I see a way around this problem until our culture also begins to voluntarily slow down. As society slows down, people will remember that they have a free will and can choose to pay attention to things they value. As they slow down, people begin to have their own sense of what they value in contrast to what they are being force fed by the media. Like the factory farmed meat creatures most of us eat, we are being force fed, in our case we are fed a steady diet of manufactured needs and distraction. The result of this is a loss of choice and will at the individual level and a society careening down a dead end road that no one really would want to be on if they had a little space to stop and think about it.

Another problem is that our culture is attracted to those who bite too much off, who live on the edge and sometimes fall off. For example, we are dazzled by the rockstar or entrepreneur burning the candle at both ends in service of their vision. Or consider the wall street traders doing billions of dollars of deals, trying to make just a little more than the next guy. We want them to push themselves to the edge of exhaustion, of reasonability, of prudence and beyond. Pushing the limits is sexy. But of course there are major downsides for the individual, their patrons and investors, their spouses, their family and friends, etc. But like a person in an abusive relationship we are dazzled by their boldness and apparent power and stick with them despite their repeated abuses as individuals and as a type. This is something we can also purge our culture of over time.

So we can see that there are many barriers to being able to promote sustainability both effectively and sustainably, which is ironic.

But I do think there may be a way out, and it involves collaboration. Especially in our age of improved 2-way communication tools (cell phones, internet, etc), it is becoming increasingly possible for a group of people to work effectively and powerfully together. No longer do we need the the ONE BIG MAN to make it happen: we can envision and bring to life powerful new realities together. And when you can have many people working together, there is no need for any individual to work unsustainably. Thank god. "Many hands make light work."

This is what we must strive for: a deeply shared, rich vision of the desired future and powerfully coordinated collective efforts that move us towards sustainability in such a way that each individual can also live their lives sustainably. That will be real progress.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:01:00 +0000

Exposure to what's possible and human progress

What creates positive change? Certainly many things do, but one thing I believe is undervalued is simply exposing people to what's possible.

My experience with people suggests to me that we all want things to be better for us and other people we care about. Unfortunately, many times we do not know what is possible for us. A simple example that I have encountered here in New Mexico is that there are few people here that have been exposed to good meeting technology. More recent inventions (or recognitions may be a better word) like Open Space, Dialogue, World Cafe, T-groups, Presencing, etc. are not well known here. Without having experienced these techniques, people resort to older, more stodgy meeting structures that fail to get them the outcomes they desire.

Another example comes from education. Education is very labor intensive to do well: students need personal attention to advance their learning. This means that we need many, many teachers. Unfortunately there is generally not enough money invested in exposing teachers (and students) to really good teaching. (Pretty normal ego defenses also mean that some teachers do not want to be exposed to what's possible for fear of looking bad or feeling guilt over past teaching.) And so teachers continue on frustrated and students muddle through without much interest in learning.

We could all benefit from realizing that a lack of exposure is not our fault. In some ways it is a form of poverty and may be equally challenging to transcend. With that understanding we would seek out exposure to new methods, which we could then compare with our past experience. If the new method turned out to be ineffective, we need not adopt it. But if it is truly better (for us and others), then we will be very motivated. Even without trying specifically, we shift subtly to desire the new vision of what is possible. This desire creates small and large actions that gradually move us towards that possibility. In this way life for all is improved.

This exposure is extremely powerful because it unlocks the agency of each person to work towards a good. There is nothing more efficient than intrinsic motivation. If we take these lessons seriously, we would invest much more money in exposing people to best practices, to unique powerful experiences, and to demonstrations of how wonderful life can actually be.

The only danger is that the new possibility either scares us due to its unfamiliarity or that we become demoralized by how far we appear to be from that vision of the possible. People may decide that they cannot get from here to there and become depressed. The solution to this challenge is to structure exposure in manageable chunks, to "scaffold" the experience. This means that it should be managed intentionally by people who have experience these more advanced methods.

When it comes to social organization and culture, most of us have strong ego defenses. We so strongly associate ourselves with what we have arbitrarily learned from our peers and our environment that we are not willing to consider alternatives. We do not want to acknowledge that some ways may be better than what we grew up with. If we take this lesson to heart, we would find innovation begin to explode as the resistance to exposure and change melted away.

I have a somewhat controversial proposal to make. What if subjected social organizational methods and structure to open competition just like we do for businesses? We could let people put some methods and ways of doing things forward as superior. Then people could sign up to try out these methods for a period of time, to really experience them (that is critical: simply hearing about them is not the same at all), and then provide feedback from their perspective. In this way, we could learn if something were truly better than something else, or simply just another way to do it. This is critical information because it begins to point ways to a better future, reducing confusion and eliminating doubt. It could not be manipulated because it would be an open process with full transparency. I think if the government were smart they would even support this process financially as a source of major innovation and progress.

Exposure + Open Participation and Feedback => An emerging understand of what is better => Accelerated progress!

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:00:00 +0000

Bailout banks or investment in infrastructure with a good ROI?

I recently watched a video you can find on Google Video called Money as Debt. It was pretty interesting and a good overview of the nature of money and where it comes from. Most of the money we use is created as debt. Is this a good way to create money?

Rather than delegating the responsibility of creating money to banks, which they pay themselves handsomely for, why doesn't the federal government create the money directly? Of course they do create some money this way, but most is created as debt.

From the federal government's perspective today, I hope they are asking themselves what the most productive use of the money they create is. Every dollar they create should be viewed through the lens of investment and return on investment.

Should the money flow back into the unsustainable banks which got us into this mess? What would the return on that investment be? Or, should they invest in our national infrastructure, especially infrastructure that will help us be more productive in the future?

I certainly lean towards the latter. For the record, I consider education to be "infrastructure" as well as items more commonly considered infrastructure.

At the top of my list of areas for investment would be the following, based on the large ROI:

Renewable energy sources. These create more jobs than fossil fuel energy, AND they have the benefit of keeping those dollars circulating in the US rather than getting siphoned off to hostile foreign governments.
Energy infrastructure and a "green grid." Our grid cannot handle much more renewable energy as currently constituted. We need to upgrade this infrastructure badly. It is helpful that is generally very old and in need of replacement anyway. The incremental capital needed to restructure the grid will be small in comparison to the base case of simple replacement.
Education and workforce training. We need to retrain people for emerging green jobs and improve the quality of our K-20 system. What can be a better investment than an investment in capable, innovative, and collaborative human capital?
Public transportation and infrastructure for plug-in hybrids.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:17:00 +0000

Parallel universes: We all live in our own echo chambers

This recent election really hit it home for me: even though we may be physical neighbhors, we can live in entirely separate universes. This is a result of the increase in media choices and human nature.

We all know that liberals watch network news and read Huffingtonpost.com and conservatives watch Fox news and read the National Review online. We get excited when our views are reinforced and supported. We get mad when people make arguments that seem to rest on assumptions we disagree with. This creates a reinforcing cycle where we seek our "news" sources that reinforce our general perspective.

I am not going to argue that "news" channels do not in fact base their reports on verifiable facts. Let's assume that they do for the moment and give them the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is a deeper and more subtle bias. With so much going on in the world and so many facets of everything that can be given focus or not combined with our limited human attention we are forced to choose what is important enough to call "news."

There are people who know everything happening to Jennifer Anniston and Modonna, and maybe even what private school President Obama will be sending his children to, but know nothing about the platform on which he campaigned. (These people watch E! television and similar channels.)

There are people who know estimates of what tax increases might look like under Obama's administration and the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq too early. (These people watch Fox news.)

And there are people who don't know or think much about those things but know that McCain would keep us in Iraq and know that Obama plans to invest in alternative energy. (These folks read Huffington Post.)

This is a problem for several reasons.

Since we live in a democracy and we are responsible for choosing leaders who will serve our interests, it is essential that we know what our candidates proposing to do, with both probable positive AND negative effects.
As we fragment ourselves into smaller and smaller and more and more distict media segments, we hear more and more of those things that reinforce our existing biases. This means that although we may lives next door to each other, our views of the world may be different enough, and our interpretation of what the relevant "facts" are sufficiently disjoint, that we literally do not know how to relate to each other.

There are few people who can help us with this problem other than the media. Ithink the media needs a new and expand set of ethics for these modern times. Or perhaps a better approach would be the creation of a new "meta-jouralism."

This meta-journalism would compare and contrast these disjoint views together and explore their similarities and differences, fundamental assumptions, framing and central facts. It would fact check every assertion made.It would also be sure to look at what people said at point A in time, compare it with actions and the unfolding of events over time, and how that relates to assertions and results at point B. It would maintain a tracking system for people quoted in the media, providing a summary of relevant history and a picture over time. In the United States of Amnesia, this historical perspetive is critical. With this new information we could better understand where we fit in the world, and how everything connects.

At first only the committed would seek out this meta-journalism, but over time the regular news would start to include elements of its analysis, or at least references to it. This will enrich our pictures of what is really going on, and get us out of our personal echo chambers. This will in turn enrich out society and our democracy, promoting deeper understanding of others and the connections between us all.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:59:00 +0000

Why are holidays more work than work?

In the US holidays are a bit of a problem for most people. Stress increases as people are forced to separate themselves from their work addiction and spend time with family. It is common to hear stories of dysfunctional gatherings where fights break out or resentments simmer or expectations are failed triggering sadness. People are excited to get back to work as soon as possible. Why is this?

First, I think it is a function of the Protestant work ethic gone awry. In this country the culture rewards overworking, so that people neglect relationships and other sources of potential meaning in their lives. Then when the holidays interrupt their work patterns, it creates a mini-crisis as they are confronted with the thinness of their lives.

I would guess that this tendency is more pronounced among people of Anglo-Saxon heritage, Protestants and white people generally. Other cultures seem to have a healthier relationship to family and free time.

For the record, my family had a pretty good Thanksgiving this year, but I was caught surprised by that fact. I also noticed some sense of impending dread in the days leading up to Thanksgiving, which this time turned out to have been wrong. In places like Brazil, Latin America, Africa and the Mediterranean I get the impression that people have more holidays and have more fun during them than we in the US do. If so, why is this and what can we do about it? If not, why do I have that impression?

I think we need to reexamine our relationship to work and to make sure that we are regularly taking time off to spend time with friends and family. It's a habit that I think needs cultivation here, and a value that we should strengthen.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:03:00 +0000

Opening the doors for renewable energy development

I am hoping that the incoming president understands the importance of developing our renewable energy potential in the US. It is critical to protect our economy from oil shocks and from foreign entanglements. And of course it is essential to halt global warming.

There is also a huge opportunity: demand is growing and prices are coming down significantly as we realize economies of scale and move down the learning curve. There are manufactuers, developers, and investors waiting to jump as the climate is right.

Here is a list of a few things that would make a huge difference:

Mapping out and clearing the way for the development of transmission corridors. There is not the transmission capacity in place where the new renewable power is locaeted (e.g. rural New Mexico).
Providing new rebates and incentives at the federal level for the installation of systems like those implemented by Germany and California
Putting money in the research and development of the "smart green grid." This is a grid that can handle the unique power profiles of renewable sources. This means adding storage, sensors and controls to better manage the power.
Putting money into a low interest energy efficiency loan fund so that individuals, companies and institutions can make the investments in improving their buildings thatmight otherwise be out of reach. Pushing on building codes to include performance standards for energy efficiency (e.g. HERS rating).
Raise fuel economy standards and require the deployment of electric vehicles and other zero emission vehicles
Rewrite the laws governing electrical utilities so that they are required to use renewable energy and to allow it to be transmitted over their lines.

Some people I talk to think that private investors can take care of installing all of the transmisison lines that we will need. Others think we need a federal program (could be modeled after either the interstate highway system or the expansion of the railroads) to stimulate and guide it. This needs to be investigated and the correct solution applied so that transmission lines get installed quickly and widely. This will create a boom in renewable energy development, which will in turn attract manufacturing and service jobs related to the solar and wind components that are required. As transportation costs go up, it becomes a better idea to locate manufacturing near installations, especially for large, heavy equipment like that required for solar and wind installations.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:44:00 +0000

The Current Crisis of Attention

The modern world is facing a crisis of attention. The part most people know is that with the rise of the internet the experience of the world has been shrinking dramatically. We can instantaneously find out what is happening half-way around the world. Every person, every organization, and every community is becoming their own "feed" and we can subscribe to ALL of them. To say that there is information overload is an understatement. There is more information available here and now at every moment than anyone could possibly process or pay attention to.

One danger of this crisis is increasing framentation of society into smaller and more isolated niches. This is one way to cope with the overload. It's with deciding to either watch Fox News or subscribe to the Huffington Post and continues to be more and more constrained from there. This fragmentation leads to polarized views of the world which begin to clash more and more as they prove less and less able to be reconciled. This fragmentation makes us all more and more susceptible to the influence of extremists as our own views become unconsciously more extreme. This one way our attention gets focused, and it is obviously not good.

Another attention consolidating strategy is to fear monger. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and certainly grabs our attention, heading right for the amygdala and the brain stem, overriding rational thinking. The Bush administration has been a master of this strategy.

If fear mongering is not your thing, then another easy strategy is to shock people by creating the equivalent of rubber necking or breaking social conventions (think intentional trainwrecks or Tropic Thunder). Want to keep it really simple? Use sex or sexy people or things. I don't think I need to explain this one to you.

Putting these together, we can see that most of the ways people have been consolidating attention are through manipulative appeals to our reptile and monkey brains. Now, you and I are not stupid. We know how to think rationally and clearly and keep our reptile and monkey brains in check generally.

But a problem arises when we look at our collective behavior: we find that in recent years we have more and more been manipulated by these media outlets and powers that have been appealing to our basest instincts. This makes us collective dumber than we may be individually.

What is the alternative? At an obvious level it is to try to figure out how to appeal to the higher natures of the masses in a way that still captures our attention. Easier said than done! I believe the Democrats have tried to do this in the past two elections...and failed. The Republican rhetoric and tactics have held more sway. Obama's campaign is having some more success, but they are not there yet really.

Aside from these massive efforts at gathering attention, I have seen much more local efforts to consolidate attention that I believe point to a better, more inspiring future. I was recently at a musical event run by some 20-somethings. What was interesting to me is that periodically through the evening a few performers circulated through the room doing little mini-performances. There were no breaks between songs, so they had to find a way to gather attention to themselves in more subtle ways: and they succeeded! I don't have their skills, so I won't try to explain how they did it, but I can at least attest to its effectiveness. It was marvelous, subtle and gentle: but powerful at the same time. Their performance was like a gentle wave of attention that flowed over the audience, leaving us refreshed and enriched without feeling manipulated or used.

What a powerful paradigm for what might be possible at even larger scales!

I had some similar experiences at this year's Burning Man event in Nevada. First I should explain something about the nature of the event for those who haven't been. Once you are through the gate, you cannot use money to buy or sell anything. This creates more of a gift economy where people choose to share their supplies or their art with others. It's the pay it forward model and it generally works. Some people spend months raising money and preparing their art installations just to share them with others. There is bno central program to Burning Man: it is "open sourced." the organizers just help people find an open niche and everything else flows naturally. There are many interpretations of what the Burning Man means, but one of them is the end of the "rockstar" era and the beginning of the collective creation area. We do not need one or a few individuals to look to anymore: we can create ourselves and share it with each other. It is a more peer to peer arrangement that becomes possible when are willing to give up on the rockstar and go out on our own. We burn "the Man" to represent our break from the rockstar model.

We are not quite there yet. This is another sad byproduct of the current state of our maturing with the internet: before we can really move to a more peer relationship, we will find that control gets even more centralized for a while. (Thomas Malone's The Future of Work talks about some of this, if I remember correctly.)

(As an aside, I believe a gift economy may be a viable alternative to our curernt manipulative economy. People can choose to offer things from their heart and share them, and receive in return. This is contrast with the system of doing work you hate in order to be able to pay for things you don't really need but that abusive marketing makes you think you need. The parallel are similar to the shifts in attention I am describing and will probably go hand in hand.)

Back to Burning Man: there is so much going on, subtle yet compelling tools of attention gathering are needed and are being developed further year by year. Instead of the audience looking up at the audience, we are all the audience and all the rockstars, and things come at you from all sides. Sometimes various contributions spontaneously begin to merge into one "piece" although this was not planned. It is a function of adaptation and the intention to play with each other and co-create.

So I see this as our challenge: we need to take back control of our minds and we should seek to invent playful, beautiful, fun, non-harmful, non-manipulative ways of focusing our attention at all scales. If we practice this, we are simultaneously creating a wonderful future full of fun, more of what we want and less of what we don't. This requires an approach guided by the principles of experimentation and intuition coupled with our personal aesthetics. We need to give people some better to look at and participate with than the crap the reptile- and monkey-brain people are throwing at us. Start local and see what happens! You might yourself swept up in a wave of positive co-creation before you know it. :)

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:28:00 +0000

Double lives

It seems to me that all over the planet people are forced to live a variety of double lives. The lives vary by country, culture and region, but it seems a fixture of human life to have such lives. We have a range of double lives from evangelical pastors who use prostitutes to people who have affairs while married to people who use illegal drugs to people who are closet smokers to people that have secret hobbies and those who pinch every penny but also escape to casinos from time to time.

What is the root of this behavior? On the surface, it seems like it would be best to be able to live fully integrated lives. Is it unavoidable? Is it good or bad?

Every culture has its taboos, those things that are socially unacceptable, as well as those things it praises and holds up as ideals. And it is certainly good to have limits on some behaviors (the most obvious being things like murder). And it also seems like a great idea to have aspirations and ideals that inspire us to be our best selves. Because the reality is that humans are imperfect. Fundamentally we are animals, prone to the influences of our "monkey" and "reptile" brains above our better judgment from time to time. Ideals remind us to keep these more base impulses under control as much as possible.

But on the other hand, if we turn ideals into notions of rigid right and wrong, where some things are totally forbidden despite evidence that they are strongly imbedded in human nature, it seems like we are setting the stage for failure, double lives and repression that can erupt into massive social dysfunction if held down too long.

It seems like we could benefit from a gentler relationship to these ideals, that acknowledges them to be just that, and that they are something to strive for and some times miss. In that environment, people would be more inclined to discuss their "shadow side" more openly, and that discussion can be the source of solutions, comfort and a renewed commitment to keep trying.

And if we find that many people are struggling in the same ways, we can make a conscious choice to either not aim so high because it is causing undue stress, or to restructure the ideals to more intelligently take into consideration our human natures, or to identify certain subsets of people that need special attention. The bad news is that we don't have a good history of this kind of compassion for others and human failings. But I think we can strive to do better.

First off, I would throw out the notions of "right" and "wrong" as too rigid and prone to creating problems. I might replace it with the idea of "what works for us" to keep a focus on functional behavior without the punative aspects. And perhaps elevate the notions of "aspiration" and "compassion" to allow for the ideal to exist in a flexible way that inspires more people to keep trying rather than give up. A tricky thing in this plan is that there will be a continuum of how easy attaining these aspirations will be for people. If we could look at these things openly rather than covertly, we might be able to determine the relative distributions in the population, craft appropriate strategies and target differing interventions for different people. The goal would be to create an appropriate stretch for each individual.

In this new scheme, I think we would slowly start to see these double lives disappear and integrated people and culture start to emerge that balanced the tensions between ideals and our human frailty more. The dialectic between our cultural norms and our realized humanity would move in a positive reinforcing spiral.

I think the key aspects of making this transition are moving away from the notions of right and wrong, as well as nuance our understanding of reality and fantasy. This is a topic I would like to write about more in the future. We get into trouble when we relate to fantasy as if it were reality, or vice versa. (Just think of those dejected bridezillas after the letdown of coming home from a marriage or honeymoon.) Ideals are a form of fantasy, but we need to be realistic about them. When reality and fantasy are too far removed from each other a stress is created that is too difficult for most people to bear and they "break" one way or another. Socially, we could benefit from being more realistic about our fantasy and being more fantastical about our reality. :)

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:42:00 +0000

We need campaign indicators for the public

I completed the Wellstone Action campagin training about a month ago. It was very valuable for someone like me who dislikes the chaos of your typical campaign. I learned about such things as the "win number," the connection between public policy, electoral politics and grassroots organizing, messaging, and segmenting and targeting (e.g. identifying and going after undecided or disengage voters). Now, I will not say that it is a perfect system, but it was a pretty darn good system. I might even go so far as to call it "scientific." It made sense, and even more than that, I saw that it could be possible to track your progress against your goals. That's all good.

But one thing I have noticed is missing from this year's presidential campaign, despite all the fancy online tools deployed by the Obama campaign, is an sense of whether the plan is working, or if additional intensity is needed.

For example, I am an Obama supporter. I know I will vote for him, but I am undecided about how much additional volunteering to do. Is it needed?

I will also say that when Obama voted for the FISA bill I lost SIGNIFICANT motivation to volunteer for him. (I was not the only one. For example: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11349.html) That one vote undermined his integrity and what I believe separated him from the horrible politicians we have had in recent years. If he was going to be a "regular" politican, blowing in the political wind, then he would get "regular" support from me (e.g. a vote, but not much more). I expect him to exercise leadership and shape public opinion as needed to do the right thing, not respond to polls. And if he needs to educate me because it was the right vote, then he needs to do that and he hasn't.

Anyway, so now I am not very motivated to volunteer or give more money. BUT, I definitely do want him to win. So what I need to know is if the Obama strategy is on track (in terms of hitting their win number), or if things have shifted significantly and there is a real danger. Yes, I know he is (or was) behind in the polls. But I need even more information.

In particular, I need to know, given the level of support that the Obama campaign has placed me in, if I and people like me remain at that level, will he lose? From what I learned at the Wellstone Action training, I think it may be possible to actually determine this.

If the Obama campaign needs me to escalate my level of support, they need to explain their strategy to me, where I fit in, and why I need to escalate. This is doable and I believe the next step in "microtargeting." I know not everyone cares about this, but it needs to be available to people like me, and as I said above, I know I am not the only one like me.

I am regular supporter of certain causes and campaigns, but I am tired of impassioned pleas and continuous urgency about why THIS TIME WE MEAN IT! If you don't help out now all is lost! It's too much for us to bear. We need to campaigns to be honest with us, and in turn we will step up when it is truly needed. But lie to us, try to trick us, or abuse our trust even once and we will drop you like a hot potato. Thanks! Just being honest. :)

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:00:00 +0000

Everything is a lie
I've been noticing it in more and more arenas: in America today everything is a lie, and I think it really costs us in more ways than we realize.

What do I mean by "everything is a lie?" Here are some examples:

Sports: We uphold our atheletes as superheroes of a sort all the while choosing not to dwell on whether their accomplishments are a function of human effort or advances of chemistry, hormones and various other ways to enhance their natural talents. Barry Bonds. The Tour de France "scandals." We are invested in romantic notion of the athlete and cling to it despite mounting evidence. If we were honest with ourselves we would admit that enhancements are part of the game and decriminalize them. But that would ruin the fantasy...
Celebrity and Fashion: The same goes for our celebrities. We train cameras on them 24 hours a day and expect them to be perfect and beautiful all the time, and then are shocked when they lash out or have mental breakdowns (Brittany Spears, is the prime example). We are either really shocked, or pretend to be shocked when they show their dark side (which we all have). Why do we continue to mesmerize ourselves with staring into this well of impossible beauty? And our fashion models are truly freaks of nature. I mean, how many of us know people who actually look like that? I certainly don't. And when they are not freakish enough, they go for some plastic surgery. And more. And more. Why do we want life to be more than it is?
Energy Drinks and other unhealthy food: Energy drinks are on the rise, as are the abuse of stimulants like Adderall. People are pumping themselves up more and more and more, driving themselves faster and faster. Like a race car driver, they are entranced with the speed that they can go. Most of them can still make it around the corners, barely, but may crash into the walls too. Why this quest to go faster and faster? And course there is good old corn syrup and salt and fat. Why do we let our kids get addicted to McDonald's "Happy Meals" and what do they have to do with lasting happiness? Boy, sure does taste good, at least until I feel how little energy I have. Well, time for another energy drink I guess!
Sex and violence: I was in the video store the other day and it started to sink in how much we are relying on sex and violence for our "entertainment" these days. Every other cover had a scantily clad woman in a suggestive pose on it, whether that had anything to do with the plot or not! And I saw the most recent Batman, which received good reviews, and I was appalled at how outrageously violent it was. It forces its audience to stare at the disgusting and profane. Why do we let our daughters watch Bratz and turn themselves into 10 year old skanks? Why are we doing this to ourselves?
Politicians and leaders: We apply the same standards of celebrity to our politicians. We expect them to be the impossible. And as a result, only a certain type of freak can withstand the rigors of campaigning, and so we end up with more and freaks as leaders and then wonder why they don't enact policies that serve us and people like us. They are truly a different breed of animal, and we have let them loose in the halls of power. Bad idea. We are complicit in their myth of perfect, and dutifully look away or feign shock when their freak side pops up. Fundamentalist Christian minister seeks gay sex! Catholic priests are pedophiles! Attorney general, our night in shining armor come to save us from evil, sleeps with prostitutes! Congressman accepts bribes! Vice president, who also has major ties to defense contractors, helps to start a war and profits massively!

I mean, come on. What do we expect? Couldn't we see this coming? Let's look at the facts.

But that's harder to do these days than one might think. We have so much "news" at our fingertips, but is it news or just the tools of propaganda? You may not want to face that either, but it's the latter. They way things are presented and spun, and double talked, no one knows which way is up anymore. We truly have lost our direction as a civilization.

But not all hope is lost. We can still regain our equilibrium, sense of proportion and reality, and sustainability. Sustainability is a big buzzword now, but how many of us know what it really means in practice. No one. We live during the most unsustainable time ever, and we no longer have any clue how to live in balance. But to our credit, we are learning and trying, but progress is slow and frought with difficulty.

I don't watch much TV, but I saw a special on how all these celebrities are helping to save the earth. It was printed on the screen and people talked about "saving the earth" but NO ONE mentioned a single concrete step they were taking in the 15 minutes I watched. All they did was attend huge outrageous parties with amazing electrical effects. The height of unsustainability, really. How that saves the earth is beyond me.

Face it people, the party cannot go on. It can't. The fever dream of our Adderall+RockStar Energy Drink trip is wearing off and there is no more of the drug available. We're in for a huge crash. And the biggest drug we have been hooked on is oil: perhaps the root of our unsustainable journey. We have literally mined the life energy of millions of millenia for about a 100 year massive party. But it's ending and we don't want to face it. This will mean massive changes.

Perhaps that is why we like the lies so well. To avoid looking at the reality of our situation we bury our head deeper in the fantasy. Like a kid who does want to hear what the parent is saying, we cover our ears, close our eyes and go "Nanananananananana!" We retreat to a created abd recreated world of every increasing perfection and intensity, all the while the "real" world is crumbling around us.

But the good news is that, although the withdrawl is a major, no fun ordeal, once you are off your addiction you will feel much better. I guarantee it. Wake up from your delerium tremens for a moment and lock yourself in your room for a week. This is what we all need to do.

How can we help each other get off our addiction? The detox model may be the right one. We need people to watch over us as we begin to let go of the chemical, psychological and spiritual toxins that permeate our being. There are so many of them and our body has adapted so fully to them that a painful withdrawal is inevitable. But like most things in life, if we stop running from the pain and face it, we will get through it more quickly and return to health. An empty room, water, only enough food necessary to keep us alive...for a week or a month. And a meditation/exercise/spiritual director to periodically suggest exercises that might help with the pain. That's it. Pretty simple. Our bodies and minds are amazingly capable of adaptation. We may be the ultimate weed. But there is a price when we get addicted to anything that drives us faster than the perpetual cycles of nature.

Why do we want life to be more than it is? Well, we may not really want life to be more than it is, but it is quickly becoming an expectation with the rise of the instantaneous global media. It has to to with attention. People are finding that we can harness the attention of the billions around the globe and the power entices us, even if we can only hold the attention for a moment. The key is to present a vision of life as more than any of us really experience it to be. The purpose of getting that attention is as clear as mud. People really don't care as long as they get it and they'll use any dirty trick in the book to get it. (Did I mention I'm a blond who looks like Jessica Alba and I'm writing this blog entry as I touch myself through my panties? Did I mention that if you just buy my LameToGame product that I will be youir girlfriend/slave for life?)

It's like we're all neglected kids who will break the lamp to get daddy's attention, even if it's only negative attention. Why are we so attention starved? It's a function of our overly-individualized, consumerist, deficiency-based culture. We have worked ourselves literally into our ticky-tacky little boxes, separate from each other, and now wonder why we are so lonely and unfulfilled.

What if we actually tried to use this new power of global attention to achieve something beautiful and wonderful and healing? Rather than trying to trick and use each other, why don't we try to help and support each other? Does that sound too "lame" or "uncool?" Well, that' s just your addiction speaking, and it's only goal is to keep you enslaved. If we can throw it off we can create something beautiful together. Wanna try?

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:08:00 +0000

Communities vs. Corporations: Organisms and collective action problems

In this post, I will look at corporations and communities through a life sciences lens to see if it can help us understand why things are the way they are.

Part of the reason corporations exert such influence in today's world is because they are a very effective way to solve collective action problems. Corporations are basically organisms whose DNA is focused on the maximization of returns for those who have invested in them. Yes, corporations must manage expections of their customers and other stakeholders, but the bottom line is that they exist to make money for their shareholders. This goal always trumps any other goal they might profess to have. This goal is so deep in the DNA of a corporation, that it will not only seek this goal by navigating its existing environment, but also seeking to make its environment more amenable to that goal (e.g. via lobbying, propaganda). The Supreme Court has cooperated trmendously by investing corporation with the rights of legal personhood in 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad). I would expect that the powerful corporate interests of the time had a significant role in this decisions, despite the supposed independence of our courts.

This decision basically put corporations on equal footing with real people in pursuing "their" self-interest in our society. If we think of corporations as organisms, this is equivalent to a virus like AIDS convincing its host organism that it is "safe," allowing it to replicate and expand without fear of incurring the wrath of the host's immune system. Corporations can now operate with and through us, literally with immunity.

What is the current state of the evolution of corporations? I would suggest that the tables have turned 180 degrees and humans have now been incorporated into corporations and serve THEM. Like mitochondria which were incorporated into cellular structure long ago to provide cells with energy, we have been absorbed into the life of corporations and fuel them to their own ends. They do not serve us; we serve them.

In the Hidden Connections, Fritjof Capra provides a new way to think about life and what is alive. His definition is:

Membranes that separates self from non-self. Life is defined by a relationship within the internal systems of the self and between the self and non-self.

A Metabolic Network - This provides energy to the self through the intake of raw materials which are used to "feed" the self by turning those raw materials into the structures that perpetuate the structure of of the self.

Most of you already know that the cells that compose your body are not the cells you were born with: you are composed of a mostly new set of cells that turnover approximately every 7 years. This is the perfect example of the above: by feeding ourselves, our physical structure constantly recreates itself, and thus we are "alive."

Corporations have a structure, a metabolism and a boundary between their self and everything else. Raw materials pass into the corporations, are transformed and sold producing money, allowing the corporation to live and grow.

Without getting into a debate about whether we have been truly incorporated into corporations, it is clear enough that people are an essential component of their metabolism.

Corporations are large and exert tremendous power by virtue of their ablity to act with a single will as outlined in their mission statement and interpreted by the executives and validated by the investors. They are powerful by virtue of their size and wealth. We cannot help but be involved in their metabolic systems. There are many corporations that have annual revenues greater than the GDP of many countries. And in the US, in 1976 the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo said that money is equivalent to speech. And thus corporations can SPEAK LOUDER than people generally can. (Except the billionaire owner/investors of those corporations, whose interests are obviously pretty well aligned.) This also reinforces their power over the middle and lower "working" classes.

I do not want to suggest that corporations are evil: there is certainly a mutualistic relationship between people and corporations. But what I will say is that we (real people) have been complicit in unleashing the beasts of corporations across the planet. We worry that robots will get too smart and take over the world, but corporations have already done it! They are the real Frankenstein we need to worry about. Not only have we invested them with serious power, we have also turned over to them the tools of propaganda and influnce (also known as marketing) that allow them to shape our reality and convince us this is all for our own good!

Marketing propaganda constantly reminds us that we lack important things (that we are inherently flawed) and need to buy products to be happy. It's like a modern, corporate version of original sin. We must constantly pay tribute to the dieties of Beauty and Status through their various charlatan priest/corporations, and then thank them for the "services" they provide to us. We thus participate in our constant reinslavement. (Perhaps this is what the Rastafarians call Babylon.)

This is not a system that serves the billions of regular, working people around the planet. It does not serve the workers whose benefits and security are being eroded, it does not serve the consumers who are made to feel flawed and needy, and it does not serve their host communities, as environmental and other problems are externalized by the corporations and the burden of addressing them falls to those communities. All in all it's a pretty raw deal.

What's the alternative? Good question. I certainly don't have the full picture, but here are some thoughts.

It is very possible to reassert control over corporations, at least in theory. All corporations are chartered in one of the states. It is possible to revoke the charter of corporations, and this is an options we should take more seriously, starting with the most egregious offenders. Yes, some companies may choose to go "offshore," but if they do business here, and most of the world's consumption is still in the US, we have the power to require that they behave themselves. And if they are so evil that they would rather leave than do business here, then good riddance.

We need to send the message that corporations are our invention, and are here to serve us, the people. We need to remind them of who is boss. But that requires organization of the general citizenry.

In the past, communities were the fundamental building blocks of society. Recently corporations have made major inroads, but a return to a stronger, modern form of community could be our salvation. Unlike corporations, which have a reductionist single issue agenda (make money for investors), communities are intrinsically multiplex in their goals. They exist to serve the people who live in them. Commuities serve whole people. Corporations reduce people to consumers and then exploit them for the profit of investors. Which sounds better to you?

The problem with communities today is that a combination of wealth, consumer orientation, and mobility has combined with American individualism to gradually erode and weaken our communities. This has been well documented by people like Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone.

But we can recreate them. And it all starts with slowing down, letting go of our fear of each other, sharing time together, and seeing what emerges. Relax and enjoy the organic process. That's all there is to it. Not complicated, but hard as hell to actually do. Wanna try?

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:49:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:21:00 +0000

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.

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.
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.
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.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:39:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:30:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:03:00 +0000

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.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:48:00 +0000

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!