BAM! Blog

This blog has moved

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:41:00 +0000

This blog is now located at http://blog.brendanmiller.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.brendanmiller.com/feeds/posts/default.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:07:00 +0000

An education model for the future

Our existing education model is even more outdated than our electricity grid model. I heard an analogy once that stuck with me. No one expects to fly in a plane that looks like the original Wright brothers plane a century later, but we expect students to learn in environments that look exactly like classrooms from a century ago. The contrast is striking. Why would we continue to think this is right way to educate students for our modern world?

There is one key problems that I would like to address in this post:

How can we ensure that every child on the planet has access to the latest and most useful knowledge taught by the best teachers in the world?

This seems like an impossible task, and it is, but we can get much, much closer than most people might imagine. Here is how it might happen.

We live in a world now connected by the internet. Of course many around the globe do not have access, but that number is shrinking daily and I think we can expect that trend to continue. This makes it possible to connect teachers in one location to students in another instantly.
We can assess teachers and teaching methodologies around the globe based on subjective student rankings and the objective test results and performance of their students. Combining this data with moderately detailed demographic information from the students and controlling it for contextual factors like community wealth, etc., we can begin to identify who the best teachers are for different types of students. This type of exercise is now standard practice in the marketing world. Car companies know that if I like granola and have a college degree, I am likely to want to drive a Prius or Subaru Outback (for example).
We can use this interconnectivity and this detailed information on what teachers and methodologies work best for different students to put every student in touch with the best teacher for them regardless of location. Because of the nearly infinite capacity of the internet, any number of students can be assigned to a given teacher unlike a typical classroom.
I am sure some people, especially teachers, are balking at this point because where is the human interaction and teacher to student contact that is so important? I would agree that a human presence for guidance, answering questions, etc. is critical. That is why students would still be in classrooms, but instead of a teacher assigned to each, a teaching assistant would be assigned to each. This assistant would be trained in pedagogy and child behavior and development and some level of appropriate content knowledge. This assistant would follow up after the instruction from the leader teacher, likely in a remote location, with activities, exercises, etc. as designed by the lead teacher to be effective. Some activities would involve the whole group socially to develop teamwork skills, etc. and others would be highly individualized using computers to provide perfectly paced examples that adjust to the students needs and learning curve.
We know from excellent service businesses like Enterprise Rent A Car, etc. that it is possible to have a large organization and control service at the customer level in a way that provides a nearly uniform level of excellence. These techniques could be applied to this education model to ensure great support from the teaching assistants.
This model reduces the need to find millions upon millions of masterful teachers to provide equitable education for the world. Instead we may only need a few thousand, supported by millions of teaching assistants who would not need the same level of global mastery.
This model also supports highly individualized learning, ironically, because instead of having to teach to a class of 20 or 30, the teaching assistants can run students through a range of group and individual activities with constant feedback at the student level as described above. If a student outgrows a certain class by demonstrating an aptitude or need that deviates sufficiently from the other students, or proves difficult for the teaching assistant to sufficiently support, they would be moved to a different, more appropriate class of students. This could happen multiple times a year if necessary and as a result would not result in stigma for students. It would reflect the wide range of abilities and interests out there.
In addition, this system would also make it possible to quickly disseminate new innovations in pedagogy or content so that the entire would can learn quickly and there would be greatly reduce delays in information dissemination. I think the delays in pedagogy dissemination are probably the longest know since teachers currently go through school only once and pick up most of their tools then, with some support from continuing education. This would be continuing education on steroids.
Finally, all of this should be linked to the real world needs of today's world of work. Businesses, non profit and government agencies would all feed information on their workforce needs into a global system. Students would have chances all throughout school to test out different career options every step of the way. As they find things they are interested that correspond with projected workforce needs at the time of their graduation, they will be routed to the appropriate classes. This also may change multiple times a year if necessary. An underlying map of competencies ensures that competencies are tracked in chunks that allow students to balance the needs to explore their interests with the need to make consistent progress towards large blocks of skills and knowledge.

That is just a rough sketch, but I hope it is enough to inspire you to believe that it is possible to make speedy progress towards the goal of great education for everyone. Let's do what we can to move in this direction, or please propose your own alternative! Together we can design and implement a better system.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:54:00 +0000

Who gets paid what and why?

There is tremendous public outrage these days against the bonuses and excesses of executives at AIG and financial institutions like it. I feel the same way. It is just the most extreme example of the tremendous disparities in pay between top executives and regular working folks within companies. The injustice of these disparities is all the more keen now because these financial institutions have received billions in taxpayer money from those same regular working folks and the executive continue to receive the same outrageous bonuses!

For me this begs the question of how we got into this situation and what we can do to prevent it from happening again. That’s a big question, of course, but I have a few ideas.

I would like to broaden the question to why certain people and professions earn the pay that they do. There are a number of perfectly reasonable justifications, for example:

Some professions require long and extensive training. It is reasonable to pay people more who have deferred their earnings to pursue this education in an amount equivalent to the net present value of those deferred earnings
Some work is less desirable than other work and people must be paid more to do it (e.g. mining, garbage collecting).

But these reasons do not adequately explain why executives at financial institutions were making so much money. Nor does it explain why teachers, police officers, and firemen earn so little in comparison.

I’ve got a couple theories that seem to explain more of the story:

Barriers to entry/Privilege: The best professions often have significant barriers to entry that prevent the less advantaged or less fortunate from joining them. These barriers could be the normal barriers of socio-economic status, or they can be explicit attempts to constrain supply and thus increase pay (e.g. the time and money requirements to become a real estate agent), or hidden biases and unspoken preferences that are deeply ingrained in society.
The Proximity to Money Theory: I would propose that the closer you are to money, the more money you earn. For example, if you charge a 1% fee on a financial transaction, that seems reasonable. But if you consider that the transaction is for $50 billion, and that 1% equals $500 million, a lot of money can quickly get siphoned off to those closely involved. As our financial system has been consolidated and globalized, the size of transactions has increased dramatically, which makes it possible for more and more money to be diverted to a relatively small number of people, consolidating wealth. In the past these fees would have gone to local bank officials, etc. and recycled in local economies. Now it goes to a few global officials who spend their days in the high-rises of New York or London and their weekends in Monte Carlo and their private island off the coast of Thailand.

So it becomes easier to see why executives at financial institutions earn so much: there is no one closer to more money than them! This also helps to explain why teachers earn so little. Education is very far from money in time and space. Children earn no money and have no money of their own, and will not earn much money for 20 or more years. This makes it hard to understand and explain exactly how much value and money teaching creates. Obviously education is an investment in the future and creates tremendous value, but the short term perspective of our society makes it hard to account for it.
Workplace culture: This is really a corollary to the first theory. People that are very aggressive in pursuing their financial self interest will tend to be drawn to those professions that allow them to make a lot of money quickly. As people tend to gather in professions like investment banking, the culture of those institutions gets tainted with that same greed and aggression. I have heard many stories from friends and colleagues about the caustic, hostile and intense culture in the (formerly) most lucrative financial institutions. Anyone not out to make a lot of money for themselves or with an emphasis on other human values is bound to choose a different profession in exchange for a more pleasant working environment or be forced out. This creates a negative reinforcing cycle that ends up creating extremely aggressive and hostile institutions, both inside and out, over time.
Rewarding the impression of success and value: There is also an implicit assumption in western culture that the people who make a lot of money are more important and possibly more valuable. This interacts badly with the workplace culture effect described above to result in increasing status for those who are making lots of money by being more greedy and aggressive. This perverse rewarding of values that would normally be quite low on our list of virtues starts to turn the world upside and is really a shame. This draws in talented people to this system of greed who would otherwise be inclined to do work with more social value. Talented and successful people get used to following the path mapped out for them by social rewards. In the same way one might pursue an A+ in school, these people see that pursuing jobs that will earn them a lot of money are the next step in their path of accomplishments. A big paycheck = A+. Then to survive in this culture of greed and aggression they must adapt or be spit out. Some adapt and some are spit out, but the result is that this system of greed attracts and retains those who are most aggressive and most talented, which is a not just a shame but a true tragedy.

(As an aside, I am pretty sure a similarly negative reinforcing cycle is at play with our elected leaders. We do not seem to be electing the people most of us would most want to see at the helm. I will save a discussion of those dynamics for another time.)

So the system of greed that gets created keeps pursuing more and more money and higher and higher returns until outright fraud or ingenious deceptions are required to keep moving forward (e.g. Enron or the collateralized debt obligation industry laced with toxic subprime mortgages). Then the bubble bursts and we end up with the situation we have today.

So what is the alternative? I certainly don’t have the whole story, but I can see at least two key leverage points.

Figure out how to value longer term investments further from money: If we could convincingly evaluate the return on investment of educating our children, for example, we would probably be comfortable paying teachers significantly more. When we could see that the ROI and reward to risk ratio of paying to have a great teacher is on par (or probably better) than investing in a fancy new hedge fund, money will naturally flow in the direction of education and away from these hedge funds, most of which do not create anything of real value anyway. Certainly not enough to justify their returns and fame.

Tax financial transactions to slow the movement of money: I am not the first to propose this idea, but I like it alot. In today’s world, tremendously huge amount of wealth can transferred around the globe in a matter of a few milliseconds. On the other hand, labor and tangible capital move much, much more slowly. This creates dislocations and disinvestment that promotes huge instability. The fickle whims of global investors chasing return can move their money daily and as a result there is no patient capital that will see projects through to completion. This is very destructive and foolish. Especially in an era of Madoff Ponzi schemes and smoke and mirrors hedge funds, money can easily be siphoned off to institutions promising higher returns but who are not able to truly deliver. Real return on investment in the real world takes significant time. Putting a small tax on global financial transactions would slow the movement of wealth and begin to align financial capital flows more closely with labor and tangible capital flows.

Develop a new societal relationship to wealth: Another way to break this cycle is to not equate wealth with social value. It is a very deep assumption that those who have made more money have created an equivalent amount of social value but I believe this is false. More often major wealth is an indication of ruthlessness and greed. Certainly there are a few scattered wonderful people who were at the right place and right time and hit the jackpot (whether it is Powerball or a new startup), but these folks are the exception not the rule. I am sure that a comprehensive scientific study would confirm this belief of mine. Hopefully one day such a study will be done.

Imagine if we had a strongly progressive tax system that asymptotically taxed earnings so that it was impossible to earn more than $1M, for example. We can debate what the right ceiling is, but I would argue for a lower ceiling for reasons I will describe more here.

Democratizing money and the good life: If no individual could earn more than $1M, this would be more than plenty for any one person. (I believe it is about $40,000 is where happiness starts to be inversely related to income.) Of course, there may be business opportunities or desires to create situations or environments that would require more money than that. But if no one person could do it themselves we would be forced to work together. In an era of the internet and the potential for global cooperation, there is a tremendous opportunity to pool resources to promote mutually beneficial projects that would not have been possible in the past. We can pool resources to develop new communities, to undertake new research, to start new businesses, etc. There are no longer significant inefficiencies associated with this kind of collaboration and in fact it would probably be a good system to reinforce that projects generate real social value rather than be ego driven vanity projects. Vetting by a group would strengthen ideas and project designs.
Moderating the pace of our economy: Our economy is prone to overheating, creating booms and busts. I think it would be a good rather than bad thing to put a little sand in the gears by limiting how much anyone could make. People often say that such a progressive tax system would be a disincentive to work, innovation and progress. I disagree. I believe it would reintroduce the wisdom that comes from slowing down and taking more time to be thoughtful. To do the right things, not more things. More activity is not intrinsically valuable. Activity can be destructive, and in a world in which our fossil fuel energy stores are being depleted and the environment is at the breaking point with regard to carbon in the atmosphere, pollution and overharvesting, it is probably a good thing to slow down the whole system. This would slow down the overall economy, creating more time for people to spend time with family, friends and to work in their local communities on intrinsically satisfying projects and plans. Also, curbing the green instinct would be socially valuable and a secondary benefit to slowing the economy.

Thoughts? Comments? Reactions? I’d love to hear what you think.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:53:00 +0000

Is the stimulus enough?

I believe the current federal investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy will prove to be an underinvestment we will regret later. The entire economy is stagnating and there are very few industries that will be growing over the next 5 years. We have passed the point at which energy will only become more and more expensive and this will create a drain on the economy for years to come if we do not address it. Yes, President Obama has put unprecedented amount of money into a transition to a future of energy independence and infinite renewable energy that will serve us well, but from where I sit I think we probably need 20 or more times the amount of money that has already been pledged. This is not a scientific estimate (although I would very much like to have one done), but my gut estimate of the magnitude of the underinvestment. It looks like others agree with my assessment generally.

We should take the opportunity presented by the next 5 years to develop the new infrastructure we will need to provide the affordable energy to get our economy going again, and sustainably for the long haul. Any delay in making this investment will only create more costs and slow our recovery. Every dollar spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy has a tremendous return on investment. We are not talking about wasting any money: this is a smart investment. Just like a corporation that under invests in its future will be overtaken by its competitors, we need to be bold and do what is necessary sooner rather than later. There is no use beating around the bush or delaying the inevitable.

The same is true for New Mexico in general. If we do not invest in our future today, we will soon fall further behind California, New Jersey and other states despite our better renewable resource potential. There is a danger we will be colonized by out of state companies from these other places that will siphon off the lion’s share of the revenue, rather than growing our own industry that will return maximum benefits to our citizens.

New Mexico is challenged by its small population and relative poverty. Our state budget is small enough that making a major investment in a future of renewable energy is a much more substantial hardship than for a rich and populous state like California or New Jersey. Despite our better location and developable renewable energy resources, there is a chance we will fall behind and fail to benefit as much as would otherwise be possible.

The example of Germany provides a good contrast. By instituting an aggressive feed in tariff for renewable energy, they now have the strongest renewable energy economy in the world despite having very poor solar energy potential compared with New Mexico and most of the United States generally. There are studies that have determined that this investment has more than paid for itself in new job creation and new economic activity, etc.

I hope that we are able to develop the confidence to make similarly substantial, wise and productive investments in our renewable energy economy in New Mexico.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:50:00 +0000

An Intuitive Electronic Music Interface

I have been a lover of music my whole life. I have often wished that I had been more disciplined as a kid and had learned to play an instrument well. But I didn’t, and now I still lack that discipline and being older it is that much harder to train my hands to do what I want them to do. This has been frustrating.

So I have tried to think of shortcuts to quality musical expression that require not require developing physical virtuosity. I want to make music, I want it to be good, and I want it to be easy.

My most frequent ideas revolve around electronic music, mostly because electronic music tools generally allow one to record and layer sounds and tracks piece by piece in a way that does not require the same performance skills. They are forgiving tools in the sense that you can try and retry different options until something sounds good, and not be limited by my ability to perform a complete piece, which would be beyond my skill. Much like a word processor makes it easier to write more easily when compared with pen and paper, these electronic music tools allow the same kind of revision and editing.

The downside is that music making can become a technical, dead and tedious process of working in front of a computer. For example, I have tried using FL Studio and find the software powerful, but challenging to enjoy as a process of music making. So perhaps I am looking for something half way between Guitar Hero and FL Studio. :)

Here is my idea of what I would like. If I was independently wealthy and didn’t have anything else to do, I would make it myself. Perhaps by putting here I can find some people to help me, or maybe someone will steal the idea and make it for me.

Essential elements:

A multi-touch enabled big screen to control the performance
All of the music generators, samplers, etc. to create sounds
All of the processing effects
The ability to visually and musically interconnect the generators and effects dynamically with a drag and drop interface
Dynamic control “pads” on screen for manipulating the characteristics and parameters of the sound generators and effects live
Widgets for graphical effects, and visualizations of different types associated with the music, so that the control screen itself can be part of the performance and projected to an audience

Perhaps all we really need is the interface screen to interconnect to existing software systems. But if this could be created I think it could take electronic music creation to both greater heights in the hands of professionals and down to the masses like me.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:49:00 +0000

Of Ants and Men

I’ve had an ongoing real and internal struggle with a red ant hill in my back yard. In general, I use no non-organic pesticides and generally understand that insects are beneficial for gardens. I try to cultivate a position of tolerance even if there is a part of myself that would prefer not to be bothered by them.

Red ants are in a different category for me that also includes earwigs, centipedes and roaches. There is something about these bugs that make them hard for me to coexist with. I would even be willing to let these red ants do their thing, but they have set up shop in a highly trafficked footpath and I know they will grow a huge mound if I don’t stop them.

So first I tried one kind of ant trap: no effect. Then a second type: no effect. Then diatomaceous earth sprinkled on their mount: very little and temporary effect. In fact, it almost felt to me that this benign, organic solution was a kind of torture for them: perhaps the equivalent of napalm for humans? It seemed like a cruel solution.

I finally had to break down and buy the Amdro powder everyone seems to use. Now I know why: they ate it up like candy and now I see no activity at the mound. Success? It achieved the end and seemed to do it quickly and hopefully reasonably humanely.

Success, of a kind. But I am also saddened at having to use my overwhelming power and physical superiority to crush them in this way. I have no illusions that nature is anything but red in tooth and claw, but I still maintain a hope that we as humans with the ability to consciously evolve are moving in a more humane direction (most environmental evidence to the contrary).

And my ability to choose those ants’ fate so decisively makes me nervous. I am sure the ants had little understanding of what was happening to them or why. I envision them developing stories about the Dark Times, or attempting to explain their fate in terms of a vengeful god or some other cosmic or religious explanation. (Please excuse my anthropomorphism.)

The point is, how can we be sure there are not large and powerful creatures, equivalently large when humans are compared with ants, who out of some passing fancy or whim decide to do the equivalent of sprinkle some Amdro on our mound? Our entire universe could be something like a raindrop in these being’s universe: totally inconsequential. Our time and space scales could be radically different and so we have little knowledge of each other. They may have no idea they are effecting us at all at the same time we are experiencing horrible catastrophe at their hand.

More than the pointlessness of a totally random universe, I fear that our suffering may be caused by nothing more than such a cosmic oversight!

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:11:00 +0000

Choosing engaged democracy and building the good life

I recently discovered that there is research to confirm my concerns about the media and the way it can isolate us into our own echo chambers that undermine societal dialogue and democratic cross-fertilization. Cass Sunstein, law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of this research. He focuses on the internet in particular, but I would suggest his findings translate to cable television, talk radio and other highly segmented media outlets as well.

The wonderful thing about the modern world is the explosion of new options, technologies, ideas and possibilities. Old assumptions drop away, leaving us with new opportunities to choose. As we interact with others from increasingly different cultural backgrounds and with new ideas, new ways of looking at things and new technologies that make new ways of working and living feasible, we discover choices we didn't know we had. This is really exciting...

BUT the downside is that the traditional practices that held cultures together, that provided people with meaning, and that structured lives in ways that fostered healthy lives and communities are also being questioned and abandoned.

At this point in history, it is difficult to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. What is the wheat? What is the chaff? In the past, cultures had developed their own notions of "wheat" and "chaff" that members of those cultures accepted and used. Perhaps they would change subtly over the years, but there were few major rifts or disruptions. And by and large this separating of the world into good and evil, what works and what doesn't work, etc. worked for the members of those cultures.

However, I would suggest that these systems of meaning worked for those members of cultures unevenly, and that there was significant room for improvement for many, but in the absence of any alternatives that could be easily compared people just went along. Consider the inherent patriarchy and second class citizenship of women in most cultures prior to the women's liberation movement of this century and you have a sense of how a culture might have uneven benefits without rebellion. The internalized oppression of patriarchy was powerful because it was not perceived clearly, or the alternatives were not understood, and so it continued on.

Of course, even in the republican democracy that was created for the first time through the Constitution of the United States, as great a leap forward as it was, African Americans (and women) were initially denied full participation. Due to a combination of overt oppression and internalized oppression, this system continued without change for many years.

So when we look at cultural conflict and change in the past, there are a few alternatives.

No change
Secession and establishment of an alternative culture somewhere else
Civil war between factions with a winner and a loser
Compromise between disparate interests: This is what we have in the U.S.
Transformation and transcendence: through dialogue and wisely engaged conflict, old divisions and compromises are transcended and new win-win alternatives are invented.

Over time as we have learned more about democracy, we have moved slowly down this list. I think right now we in the U.S. are somewhere about a 4.3 on this scale and the world as a whole is probably a weighted average of 3.6. I would like to see the whole world reach 5.0, and I will believe we will in time.

So to return to the "echo chamber" concept I have discussed above, in the past the echo chambers were formed primarily by discrete cultures that operated within their own systems of meaning and logic. Without deep and regular dialogue with "outsiders," cultures were essentially closed systems of meaning. People knew what society expected of them, knew what would happen if they didn't do what society wanted and society had ways of marginalizing the perspectives of others outside their culture so as to discourage defection or challenge. Whether these others were "infidels," "heathens," "the damned," "barbarians," "primitives," etc. cultures knew how to elevate their own views and attack and defend from contrary views. This ensured the continuation of those cultures.

But today the situation has been reversed. Traditional cultures have very little ability to protect their systems of meaning because the interaction of disparate cultures is unavoidable. (This is why we see a polarization into fundamentalists and the rest of us. Some people are trying to cling to what has been lost, and others are floating along with the rapid changes.) What we see emerging are new self-selected echo chambers forming fueled by radical individual choice and an ever expanding menu of media choices. This is the problem I referred to at the start of this post.

So it is interesting how much things have changed!

But the essential point of this post is that I think we need to examine our meta-choices, if you will, our choices about our choices. We need to recognize that we have the ability to choose not just as individual consumers of prepared content, but as co-creators of new systems of meaning. We can choose not just to watch certain media or consume this or that, but we can choose to create entirely new cultures! This will be appealing to many people because what what most people want is not unlimited choices throughout their day (which is overwhelming and unfulfilling), but instead for their daily experience to automatically and without effort to reflect their values and provide them with satisfaction. This can only happen if we can choose an entire culture to participate in.

1. First, we need to recognize the value of culture and comprehensive systems of meaning in creating healthy, happy lives.

2. Second, we need to begin thinking for ourselves about what cultures and systems of meaning might appeal to us, and articulating this for ourselves and others.

3. Third, we need to begin reaching out to others around the globe who share our cultural desires and vision.

4. Fourth, we need to get together with these others and decided to put these cultural ideas and principles into practice tangibly and experimentally.

5. Fifth, we need to record our experiences, both positive and negative, as clear-eyed as possible. We need to discuss these impressions with the others in the particular experiment we have chosen and see what collectively we have learned. We need to make adjustments and improvements to our experiment and then reevaluate periodically over time.

6. Sixth, after a period of time, we need to take a break and engage with other people from other experiments and compare notes. What has worked for us? What has worked for them? As a result of this cross-fertilization, some people will have new ideas to bring back to their experiment, others will choose to abandon their experiment, and others will choose to join the other experiment.

In this way, we will invent new cultures that work better and better for more and more people. It will take time, but it is possible. The key is to recognize that we have choice at the level of culture itself.

The 60's were a time of social experimentation and society both benefited and was harmed by this experimentation. People were so intoxicated by their newly discovered freedom that they went wild.

What was lacking was a scientific orientation and discipline to the experimentation (even if the experimentation itself is about something entirely different than science and discipline). A recognition that we don't have the answers ready-made and that we need to carefully create and invent them together was absent.

I am hoping that we are exiting the period of backlash to that experimentation and entering the next wave of experimentation. The difference this time is that we will experiment more maturely, more effectively, and more consciously. This will make all the difference in setting us on a course toward The Good Life and Heaven on Earth, one small considered step at a time.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:35:00 +0000

Faith and hope or fear and worry?

Obama campaigned on a platform of hope, which seems to have resonated with many people in the U.S. I know I was certainly inspired by his vision. But I am starting to get a feel for what is really asked of us at this point in history. The past 8 years were a period of intense fear mongering and that fear has permeated deep within the world psyche, especially in the U.S. Fear and worry are not things that get turned on or off like a light switch. They sink deeper and deeper, chilling our aspirations and dreams and casting a pall, turning vibrant colors into flat greys. Much like a hard winter, it takes a prolonged period of warmth for the deep chill to disappear.

That is like what is happening in the U.S. right now. The fear mongering has ended, but it will take time for us to warm up and remember our hopes and dreams. This will happen automatically gradually, but I also think we are called to choose hope, even when the evidence may not fully support it. This requires a cultivation of faith, which is easier said than done.

It is clear our global economy is struggling. Volcker says we may be facing something worse than the Great Depression, and that is very, very bad. This could be something to fear and worry about, but fear paralyzes and makes it harder to get to work making things better. That is why it is important to choose hope and cultivate faith. These are the things that will get us moving in the right direction most quickly, and the faster we work the less suffering there will be.

There is no going back to the old new economy. It is likely that oil is peaking or has peaked, and that will create a major drag on the economy. In addition, the economy of a few years ago was an addict's fever dream and had something to do with sustainability or reality.

We must not try to recreate what has been lost. In reality, what has been lost was not that great. It was an unsustainble bubble. Mass materialism, conspicuous consumption, vapid self-indulgence. I say good riddance to that. BUT the realignment will be painful for many, unfortunately, but there is little way around it. What we do not need another bubble and crash. Trying to re-establish the production and consumption levels of the past is a mistake and will doom us to cleaning up another mess in a few years. We have to face up to reality.

As I mentioned above, there is really only one thing to do. Get busy remaking a sustainable economy and a more balanced future. I think we will see people living more localized existences, probably making less money but having more time for community, and using that time for community projects that benefit everyone participating. This will be a time of coming together to remake a system that works, which will be satisfying in itself. I suspect people will be growing more of their own food, and reconnecting with the joy of fresh, local food. We will see much more renewable energy and community-level and region-level self-sufficiency. Global trade and information sharing will continue, but only those things that are really needed and cannot be produced locally.

The banks will probably need to be nationalized, because they were at the heart of the old economy and they are so insolvent with so many overinflated assets that no one wants to buy. We have way more financial capacity than we will need and many banks should fail, and a few of the best should be reformed and strengthened. We do need to restore lending to stimulate business investment, but we are already seeing that simply giving the banks more cash will not increase lending. This is another reason for nationalization. We need banks that have the national interest at heart and are willing to lend in those areas that are truly going to stimulate the economy. The stimulus will make a difference, but it will not be enough. We need to invest as much as possible as quickly as possible in the energy infrastructure of the future that will allow the economy to get started again. With an energy source secured, business will be able to begin to work again.

At a personal level, letting go of fear and worry and choosing hope and faith will be essential for preserving our happiness through this hard time. If we hold on to fear and worry, we will only end up torturing ourselves and those we care about. Fear will not make us more successful: it will slow us down and make us miserable in the interim. Choose hope. Have faith.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Miller) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:29:00 +0000

Deeper Democracy

I am very interested in democracy and what the next generation of democracy might look like. I believe that although most people in the U.S. consider themselves to be free and to live in a democracy, I believe that there is much further we can go with the lived concept of democracy. If we think about what deep democracy would look it, it would certainly have to support an ever deepening process of self-actualization, positive creativity and fulfillment. If we view humans as not static but as very dynamic and adaptive, and further postulate that any limitations we see for ourselves individually or collectively are merely a function of the limits of perception rooted in this arbitrary current moment and not real in any permanent sense, we come to understand that this deeper notion of democracy is critical to real freedom and progress. Democracy must provide an environment that allows us to continually grow and expand in our consciousness and power to create a world that reflects our deepest aspirations. A virtuous cycle is created in which we are supported in developing richer, more nuanced and more "true" aspirations, which we are then supported in manifesting and bringing to life. As we bring our aspirations to life, then our perspective expands and we can deepen our aspirations that much further and repeat the cycle. I consider anything less than this a sham democracy that does not do our true, infinite human nature justice.

I should also point out that the notion of individual democracy as it is practiced in the U.S. is really only a first step towards real democracy. Real democracy is much more of a collective concept. Viewed through the lens of creativity, certainly we are capable of creating more together than we are separately. In this notion of democracy, groups of people can come together for a period as short as a minute or as long as a lifetime to create a shared aspiration. This shared aspiration is as close as they can come to what they jointly consider to be heaven on earth. These group experiments are capable of creating much richer, broader and more significant effects than what someone acting alone could do. In this way, social innovation can be dramatically accelerated and society as a whole can develop much more quickly. I assume in this view of democracy that the notions of coercion, force and violence are totally absent and so people are free to be inspired by their highest selves and the highest selves of those around them. Of course I realize that coercion and violence will be with us for a long time, but at this point in time I do believe we should purge them from our aspirations at least. They are outdated concepts that should die as soon as possible.

I will list below some practical developments that I believe are necessary to this notion of deep democracy and that are essential for creating the conditions that will allow us to move down this path.

Democratic media and communications: In some previous posts I have written about how the media has been complicit in Bush's push towards totalitarianism and how it also has developed in such a way as to provide us with our own echo chambers that reinforce our existing perspectives. Both of these are signs that there is a need to look at the role of the media and how it does or does not promote democracy. These two types of problems with the media represent the continuum of failures that we must correct. At one end is media's role in reinforcing and perpetuating the message of a centralized authority, even when a populace is not in agreement with that authority. It is well known that repetition has a powerful effect on what people believe, and the media can repeat erroneous or damaging messages thus strengthening them and weakening the ability of people generally to discern their true aspirations and interests and organize to make them manifest. This is bad.
At the other end of the continuum, media can trap us in a bubble/echo chamber of our own perceptions that walls us off from others, robs us of their perspectives and wisdom, and keep us locked in a small, static version of ourselves. We hear only what we have heard before, and through the power of repetition, we begin to invest these things with the patina of Truth, because there does not seem to be any alternative. In this way we are also limited and prevented from moving down the path of self-actualization. We need to engage with other perspectives in a real dialogue that transcends our limited individual assumptions and mental models to begin to form an enriched and broader conception of our shared reality.
So then what we need is a media that promotes real dialogue, that allows us to connect with similar and dissimilar perspectives with people around the globe, that allows us to begin to coordinate our efforts to manifest shared aspirations but also leaves room for serendipity and chance encounters that can help us to question and see through incomplete and limited aspirations that are smaller than they need be. Much like the way natural selection and mutation work together to promote genetic progress, we need an equivalent process of social selection and mutation. That should be the job of the media. The Internet has helped tremendously in this challenge, but we much be vigilant in ensuring that it remains free, that it allows us to find kindred spirits, and that it allows us to coordinate together while keeping us open to what we don't know we don't know.
Democratic energy: The next essential ingredient will be access to energy and energy self-sufficiency. Energy is the fundamental building block necessary for manifesting tangible results on planet earth and is thus necessary for self-actualization. Renewable energy is clean and can be deployed at individual and community scales. The widespread availability and adoption of renewable energy will support the deepening of democracy as communities free themselves from outdated and damaging systems of production and livelihood that currently keep them enslaved.
Democratic resources: Aside from energy, there are some physical resources that are truly limited and scarce. This includes land, rare minerals, etc. Hopefully as we move towards greater sustainability we come to understand what the real human carrying capacity of the globe is work within it. Everyone needs access to sufficient resources to feed, clothe and house themselves sustainably. If groups of people choose to come together to pool their resources towards shared ends and projects, fine, but the fundamental right of everyone to these physical necessities of life much be strengthened.
Democratic process: We must make advances in the processes that enable us to make decisions as communities and as a society. Our electoral system is only marginally democratic. When this process comes into contact with economic power, it quickly gets warped in the direction of the interests of the rich and powerful. It also selects as leaders people who are abnormally driven, personally ambitious and probably ego-centric. These "leaders" are not representative of the general population, nor of what we would hope for the general populace. We need processes that better allow for the efficient integration of interests and the transcendence of superficial disagreements.

That might be just enough to move us to a qualitatively higher notion of democracy and social progress. If I think of anything else I'll let you know. :)

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 three groups already working on the open source car. SSM, Civic EV , 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.