John Renesch: Exploring the Better Future

United by Passion: Creating the Tipping Point

In writing this month’s editorial for my newsletter, “The End of the Superhero: A Time for Collective Heroism,” another point needed to be made. So I will make it here on the blog and invite you to read this month’s newsletter as well.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the human species as we exist right now will not be around much longer. Now please don’t think I’m talking about unavoidable extinction or that we will cease to exist. I’m saying that we will either have transcended the conditions in which we find ourselves now and evolved to a higher order human or we will have devolved into a more primitive existence with unpredictable challenges to our survival. To be a bit over simplistic, we will either give birth to a new age of light, love and transcendence or will have brought forth a dark age in which today’s standards for living will be impossible. I don’t mean extinction but there could be drastic population reductions, huge shifts in where people live on this planet, and general degradation to total dystopia!

scene from Mad Max the movie

What will determine this collective choice point for humankind? I propose this tipping point will occur when our collective passion for our common welfare exceeds our individual passions for personal ideologies and ambitions. Said another way, when we care more for the commons we all share, when we care more for each other and future generations than we do for our own petty positions and private vested interests the tipping shall begin.

Does this mean everybody in the whole world is united in this collective passion? Hardly, that would be utopian thinking, and in any case, totally impossible. But there is a growing mass of people who are taking this stand to prevent the fall of modern civilization.

Sounds pretty black and white you say? A transcended reality and a super-evolved civilization versus the “Mad Max” dark ages? Normally I don’t think in such polarized terms but I fear we have painted ourselves into the metaphorical corner and the longer we continue coasting along the less “wiggle room” we’ll have to take corrective measures. There is a window of opportunity that’s been opening over the past several generations, a window that is making it easier and easier to make this kind of shift in consciousness to what I’m calling “the new human” in my next book, provided we have the political will. But, there is also another window that is rapidly closing and once it is closed life on earth for human beings will be at best challenging and at worst impossible.

The choice is ours, individually and collectively. 


See author’s website: www.Renesch.com

Requiem for the Greater Fool Economy

In the latter stages of the run-up to last year’s financial meltdown, the market was filled with synthetic contrivances engineered by Wall Street wunderkinds who were unthinkingly grinding out anything that could be sold at a profit, regardless of its investment value. It didn’t seem to matter if there was any real value inherent in these artificial securities as long as they could be sold.

 

 

Family photo circa 1890, great uncle Frank far right

One of the underlying assumptions ingrained in most modern-day economic activity is that you can always find someone to buy what you want to liquidate - what some refer to as “the greater fool theory.” Thus we buy houses with no down payments taking on huge mortgages in the belief that the property will appreciate and we can sell it at a profit, or “flip” it using today’s jargon. As I have asserted many times previously, this is not investing; it is speculating, pure and simple. In more recent years the stock market has also become thick with speculators churning stocks, buying options, or betting on upturns or downturns – all very casino-like. These are the kind of financial transactions that would make my great uncle Frank, a conservative banker, turn in his grave. In his day, there were clear distinctions between investing and speculating. One was for dependable income or growth, “serious money” such as retirement, saving to buy a home, college tuition for the kids, etc. The other was almost sport, like Monopoly money using only a small portion of one’s cash to take some chances and gamble a bit. It was actually fun if you could afford it.

Merchants or business owners would keep their operating reserves in safe investments and only speculate with their own personal surplus cash. Credit was rarely used and never relied upon.  

But then the quick-buck mindset, along with a shift from savings/reserve-thinking to credit-thinking, permeated the culture and people got impatient and greedy. Rapid gratification became the goal. As long as we could sell something we did it. It didn’t need to have intrinsic value as long as there was someone who’d buy it and pay more than we did.  

In the more recent days on Wall Street, purchase value was based on anticipated resale price. It didn’t matter what it was really worth. There's an old story about two sardine futures traders who trade inventories of canned sardines back and forth in the pits for 20 years. One day one of the traders forgets his lunch and decides to open a can of the sardines to eat. He spits out the first bite, "This is terrible," he yells. The other trader says, "Of course it's terrible, you idiot, these are trading sardines, not eating sardines."

This “greater fool economy” in which we have been living for several generations may have been revealed for what it is now that the system has blown up so publically. But I’m not so sure. Yes, perhaps many flaws in the old system may have been revealed in the past year, but will lasting lessons be learned? Will we reinvent a system that is based on true value, restrained from the silliness we previously allowed?  Or will we simply polish up the old system, touch up the paint and send it out again without any meaningful structural changes or contextual shifts in underlying assumptions?

If anyone knows the answer to these questions I haven’t heard or read of them as yet. I’d like to think someone is looking at the larger, longer-term future of our economic system, the one system upon which we arguably rely more than any other. This could be wishful thinking in a vacuum of information. Have no worry though, the system will let us know soon enough. If it is only superficially patched up, it will fold again, even more disastrously next time, and our children’s children will inherit that mess.

All I can do or advise others to do is to be aware of our past participation in the dysfunctional system, how we enabled all this to happen, and make sure we engage it differently in the future. We have little influence over what others do but we can adjust our own behavior so our roles and reliances are more responsible, thus resigning our membership in the Greater Fool Economy. 

For more about John, his writings and his work, see his website.

Falling in Love with Technology

Have you noticed how much people love their new iPhones? Maybe you are one of them. People I know who have them talk about their new acquisitions like I remember talking about a new girlfriend. They act like they love them! Infatuated even!

 

While no one can contest the enormous attraction people have for technology with all its gimmickry and dazzling new magic tricks, it warrants taking a look at what it is exactly that draws us to it. I look back at my life and recall “falling in love” several times in my early years only to discover later on, and usually after some disappointment and pain, that it wasn’t really love but was closer to obsession.

 

Why do we become enamored of things, particularly technological gadgetry? The most rational reason I can think of is it allows us to do more with less, and makes our lives easier. This is reminiscent of farmers giving up their horse-drawn plows and buying tractors and hay bailers in the early 20^th Century, or taking the train across the prairies rather than riding for weeks on end by horseback.   

 

Another reason we are attracted to new things like technology is that we feel “in the know” – on the leading edge, “with it,” cool and perhaps, admired by our peers. I recall this in my days as a teenager and young adult. It was “cool” to have certain cars, certain tools and certain technologies, like a stereo (yes, I was a teenager when stereophonic phonographs came out and it was really awesome to have that technology in the 1950s).

 

Then there’s the obsession aspect: we can become obsessed with new things that address certain pathological needs we may have. These are usually outside our awareness or consciousness. This could include anything that we can identify with that makes us feel better about ourselves, or a distraction that allows us to escape our reality and find a new place to become engaged, even entranced. I see this entrancement as

iPhone

users rush to find an answer to something being discussed whipping them out of their holsters faster than a Western gunfighter.

 

And, by the way, they just left our conversation which is now on hold until the “fast gun” returns to the conversation after his / her immersion into their handheld libraries.

 

I had lunch with a friend the other day and she told me how she can get lost in social networking and other Internet applications. Hours go by without her being aware of the time. She seems to know the difference between obsession and mere intense engagement and was concerned that she was feeling more obsessed than engaged, as if it she were taking an addictive drug.   

 

Are we looking for tools that make our lives easier like farmers in the early 1900s or are we seeking escape? There were predictions in the 1960s that computers would make the eight hour work day obsolete, that the leisure industry would flourish. We now work more hours than we did then, on average. We are more stressed, busier and take less down time than almost any other nation. And we have technological marvels at our disposal to do three times the work we did a generation or two ago. So, it seems to me, there is a question: If we have the technology to produce 300% more why are we busier, more stressed and taking less leisure time?

 

What do you think? Why do you think this upside down condition has persisted throughout the U.S. and much of the rest of the so-called developed world? Is our busyness a cover for our misery? Is our obsession filling some hole in our souls? Your comments are most welcome.

 

For more about John, his writings and his work, see his website.

A Lesson from the Meltdown

 
The crash of 2008 offers many lessons most of which we will probably miss. Hopefully, we will learn a few things so this deep and ongoing pain and suffering doesn’t have to be endured by those who follow us. For the purpose of this month’s blog, I wish to focus on just one lesson that I am not hearing much about.

When disasters occur we tend to seek out the culprit or culprits responsible for them and blame it all on them. Disasters can result when one person or one small group of people screw up really badly and act less than honorably.

A new book from the Collective Wisdom Initiative is being published later in the Fall. I have had the privilege to preview it knowing several of the authors. One of the subjects the book covers is “collective folly” pointing to the huge mistakes groups and societies can make when the consensus is wrong or misguided. Similar to “groupthink,” there develops a consensus reality that isn’t based in good sense even though the group agrees to it.

The lesson from the meltdown I’m addressing here is the collective folly that resulted from colossal numbers of people making mistakes, some more egregious than others, but almost everyone involved in capital markets had some role in this historic disaster: people who were eager to buy a home they couldn’t afford, the brokers who allowed false credit applications, every citizen who relied on credit instead of savings and was in debt over his/her head. It includes the legislators who passed bad laws or repealed good ones. Consumers who continued buying gas guzzlers contributed to this meltdown. The list includes the accountants and financial engineers who looked the other way trading their souls for job security. The “collective” includes the bean counters who worked for the rating agencies which, in turn, “followed orders” and understated the risk of complex securities and synthetic financial constructs no one really understood. And, yes, it certainly includes the greedy Wall Street shysters who are taking most of our blame, and rightly so. But not all the fault lies with them. Many of us contributed to this collective folly.

Just how many have been complicit is hard to say but it is safe to estimate it would number in the hundreds of millions, possibly billions, who had something to do with this “perfect storm” blowing up in our faces. Unfortunately, the people having the least to do with this disaster will most likely suffer the most. Billions of people at the lower end of the wealth ladder, making only pennies a day, are the true innocents in this global crisis.

When we look the other way while something wrong is happening, fail to challenge a decision we think is bad, condone others’ behavior with our silence, abandon rudimentary prudence to live beyond our means, misrepresent facts on a loan application, we are complicit in the outcome.  When we rationalize our behavior even when we know it is contributing to an unsustainable way of life, we are out of integrity with ourselves.

A few months ago I asked two questions of the group I was addressing. “What part did you play in bringing about this crash?” After people pondered that for a while and I could see the expressions of recognition on their faces, I asked my second question. “What are you still doing that will prevent the system from changing?”

It is time for deep soul searching and lifestyle changes that start us along our way toward collective wisdom and it is time to abandon the path of collective folly.  This is a crisis of collective conscience, a global integrity crisis, and as in all crises, we have an opportunity to learn and grow from it.

So here is the lesson we can all learn: Many people acting even slightly dishonorably can bring about just as horrendous an outcome as a few hard case evil doers.

Riding the Edge: Living With Creative Tension

When one holds a vision that stretches the mind and convention, when one dreams of realities that may seem like pure folly to the popular consensus, when one strives to reveal a truth that hasn't been seen by the masses, one becomes accustomed to being different. One also becomes accustomed to living a life with a certain amount of tension - tension between what is envisioned and what currently exists. Robert Fritz, author of The Path of Least Resistance, has described this differential as "structural tension." Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline, referenced Fritz's model, making it more widely known as "creative tension."

Those who can live in this tension and hold their vision for what they see as achievable not only become accustomed to being different but they also become accustomed to this tension. Senge once told me he thought personal mastery was achieved when people could hold this tension without seeking relief from it. Most people tend to succumb to the desire to reconcile this tension and get more comfortable. They relieve it by either lowering their vision and their expectancy for their desired future or by overstating the present reality, making it seem better than it is. Often worse; they give up on their vision but start acting as if they still embody it. This often leads to them martyring themselves – taking consolations in the image they think they are projecting rather than making the kind of difference they claim they want.

The envisioned future can be a quality of life for oneself or one’s loved ones, business success, or even a quality in the world one wants to see. It helps if the envisioned reality is more expectancy rather than specific expectations. Be somewhat flexible in the form of your envisioned reality. When assessing the existing reality, exploring what you want to see changed, be sure to tell the absolute truth without exaggeration so the condition is portrayed accurately. Here’s the graphic I used in Getting to the Better Future, my latest book:

 

Scientists who discovered major breakthroughs in their fields are examples of such visionaries who mastered the ability to function in this creative tension. Great artists, composers and other creative people with visions that soared beyond the conventional are also examples of people who can function effectively with this tension in their lives.

 

Those who have mastered this are able to hold it as a part of everyday life, sometimes over decades of time. They don't give up or become resigned about any lack of “progress” from the current reality to the envisioned one. It doesn’t mean those who live here don’t get discouraged or never experience despair, loss, grief or sadness. The difference is they don’t let these feelings stop them. They use them to energize their intentionality and their vision. 

 

Do you know any of these people, people who have been holding the creative tension for years and years, feeling alive and empowered, continuing to hold their visions for a better life or a better world? Do you want that ability yourself? Try it out. You may find you can hold the tension between what you want to see happen and what is presently so far better than you think. It certainly won’t hurt to try.

More About Lobbying; Lessons from NASCAR

Following last month’s blog on the similarity between U.S. lobbying and what often passes for bribery elsewhere, I was imagining how truly transparent sponsorship of elected officials would look. Given my early life passion for motorsports and my occasional viewing of an auto race, it occurred to me that perhaps our Washington legislators could take some cues from professional race car drivers.

What you say? How did you make that jump? Well, rather easily really.

Take as an example NASCAR, which has grown phenomenally in popularity around the world in recent years. The drivers and pit crew members willingly advertise their sponsors’ brands and products on their uniforms, hats, decalcomania on their cars and openly plug them during interviews.  Everyone knows the Ford drivers will promote Ford, the Miller Lite team will promote their sponsor’s beer, and the Office Depot sponsored teams will promote the chain of retail stores. It’s transparent and obvious. 

How would that look in Washington? What if each politician was clearly beholden to their sponsors, the organizations and brands that have influenced their decisions? What if this was so transparent that when a press conference or interview was held the public would know who contributed to their campaign or who lobbied for the legislation the politico was authoring or endorsing at the time. What if politicians wore jackets covered with their sponsors’ logos like racer Tony Stewart above?

After all, how many citizens sit watching television in the evening with a handy directory of which politicians are beholden to what special interests, be they AARP, NRA, the oil lobby or the automobile industry? They sit there passively taking in the interview or press conferences unaware of who is sponsoring the politician’s comments. Until we do something about influence peddling in politics we will indeed get the legislators we deserve.

 

Final note: In an uncanny comparison of which party's politicians are invested in what stocks, take a look at this graphic just published by Miller-McCune magazine: http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/partisan-portfolios-1297. The first impression one gets is the incredulous comparisons, where politicians from one party invest heavily in one type of stock the other side is largely invested in different kinds of companies. And note which party is invested in which kind of companies. Worth a look, really!

 

Lobbying in the U.S.: Why Not Call It Bribery?

  The huge bailouts taxpayers have generously given to the U.S. banking industry are probably in part due to very powerful lobbying. Our federal legislators are the targets of the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. As a recent blog by a constituent of Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois states, “they own the place.”

 

A major factor in the meltdown of Wall Street was due to the mixing of risky speculative investing with what used to be seen as conservative local banking. This occurred in 1999 when the post-Great Depression regulations that kept these two very different cultures separate was repealed. It took only nine years for the resultant bubble to blow up. A bubble with which we infected the entire world! Here again we have the most powerful lobby in Washington calling the shots.

 

When powerful lobbies are allowed to have so much influence on legislators and participate in writing the rules that favor their industries or enterprises there is a major blurring of the boundaries between being influential or informative and corrupting lawmakers to tilt the playing field in their favor. We’ve all heard stories of widespread bribery in other countries. Some of you may have firsthand knowledge of this cost of doing business in countries where bribery is commonly practiced.

 

So what is the difference between paying an official to obtain a favor and contributing to a campaign, helping to write favorable legislation or encouraging preferential treatment under the already-skewed laws to gain similar favors? Here’s a portion of the concluding remarks of a paper published by Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University which attempts to address this question:

 

Corruption and lobbying are to some extent substitutes. Through lobbying a firm may be able to change existing rules to the firm’s advantage. Through bribery a firm may get the bureaucrat to bend the rules and thus avoid the full cost of a policy. We believe that one important difference between these two strategies is that the effect of lobbying is more permanent than bribing, simply because the bure[au]crat cannot commit to not ask for bribes in future periods. Based on this simple assumption, we find that the firms prefer bribing to lobbying early in the development process. At later stages, when firms have invested more, their bargaining power relative to the bureaucrat is smaller and the bribes therefore larger. Then, the firms are more likely to lobby the government.

 

Before anyone starts accusing me of being an anti-capitalist or left wing, I’m not simply pointing to corporate lobbying but all lobbying. Between 1998 and 2008, the number of registered lobbyists grew from 10,692 to 15,287, nearly a 50% increase in just ten years! This is a huge disparity when you realize they are all trying to get their way from only 535 federal legislators.

 

Lobbyists’ spending increased during that same ten-year period from $1.44 billion to $3.27 billion – way more than double! (see http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/). One of the biggest annual jumps in the lobbyist population – a whopping 30 % - was between 1998 and 1999 when the banking regulations were repealed. Could these two events be related?

 

Of course, the lobbyists aren’t entirely to blame. They needed the votes of the legislators to repeal regulations and fund the bailouts nine years later. Legislators, under huge pressure to comply with lobbyists’ influence, still bear personal responsibility for their actions, and this includes both parties. But this system is flawed and now we know it was fatally flawed for at least nine years, a flaw which unfortunately has hurt the taxpayer much more than those responsible.

 

I am hopeful that our legislators are considering regulating those who have proven untrustworthy of our blind faith in their ability to police themselves, treating the public trust with all the recklessness of Dodge City/anything goes types of wealth tilting ploys. The practices of these lobbyists who “own the place,” as well as the behavior of the legislators who are subject to their influence peddling, need to be closely examined, regulated and responsibly overseen considerably more than in past years. And this could and perhaps should include criminalizing those activities that more closely resemble bribery.

 

The only reason thousands of people aren’t in jail today due to this global tragedy – this 21^st Century Great Recession which is causing countless pain and suffering around the world - is that the laws allowed this sort of thing to happen. And who saw to it that these laws were so relaxed that everyone complicit is not now doing jail time? The most powerful lobby in Washington, that’s who. When it is bribery let’s call it that, even if it has been “legalized.” There’s no need to continue putting up with this nonsense.

 

 

 

The Power of the Nod

Have you ever noticed how people nod in agreement so spontaneously with immediacy long before they formulate an opinion or critique of what they were listening to? As a keynote speaker, the nods I see in the audience tell me volumes more than what people may say to me afterward or write in their evaluations of my talk. Being so spontaneous, the nod is a form of body language that demonstrates direct response without having taken the path through the mind with all its filters of political correctness, image projection, peer approval and polished wording which results in the prepared critique. 

 

I remember a talk I gave on organizational systems change some years ago in Colorado to a group consisting mostly of organizational consultants. I asked them if they had the experience of doing some large scale change work inside a company, getting a very positive endorsement from the person in the company who hired them and being well paid for their work. They leave taking great pride in their contribution to the company and very hopeful the new changes will become permanently integrated into the company culture.

 

Then I asked them if they ever had cause to revisit the company, only to discover the person who hired them previously was no longer there, and noticed the culture was exactly as it had been before their previous engagement. Lots of nods! Things had reverted to the old ways and hadn’t changed a bit!

 

Finally I asked if, after this experience, they seriously doubted their work made any difference and how that made them feel.

 

I was amazed at how many heads were nodding even before I finished my query, as if they knew where I was going ahead of time. I got the distinct impression they had made this inquiry on their own and the experience of disappointment was quite common.

 

Going by the immediacy of assenting nods as I was making my inquiries, the experience was not only very common it was also disheartening to these people because they wanted to think their work had made a positive and lasting difference.

 

I went on to talk about the need to deal with organizational systems from a whole system perspective and employ systems dynamic principles if large scale change has any chance for sustaining and how it has to be transformational or things will inevitably revert. When I was finished with my talk and people came up to me afterward, a few commented on my questions and confessed somewhat sheepishly that they had those experiences. But the large majority of people who talked with me afterward avoided the subject or mentioned how they know so many consultants who have “that problem,” implying they did not.

 

If I assessed the responses to my questions by the nods I got I’d say 90% shared the experience. If I went by comments after my talk, I’d say 15-20%. People had time to think more about what they might say, edit it and run it past their considerations like “what will John think of me if I confess this has been my experience?” and “what should I say that might be overheard by my fellow consultants?” or “what can I say that portrays me as an effective agent for change?”

 

In short, I will put more stock in a head nod than in what people say. That uncensored response to something people take in as valid is far more accurate a read on where they are than any conjured up critique. Give me the nods anytime!

Pandemics of Orthodoxy: The Mind’s Search for the Right Way

According to Wikipedia, “The word orthodoxy is mainly associated with the Greek Orthodox Church…. Since this theological aspect was established the church moved on to resolve the right way to worship God or Orthodoxy.”

As I read on about the “right way to worship God” I cannot help but see the parallels in how so many devote capitalists attach themselves to “the perfect way” to create wealth, to engage in commerce, to generate profits and dominate markets. And it isn’t just religion and economics. This adherence to the “one right way” pops up in all human systems.

The fundamentalist approach to anything - be it religion, business, law, medicine, politics, education or any other discipline – is a function of the mind seeking a structure it can comprehend. This provides security for those who identify with their beliefs. The mind likes certainty and predictability. The mind has difficulty with things experiential – things that can be “messy” and unpredictable. So, the right way is sought and, once found, strictly adhered to with great fervor.

In religion it is the right way to worship, the right “sacred text” to believe literally, the right clergy to obediently follow. In medicine, it could be loyalty to tradition which prevents new learning. In education it could be the conventional factory-style method of training our young in the Three Rs. In business it shows up as the dominance of the financial bottom line.

When this orthodoxy is prevalent, those who challenge this perfect way are seen as heretics, such as advocates of the Triple Bottom Line in business, holistic healthcare, alternative schooling and restorative justice. While religion gave rise to the term, we see orthodoxy has found its way into all human endeavors, helping to make our institutions stodgy and arthritic, resistant and slow to change. Heterodoxy or “other teaching” which opposes orthodoxy met with plenty of resistance over the centuries in the world of religion. With the modern pandemic of this black and white way of thinking into all areas of our lives, we are seeing mass polarization, schisms and divides between neighbors, brothers and sisters, and friends similar to what was seen in the Inquisition, Crusades and Jihad. 

For the sake of future generations, let us call a halt to this capitulation so our sense of spirituality, justice, education and health is allowed to remain experiential and not be concretized for the convenience of the egoic mind. Let us resist the temptation to reduce everything to what can be contained within the limited capacity of the mind and allow for these powerful experiences to have full rein within our hearts and souls.

Something's Happening Here

During a recent meeting about systems behavior the economic meltdown found its way into the conversation. After looking at the crisis from a systems perspective, many of us started envisioning something new rising from the ashes of the old system. Suddenly the lyrics to that 1960s Buffalo Springfield song popped into my head, “what’s that sound? what’s going down?” Later that evening I was moved to write a poem based on that experience. Here it is:

 

Echoes of Buffalo Springfield:

A Poem About the Financial Crisis

by John Renesch

2009 © John Renesch

 

The sound of fear is deafening as the cries of pundits pierce the air

Every day the news is grim and there’s so much talk, oh what despair

But wait a minute, what’s over here

It millions of young people starting to cheer

What’s that sound, what’s going down?

 

Is the banker going to take my home, or shall I lose my job?

It seems so dark from what they say, yet what I heard the other day

Hope is filling the air, not just gloom and doom

What is that sound, what is going down?

 

Something is dying that’s for sure, but something else is happening here

Nothing new can happen here until there’s room to grow

This is nature after all, what’s that sound.

So start the crying, the old system is going down

 

Something new is coming, new life is on the way

Like Buffalo Springfield said some time ago, it may not be exactly clear

But we can hear the sound if we lend an ear

Something is coming, that’s for sure

 

Stop, children, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down

Expectancy fills the air, as does uncertainty and gloom

It is time for hospice now

Get the midwives ready, they’ll be needed soon

 

Listen for the sounds of new birth, listen for the sounds of grieving

Listen to the sound, for what it’s worth

The third way is coming and it might be all new

Just like a baby, but when is it due?

 

The ravenous caterpillar has seen its final days

The glorious butterfly will soon be born

The golden sky awaits the end of the storm

No silver sounds, but a lot going down

 

Farewell to those who have lost their souls

The old bull is dying thanks to you

And welcome to the hopeful, the eager and the honest

We know it’s a mess, but please do your best

 

Thanks to Buffalo Springfield for having been

And the song they sang back then

What’s that…what's that sound?

Everybody look, what's going down.

[In the March issue of my newsletter I reflect on the butterfly metaphor for transformation.]

Moving from Hope to Faith

I cannot fail to mention the inauguration of Barrack Obama as the 44^th President of the United States in this blog. This is not as parochial as it may seem. It is not about the historic nature of being this country’s first African-American Commander-in-Chief. It is about the enormous worldwide upsurge in hope and optimism for the future of humankind.

The inauguration released so much energy from all parts of the world, even more so than the November elections. Perhaps this was due to it being more of a media event, perhaps because some people wondered if he’d ever make it into the White House.

Regardless of the reasons, the inauguration was a global event, watched by hundreds of millions, if not a billion, who joined in the celebration along with the two million people who stood in line for hours to watch the event in person. And lots of young people! (see Ocean Robbin’s video)

If ever there appears to be a time when the climate might be primed for major social transformation, it would appear to be now. Obama seems resolute on rectifying so many of the mistakes we’ve made in recent years. , He also seems resolute in restoring the world’s trust in the U.S.A. as partner not a dominator, as a leader not a bully.

For the first time in my life I am hearing a genuine acceptance by the American citizenry that this is not a time to sit back and critique how our new President performs; instead it is a time to get involved, to roll up our sleeves and pitch in. People are wanting to get involved suggesting an end to the passivity we have seen over the years among our citizenry, particularly with the younger generation. Time will tell how well all this talk will translate into action perform but many have come to realize just how susceptible a democracy can be if the citizens grow too passive and too complacent, abdicating their responsibilities to Washington. There must be room in our personal lives to be proactive citizens and that doesn’t merely mean voting and serving on an occasional jury. It means paying attention and holding our elected officials accountable for their actions

As America’s 26^th President Theodore Roosevelt said, “The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.” Americans have not been pulling their own weight for quite some time, possibly since World War II when the times called for us all to pitch in to some degree or another.  We have been consumed with ourselves at the exclusion of our beloved country and somewhat oblivious of our world and all the other inhabitants of planet earth. Perhaps now we will begin to be more responsible for the whole and all that sustains us.

Finally, let this hope we are hearing so much about transcend into a new faith in our ability to do this, to meet the challenges Obama so articulately describes. Let us not waste time hoping that he does well but have faith in ourselves that together we can do this.

Do You Think Globally? Then Check This Out!

  As the world continues to shrink and threats to human life transcend regional commons, there is a greater need for more people to take greater responsibility than simple national citizenship. People are being called to  stand for solutions that transcend national boundaries and include the entire planet Earth.

 Until now there has been no venue for these people to gather since  they are from disparate locations all over the world.  What better gathering place than cyberspace.

At a time when a myriad of crises surround us - financial meltdowns, climate change, rainforest depletion, genocide and starvation - how can ordinary citizens rally to do anything meaningful? 

Enter the social network created by a successful Internet entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist, The Neo Declaration of Earth Citizenship. Created for global citizens, the Declaration is a place where people can not only sign and agree to it’s tenets but they can add their own individual commitments or declarations for action as well. Then signers can support one another’s commitments, so there’s great potential collaboration potential. These personal declarations are expressions of people’s passions and serve to augment the master document’s scope of principles.

Still in its early stages, the Neo Declaration has already attracted leaders from civil society, the sustainability movement, human rights activists and authors whose focus is improving the state of the world. Early signers include social entrepreneurs, musicians, artists, executives, writers, academics, health workers and many other professions.  Signers already represent all parts of the world from South America to Asia, Europe to Africa and Australia to the North America.

Leading edge international organizations such as The Hunger Project, Collective Wisdom Initiative, World Business Academy, United Religions Initiative, New Dimension Radio, represent early signers.  And it is gaining attention of forward thinking academics as well. These include Dr. Srikumar Rao, London Business School, Dr. Ian Mitroff, Professor Emeritus Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, U.S. futurist Peter Bishop, Professor Prasad Kaipa, Indian School of Business and Bruce Lloyd, Professor of Strategic Management, London South Bank University.

Among authors who have signed are Fast Company magazine founder, Alan Webber, James Autry, author of Love and Profit and other books, David Schwerin, the author of Conscious Capitalism, Robert White, author of Living an Extraordinary Life, Sanjoy Mukherjeem, editor of Journal of Human Values, Dr. John Adams, author of Thinking Today as if Tomorrow Mattered, Debbe Kennedy, author of Putting Our Differences to Work, and a diverse roster of others from around the world.  The creator and host of the U.S. television series “Thinking Allowed,” Jeffery Mishlove, is another early signer.

The Declaration’s theme of global citizenship is reminiscent of Thomas Paine’s words written over 250 years ago in Common Sense, a bestselling pamphlet that became a blueprint of modern democracy. Paine wrote, "My country is the world. My countrymen are mankind."

In the last month or so the number of signers has tripled as word is getting around the world. Check it out: go to www.neo.org. I signed it. Maybe you will too!

*******

[In keeping with the new year, my newsletter for this month features an editorial - "Champagne: Metaphor for Social Transformation." Check it out, and best wishes for 2009!]

Can a Cry for Fairness Bridge the Gap Across Ideologies?

  I’ve written much about the growing divide between the left and right in America in recent years, likening it to a new civil war of ideologies. It occurred to me last week there may actually be hope for bridging the divide and connecting us all again as citizens. Rationality hasn’t worked nor have pleas for civility, respectfulness and accuracy. Perhaps there could be a new reconciler in the wings.

One of the unintended consequences of the recent Wall Street meltdown has been an outrage on both sides of the ideological divide over one thing: the American people feel ripped off by market manipulators, particularly when those most responsible for this debacle walk away with millions in compensation. While we have been willing to reward greed, rewarding incompetence is not part of the American psyche.  The outrage being reported around the Wall Street and banking meltdown seems to transcend ideologies. “This isn’t fair!” is a cry from all directions, not just left or right.

Americans have remained fairly quiet on a number of social fairness issues, among them equal compensation for women who do the same work as men, the legal system favoring defendants with money over those who don’t have much and special interest groups getting exceptional treatment by government . These are just three social inequities America has allowed to persist without major objection. Perhaps the pain of this global monetary crisis may hurt enough people bad enough that the social fairness agenda will come to a head and serve enough as a bond for a healing to occur across ideologies.

Market fundamentalists who normally scream hands off the regulation buttons are admitting something needs to be done to rein in the ever-ending greed and manipulations that have become so commonplace in the market. The triggering event for this change of heart may be the blatant unfairness of rewarding “over the top” greed and incompetence. Once there’s a willingness to look at the fairness issue, it becomes a human matter not an ideological one. There is a built-in unfairness in the system.

Washington insiders have lobbied for generations to tilt the tables in their favor, shaping the market to their liking. Anyone who examines all the special interests and the benefits they gain while the rest of us go without will see the market has been manipulated in their favor.

People are basically good at their core but circumstances seem to influence the decisions and choices they make. The culture that has existed on Wall Street includes taking advantage of if legal loopholes; it is okay!  Another has been “if it isn’t illegal then it must be all right.”  In others words, don’t bother using your conscience; just find ways to make a quick buck as fast as possible. And – there is no such thing as too much profit! This explains the culture that has been dominant until now and sheds some light on how CEOs can feel completely justified taking home $35 million while their companies are going bankrupt or being bailed out.

Am I being naïve and overly optimistic? I hope not. Something needs to transcend this deepening of the ideological divide among Americans – most of whom are essentially good people. We are tearing ourselves apart through this polarization and if ideals can’t bring us together maybe the shared pain and sheer outrage at the degree to which a small group of people will profit from the loss by so many others will reunite us.  Will our basic human values regarding what’s right and what’s wrong prevail?  I hope so.

Are Americans Guilty of Willful Blindness?

A good deal of the U.S. government’s nefarious activity that would be deemed unacceptable by most patriotic Americans is not necessarily being done in secret. Much of our darker carryings on in other countries are reported by the global press so they are well documented and well known by those who read or watch them. But do American editions run those stories? Rarely, right? Why is this? Why do even CNN, Time and Newsweek, all based in the U.S., only run these stories in their foreign editions? Most likely reason: there’s no domestic market for them. As a culture, Americans would rather consume gossip about sex symbols in court that hear anything about our nation’s violations of decency, human rights, imperialism and vendettas abroad. This makes us guilty of “willful blindness.”

Wikipedia defines willful blindness (sometimes called “willful ignorance” or “contrived ignorance”) as “a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable. For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were, and therefore lacked the requisite intent to break the law. Such defenses have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to determine that the defendant should have known what was in the package, and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out before delivering it.”

A majority of our adult population could be judged guilty in any international tribunal based on this principle of law. But we don’t have to worry about being caught. Our government has declared itself impervious to all the tribunals who might come to that conclusion, using financial and military intimidation or downright stonewalling.

Most of us still carry an inner image of Americans as heroes, the good guys, liberators and champions of democracy and freedom. Stories that reinforce these images are more to our liking than stories that portray us as the villains, the bad guys, occupiers and violators of liberty. Few are aware of our history of destroying democratic governments when they wouldn’t abide by our wishes and replacing them with dictators (cruel but willful puppets). Few of us are aware of the track record of conspiracies, assassinations and overthrows widely reported in tell-all books like The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - a New York Times bestseller. But it only takes a half million copies to achieve bestseller status. That’s less than one percent of our nations’ adult population!  There have been dozens of books and hundreds of articles disclosing these nasty facts, so commonly known in other parts of the world. Americans who spend time abroad and are exposed to local media are less ignorant of these practices. But a relatively few Americans travel or read these kinds of books and articles so the vast majority remains in the bubble of ignorance. Remaining in this bubble is a choice; it is willful – willful blindness. As George Bernard Shaw writes, “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.”

Cocktail conversations will blame the media but media publishes what the consumers buy. The majority of Americans, entranced by their delusions, don’t want to listen, watch or read about anything that tarnishes their idealized and outdated image of Americans. We were once loved, admired, even held in great gratitude by the rest of the world. Now we are hated and feared by much of the world. As a colleague in Great Britain told me recently, “All my friends consider Americans to be the biggest threat to the survival of humanity.”

I’ll end this diatribe with a call to action, a call for taking a stand. Let us advocate willful consciousness, willful awareness and become willfully informed. Let us enroll our fellow citizens in this quest to replace ignorance with truth, blindness with light, avoidance with engagement, and denial with acceptance. Once we have a critical mass of patriotic, informed and engaged Americans we can then choose what we’ll do about it. Perhaps we might insist such distasteful practices cease and see that our country reclaims its role as leader by example. Perhaps when the world sees us changing, not from edict but from public outcry, we will regain the trust of other nations and peoples around the world. When this occurs we might see America back on track to fulfilling the promise envisioned in 1776, and the people will have reclaimed their right to govern themselves again.

Wall Street Casinos: Ending the Anarchy of Speculation

 

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.” – Adam Smith (1723-1790), author, The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s a group of us involved in the World Business Academy were concerned about where capitalism was headed. WBA Founder Willis Harman compared Wall Street with gambling casinos in his book Global Mind Change (1988). We had many discussions comparing the growth of a more speculative approach, demanding greater returns in shorter time frames, to the days when people really invested for the long term and looked forward to dividends. There were frequent comparisons to gambling casinos as growing numbers of day traders and creative mechanisms appeared on the scene, all designed to “make a killing” for those insiders who were skilled in manipulating the financial system.

 

In 1993, Joel Kurtzman, then a business editor at The New York Times, published The Death of Money: How the Electronic Economy Has Destabilized the World’s Markets and Created Financial Chaos. Kurtzman’s “electronic economy” is the vast volume of transactions made each day by unstaffed computers, prompted by market fluctuations. Additionally he revealed the giant share of transactions in the economy that have nothing whatsoever to do with services or goods. They are entirely speculative, just like gambling. As he writes, “…how can there be equilibrium when the size of the pool of money changing hands globally every day dwarfs the actual value of the goods traded?”

 

Consciousness and Economics

 

Willis and I were excited about Kurtzman’s book and discussed compiling original writings for a new anthology which Willis and Kurtzman would co-edit. The working title was Conscious Capitalism. For various reasons the book never happened but it did inspire me to write about this new breed of capitalism, a system far closer to what Adam Smith envisioned. In 1996, I published  “A Call for Conscious Capitalism” and incorporated this model into many of my subsequent articles, including an entry into a contest co-sponsored by The Economist in 2000. But, alas, the world continued its path toward more perverse and predatory ways of practicing capitalism.

 

Around the same time I met Bernard Lietaer, a Belgium banker who seemed very informed and experienced in money matters, particularly the consciousness around money, not merely the mechanisms involved. This ability of Lietaer to know the way the system worked as well as appreciating the impact of human consciousness on the system was very attractive to me. He also held a systems perspective and was predicting large scale shifts in the global economy. Last week, Lietaer shared some of his recent writings with me. In part, he wrote, “we have now entered the long period of unprecedented financial instability that was predicted in The Future of Money [his 2001 book]. It is most likely that this will take the form of the dance where one goes two or three steps backward for every step forward. Every small step forward (i.e. any temporary improvement) will predictably be hailed as the ‘end of the crisis.’ It is quite understandable why governments, banks and regulators will make such statements, simply because saying otherwise would only make the situation worse.”

 

Lietaer sees this current breakdown as a symptom of system structure, not a cycle as many are referring to it. Lietaer is currently working on two new books due out this winter which will surely benefit from his additional insights from this market meltdown.

 

Free Market, Ha!

 

A couple of years ago on a flight to Brazil, I was seated next to a young man from India. He worked for the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. As we exchanged cards I noticed his title was “financial engineer,” a term I found curious. Engineering seemed contrary to free markets. Upon further reflection, however, I could see many manipulations that were contrary to the market being truly free. I recognized the conflict between market fundamentalism and laissez faire capitalism, with their strong opposition to government interference, and the manipulations and contrivances these same free market advocates endorse such as lobbying, subsidies and tax advantages. In other words, don’t do anything that hinders us but allow us to gain every advantage we can afford to create for ourselves. So much for “free” markets!

 

So it wasn’t a total surprise when the markets crashed and the meltdown started in recent days, rippling to other economies like dominos in free fall. Any unsustainable system eventually reaches its breakdown. Band Aid approaches to fix the system will likely be attempted. If they are they will merely postpone the breakdown and possibly lead to an even harder breakdown later.

 

The system is broken. Even mainstream media are saying it today. It requires a rebuilding not repair. While there have been plenty of warnings and predictions this could happen, the leaders of the system - those with the most power to bring about change - refused to listen. As Harlan Cleveland, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, wrote in his book Nobody in Charge, "Those with visible responsibility for leadership are nearly always too visible to take responsibility for change…"

 

So the forecasts were correct and now some people in leadership positions seem more likely to listen. Perhaps this had to happen for us all to finally get it. This is more painful than it needed to be, and it will likely get worse, but new listening may be available for the first time. The “system” may have been jolted hard enough to shift its attention so we can reinvent the system, not simply prop-up the old one.

 

The consciousness behind the system has fostered greed, parochial short-term thinking, market manipulation and outmoded regulations.  The new system has an opportunity to be based upon our mutual interdependence, global citizenship, market transparency and 21^st Century regulations.  

 

Where’s the Pony?

 

There’s an old story about two young brothers who come home from school to find their room filled with horse manure. The pessimistic one gets very upset and immediately starts crying and complaining about the mess. The more optimistic brother starts jumping up and down, looking all around with great excitement screaming, “Oh boy! With all this manure there’s got to be a pony here somewhere?”

 

As I read articles in the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal reporting that capitalism is broken (at least the U.S. model) and how our economy is the victim of the “anarchy of speculation,” part of me is elated, not for the pain and suffering so many people are feeling right now but at the prospects for a true transformation, which is sometimes only possible after the system blows up. Then President Bush (friend of the fat cats) comes on television and tells us the debacle in the markets is “the result of a speculative economy.” The man whose policies exasperated the dysfunction and brought it to a head is telling us indirectly his policies helped to bring us here. This must have eaten him up, to admit his philosophy and policies were a major factor in this disaster for which the American people will pay dearly in so many ways. And he’ll probably go down in history best known for presiding over this devastating bit of financial piracy.

 

Thank You Market Fundamentalists

 

The market fundamentalists everywhere have been the biggest contributors to this debacle. A few greedy people and many clever financial engineers did their part too. Time will tell whether or not this major upheaval will be a major blip in our evolution to a better system or a complete failure requiring us to effectively start all over again.  

 

Like with all transformations, there is pain and chaos, uncertainty and big changes. Transformations often include rough spots. So let us make the most of this rough spot and not simply repair an outmoded system, restoring the same mechanisms. Let us create a system that works for everyone and is truly sustainable. Let us create a more compassionate capitalism, similar to that which Adam Smith – the so-called “father of capitalism” - envisioned in his works about wealth and morality.

 

 

Wall Street Skull and Crossbones

In 2002 I wrote about the “modern-day tyrants ” suggesting they might be the master manipulators of Wall Street. In part I stated:

 

These modern day tyrants value short-term financial gratification more than anything else. Their actions are totally inconsistent with a sustainable world in which people are valued and life is affirmed. They create no real value in the world, certainly not in the way most of us think about adding value, such as an exchange of something for something else. Their sole purpose is to make a profit, and to do so with the least amount of capital as possible.

Fast forward six years to this past week...

 

The other evening I was watching a segment of the movie “Pirates of the Caribbean” starring Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. In one scene Sparrow and a fellow pirate make a toast, apparently one of the pirate codes - “Take what you can. Give nothing back.” In light of the financial fiasco confronting the whole world today, this seemed very timely for the consciousness (or lack of it) that has been allowed to permeate our corporate environments in recent years.

 

We apparently learned nothing from the Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen debacle earlier this decade. Nor from the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s. Or the many other indicators that predatory capitalism only works for a very few at the expense of the vast majority. Americans are most probably going to pay for all this maleficence.

If markets were truly free and unfettered, the market fundamentalists might have a valid point. But those who manipulate the market to their advantage cannot honestly justify that position when they themselves tilt the playing field in their favor. This is not a free market but a skewed market that required some restraints.

 

Those who have mastered this game – those who made fortunes while leaving the rest of the world in ruins – have no conscience. They leave others to clean up after them and slink off into the darkness with their loot. They truly do subscribe to the pirates code: Take what you can. Give nothing back. This makes these dubious characters the modern-day pirates, far worse than mere tyrants.

 

If you happen to know any of these modern-day pirates and are keeping quiet about them out of some distorted sense of loyalty I suggest you blow the whistle and do it now!  It may prevent another bunch of greedy SOBs from pillaging the public trough in another few years.

 

[please forward to anyone you know who works in the financial services industry]

 

Lessons from Bucky

Years ago I had the pleasure of hearing R. Buckminster Fuller speak several times here in the Bay Area. It was a year or so before the passing of his wife whom he soon followed.  “Bucky” - as he was affectionately known by his friends and fans – was a visionary inventor/engineer/architect who is probably best known for his geodesic dome design. He was posthumously recognized for his genius by having the C60 allotrope of carbon named “buckminsterfullerene” since it was structured similarly to Fuller’s revolutionary architecture for his dome.

Buckminsterfullerene molecule

Besides his many inventions and theories, Bucky left us some wondrous literature – around thirty books! One of my favorite Bucky quotes is: "If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?"

 

These are not merely thought provoking questions asked rhetorically. Bucky’s life was a living response to them. For the most part, he lived as if the success or failure of the human race was dependent on how he lived and what he did.

 

We live in a time when our world would be better served if more of us lived our lives as if the future depended on us. Quite often, people rationalize their failure to live responsibly – as if the future depended upon their actions – telling themselves they are only one person out of billions. This sort of rationalization serves two masters: the cynic who is convinced nothing can be done to improve matters and the victim who is equally convinced they are powerless to change anything. It reeks of powerlessness.

 

One thing about Bucky which is less well- known: he seriously contemplated suicide in mid-life. He had a series of business failures, an experience known all too well by inventive types whose ideas are a bit too far ahead of the crowd, had gone bankrupt and lost his young daughter to polio. He reportedly had an epiphany which caused him to step back from the brink of taking his own life and embark on what he called "an experiment” - to discover what a single individual could contribute to change the world and benefit all humanity. For the next half century, he lived that experiment.

 

What if we lived that experiment each day? What if we asked ourselves, “What can I do today to benefit humanity?” Instead of wallowing in powerlessness what if we simply did something every day that contributed to the success of the human species? I guarantee you the world would start looking better.

 

Another of my favorite Bucky quotes is, "I'm not trying to counsel any of you to do anything really special except to dare to think, and to dare to go with the truth, and to dare to really love completely." I will add my own dare, no double dare!

Dealing With Spiritual Relapses: Overcoming the Recidivism of Our Egos

The dictionary defines recidivism as “a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior.” Usually this term is used in the context of government penal systems and the rate at which previously-released prisoners relapse into criminal behavior and often return to prison. Addicts use the word “relapse” to describe a return to their addictive behavior. 

When writing or speaking about this in the context of human systems and the influence systems have on our behavior, this tendency to regress is similar to elastic bands wanting to return to their relaxed position. To resist this pull-back one must develop new muscles, new tools, so that the new behavior is reinforced and the older, more familiar behavior is given little or no attention. I suppose yoga could be a similar metaphor where one’s flexibility is improved through routine stretching so the new normal range of motion is greater than the old.

In a spiritual context, recidivism can be described as reversion to egoic thinking – where one’s spiritual self, one’s Higher Power or God or whomever/whatever one holds as a power greater than themselves is subordinated to their ego-mind. One relapses in their consciousness so they think they are “in charge” and their God is there to serve their thoughts and their ideas.

A doctor friend who is a member of Alcoholic Anonymous (A.A.) shares a story of when he first joined the A.A. fellowship. After several months of fighting the simplicity of the process and constantly trying to “out think” a proven strategy to get sober, his A.A. sponsor told him he only had to get two important things at that time: “There is a God and it isn’t you.”

Our egoic minds want to think they are in charge. Once we have spiritual experiences and see the wisdom of accepting a wiser more powerful source of inspiration, and realize our minds can serve that source very effectively, the ego lies in wait for any opportunity to assert its influence to take the helm once again. This “spiritual recidivism” is a sure path back to the restrictive lives with which we are so familiar. No matter how well we decorate them, no matter how fancy the furniture or the paintings, a jail cell is still a jail cell.

Exercise those “muscles” that keep you in touch with your God, your personal Higher Power, if you want to remain a free soul, truly liberated. Establish new habits and routines, adopt or develop spiritual practices and positive attitudes that encourage you to maintain a healthier perspective on the appropriate role of your mind, not as captain of your ship but a very competent second mate.

Relapses may still occur, but they might be more temporary. Reversions may occasionally happen but they can be more easily reversed. But unlike government penal systems which can have huge consequences for backslides you can return to a liberated life by activating those same muscles or tools and begin those spiritual practices without the need to spend more time in your jail cell – regardless of how well-decorated it might be.

A Potentially Fatal Fallacy

You’ve heard of the “fatal flaw,” sometimes called the “tragic flaw?” It is the one thing people either ignored or forgot about when they set about to achieve something and failed. It is what the forensics people might determine as the primary “cause of death” of the ideal, the project, whatever. Aristotle might have called it hamartia which could connote a failure of morals, or character, or hubris. YourDictionary.com defines this flaw “as pride, in the character of the protagonist of a tragedy… leads to that protagonist's downfall.”

Fallacy on the other hand is “aptness to mislead…deceptive or delusive quality” as in “the fallacy of the senses.” It is a false or mistaken idea or opinion. YourDictionary.com defines is as “an error in reasoning; flaw or defect in argument; an argument which does not conform to the rules of logic, esp. one that appears to be sound.”

Now this seems so befitting to the paradigm of thought so widespread in our Western industrialized society, the misleading “fallacy of the senses” that tells us we are separate from one another, Nature’s resources are unlimited and conflict can be resolved with exacerbation rather than reconciliation. When we start examining this fallacy, it no longer becomes an interesting study of a fallen emperor’s chink, a Waterloo-like decision that brought an end to a regime or even a product launch that ruined a corporation. A fallacious worldview today can lead to extinctions like it does in Nature and collapses like what occurred to regionally isolated societies of the past. 

There’s no such thing as “regionally isolated societies” any more, at least not any modern societies. It might be argued if Western society’s current worldview continues to serve as its basis for relating with one another, continues to “not conform to the rules of logic, especially one that appears to be sound,” who’s “false and mistaken idea or opinion” continues to go unchallenged, a social collapse of unprecedented proportions could result. This would be the fatal fallacy of thought, the flawed thinking that was left unchecked until the evidence was so overwhelming it was too late to do anything but cry.

What do we tell our children? Our grandchildren? Their children? “Sorry, kids, we were too busy to notice.” Or, “Oops, I hope your generation does better than we did.” Well, guess what? Those conversations are already happening! Did you catch the 12 year old girl admonishing a large conference in South America last year on TV? Have you heard of thousands of conversations between parents and their teenage children at dinner tables everywhere? Thank God some of these young men and women possess enough awareness to start thinking differently, at least about environmental matters.

It would be different if changing mindsets were a very expensive proposition. Unlike many of the world’s problems, this challenge is not financial. All it takes is a willingness to think differently, to venture into inquiries that could challenge our beliefs, challenge our assumptions, push against our stubborn attachments to the way things have to be. The price for this change is not monetary. It is not material. It is largely a matter of ego.

Why do we continue living and working within an outmoded paradigm when it has been demonstrated how outmoded our exiting paradigms of thought really are? What a mistake it is to continue operating from their premises. Unimaginable possibilities await us if we dare to embrace new paradigms. So why do we persist in this fallacious thinking? If you answer “because we don’t know any better” that would be a lie given we’ve had people telling us this for almost a century so we could “know better” if we were interested in learning anything.

If your answer is “because we’re set in our ways” then shame on us for continuing a practice knowing it could be leading us to extinction. Sounds completely stupid? So does smoking cigarettes when you know if isn’t good for you. What about “it is too hard”? If this has any merit we must admit to being so addicted to the way we think we won’t consider changing even when it appears life-threatening. Like the alcoholic who often wants to stop and can’t, this third explanation may be the most valid. If this is so, then I propose, we tell it like it is and admit it!

We are left with the truth: we’re simply hooked on our way of thinking and either aren’t willing or don’t want to change. If this is the end game for humanity then at least we can go out in a blaze of glory like Butch and Sundance. Doesn’t sound particularly mature to me but, hey…. Party! Party! Party!

Are We Zombies Or Just Sleepwalking?

I had the pleasure to host social activist and environmentalist Van Jones as my guest yesterday for the Howard Thurman Forum Series. The format is similar to “Inside Actors Studio” which airs on the Bravo TV Network in which host James Lipton interviews a well-known actor with an audience of students at New York’s Actors Studio.

A sizable group of young people, mostly students, were in the audience to hear Van. Their presence definitely influenced the tone of the interview and the comments which followed. By the end of the Forum, it was fairly clear to most of us that we have been a disengaged citizenry for a couple of generations and that for any meaningful change to occur in the U.S., the new generation has to get more involved in the political process. Left to the people in Washington, even with the anticipated changes in the White House with the upcoming elections, things will only get worse. The systems is broken and no heroic figure is going to make much difference unless the system changes. It is also clear where this scale of change is going to come from: we the people.

We the people have abdicated our responsibility as citizens. Our forefathers and mothers made great sacrifices to create a country that could function effectively with checks and balances to maintain order and freedom. Many made huge sacrifices for their country. Nowadays, if we vote every few years we consider ourselves good citizens (the half of us who do vote). The rest is rhetoric – discussing candidates or issues along the way toward voting. Very few of us do any service for the nation such as Peace Corps or the military or even connecting with our elected officials. Most of us are disengaged, busying ourselves with relatively trivial matters like television reality shows, tabloid TV or radio, and fascination with our technologies. Regarding engaged citizenship we have essentially quit. We act as if we are asleep, impervious to the fact that we have the governments we deserve.

Van helped us see yesterday that many of us have been sleepwalking through our lives when it comes to our role as citizens in a democracy. He made an excellent point for the benefit of the younger audience members that they have a sacred responsibility to engage in the politics if anything new is going to occur, no matters who is elected to the White House in November.

The question we have to ask ourselves: can we wake up? Are we merely somnambulating (sleepwalking) or has something died inside us making us zombies, the “living dead” who are beyond recessitating?

These are questions we of the older generations need to ask ourselves now, while there is still hope for real change to occur with the upcoming elections. As Van so eloquently pointed our yesterday, any new President will fail at making real changes without an engaged electorate standing behind them – an electorate determined to fix the system, reform the way politics is done, even reinventing government if that is what it takes.

Whether you are an American or live elsewhere in the world, we are the change we’ve been hoping for. Like the U.S., our world has become too complex for any one person to be a hero and fix things. It will require many of us to get things working again, and that includes me, Van, those young students and you…yes, you the person who is reading this. Yes, you.

My Emails with Iran

In this past week, I connected with two Iranian futurists based in Tehran who are fellow members in Shaping Tomorrow’s Foresight Network. In our first year we have grown to nearly 1,300 members, mostly professional futurists from all over the world.

I invited these two men to engage in a conversation with me given the posturing of our two governments in recent years and the growing tension and talk of invasion by the U.S. I found myself deeply touched when I learned last week they were familiar with my work. I’m known in Iran? I suspect my surprise was largely due to a complete misunderstanding of what the people and the country are like. After all, I have never been there and have only known FORMER citizens of Iran, or Persia as it was called in its past incarnation, and a relative handful at that. As an example of my ignorance, I hadn’t realized Iran is not a Arab country. They speak Farsi and English.

The conversation has just begun, only a couple of days now, but I can already see we have much to learn from one another. One of the men sent me two documents yesterday; one was a 2002 open letter to Americans which he translated for a student-friend of his. It pleads for a creative, conscious and wise approach to resolving conflict rather than the saber-rattling and blustery rhetoric by both governments. Here is a link to the Letter.

The other document was a white paper created by Israeli intelligence on the subject of Iranian cultural values, self-image and negotiation style. He thought that while Israelis may be most critical and judgmental of Iran, I would still find their assessment interesting and informative. Indeed, I did.

I have invited each of them to post here if they so choose and invite anyone else to comment on this entry for the month of May. 

Liberating Ourselves From Our Slavemasters

In my newsletter this month, I wrote about liberating ourselves from the unwanted influences of all the systems in which we find ourselves - family, industry, schools, friends, work, location, race, nationality, religion, etc. Perhaps hundreds of systems find their way of influencing what we do and how we think and we are mostly unaware of theses forces.

New Dimensions Radio's Justine Toms emailed me after reading my editorial and asked:

You point out that emancipation "from insidious systems cannot take place until 1. we learn to recognize systems dysfunction and 2. we become more aware of the various systems affecting us. . . "

Good advice . . now, how do we do this? . . . after all, we are swimming in the sea of this dysfunction and, like fish in water, we are not aware of the very sea we are in.   To begin to actually name the various dysfunctions, and then to hear many points of view as to how others are going about dismantling them in their business and in their lives would be of interest to me.

Prompted by Justine's question I thought this month's blog subject could be sharing experiences others have had in breaking free of multiple insidious system influences.

I invite you to share your experiences or yoru challenges.

I also want to share this very inspriting video with you all: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229 .

Maintaining Good Attitudinal Hygiene: Getting Clean and Healthy - Mentally, Spiritually and Emotionally

Most of us pay pretty close attention to our physical cleanliness. We shower, brush our teeth and perform daily bodily functions with intention and consciousness. In the West, it is considered good personal hygiene and adds assurances we’ll remain healthy.

According to Wikipedia, “The term "hygiene" is a reference to Hygieía oder Hygeía, the Greek goddess of health, cleanliness and sanitation (Roman equivalent: Salus). Hygiene is also a science that deals with the promotion and preservation of health.

In some countries, personal hygiene has become more an issue of social acceptance or fear of offending others with annual sales of deodorant, lotion, mouthwash, powder and cream in the billions. But the hygienic focus is almost always physical. We pay close attention to our hair, teeth, underarms, genitals, nails and underarms – all parts of our physical bodies. Some of us exercise regularly, watch our diets and take supplements so we feel better and enjoy better health. But how much attention do we pay to our emotional, spiritual and mental health? What about our “attitudinal hygiene?”

How much attention do we pay to our intellectual diets? How discerning are we about what we read or watch on TV or hear on radio? What attention do we pay to the lyrics of the music we listen to or the talk shows and Sunday morning pundits we endure.

What degree of consciousness are we employing when we allow ourselves to become emotionally constipated, with suppressed feelings bottled up and turning rancid inside us? 

We take such care to avoid infections of our bodies yet most of us are so careless about exposing our thinking and feelings to infection from negativity, cynicism, resentments and imagined fears. How well do we nourish ourselves spiritually? Do we maintain our spiritual practice whether it is structured religion, private meditation or walks in Nature?

How would you rate your hygiene in these three areas of your life? This might be something to consider – perform an inventory of sorts. Where could you improve your health spiritually, emotionally and intellectually?

In seems to me that we’d have a much healthier society and a much better world if we spread the idea of good personal hygiene to include the entire environment around us, the people we spend time with, the physical space we occupy, the entertainment we consume as well as what we eat and drink. Good attitudinal hygiene offers us an opportunity to be healthy emotionally, spiritually and mentally as well as physically. As comprehensively healthy people we will more likely be making wiser more mature choices and, therefore, create a better future for ourselves, our children and generations to come.

Tragedy as Metaphor: How Dysfunctional Systems Can Be Fatal

Early last year I visited the San Francisco Zoo with a friend who was visiting from Germany. She had wanted to see the zoo and I hadn’t been there since childhood. Late one afternoon, we drove out to the beach where the zoo is located, bought tickets and set out on our adventure.

Even though it had been some time since I’d been to the zoo, I couldn’t help noticing the experience wasn’t at all what I expected. Surprisingly, I felt I had walked in and disturbed the people who work there, like I had intruded on their territory. Workers wouldn’t look at you as they walked by. Maintenance equipment was as much on display as the animals. There were places that would have been great for viewing the cats and the other wildlife but they were filled with wheelbarrows, hoses and other implements for tending the animals. I was well aware we had entered the grounds late in the day, perhaps an hour before closing, but they were still open! Why was I feeling so unwelcome, so intrusive?

As we were leaving the zoo’s grounds I realized we had been engaged with a bureaucracy, a system unused to being in contact with the general public. Yet this was a concession specifically intended for the public, especially children. How could such a dysfunctional system pass muster given its large public profile?

A day or so later I sent an email to our mayor, whom I had found to be more responsive than most of his predecessors, offering to deliver a two-day workshop on system dynamics similar to the one I had done last year for a graduate business school’s executive education program. The name of the workshop is “Recognizing and Curing Systems Dysfunction: How Organizations Behave and Misbehave” and I offered to present it pro bono for the City and County of San Francisco. There was no response, either from the mayor or from whomever he may have forwarded my offer to.   

Late last year, on Christmas Day, a tragedy occurred at the zoo which made the headlines around the world. Perhaps you saw the story. A young man who may or may not have been taunting the tigers, was killed by one of the magnificent cats when it leaped across the safety moat. She attacked three young men, who were later found to have slingshots in their possession, injuring one fatally. It was later determined the design of the cats’ enclosure was sub-par based on industry safety standards, so the management of the zoo, a private firm, appears to be complicit in this tragedy.

When police were summoned they shot and killed this beautiful 350 pound Siberian Tiger named “Tatiana.” The public was outraged, seemingly as much about the execution of the big cat as the young man losing his life.

Recently, a friend reminded me of mystical traditions that link great cats with power and large spirits, the embodiment of powerful spirit for which many cultures and traditions yearn. As she was talking I interpreted the death of this beautiful cat as a symbol of how dysfunctional systems suck the life from us, drain power and spirit from those who are in close contact with it. I could see the metaphorical irony in this: dysfunctional systems kill. They squelch the spirit, drain energy and contribute to decline in well-being and even death.

Think of all those people who work in systems sapping their “chi,” their spirit, their life force as they continue to endure conditions which are life-draining rather than life-affirming. Perhaps the story of Tatiana will inspire people who are putting up with work situations which are slowly killing them, like the parable of the boiled frog. Perhaps they’ll be inspired to either break free or transform their workplace to one that brings people back to life, performs at levels that excite everyone and allows for passionate engagement on the part of all who touch it, employees, owners, vendors, customers and, yes, even the animals!

A Gratification Society: Is It Driving Us to Extinction?

I am starting to write an editorial for my monthly newsletter, FutureShapers Monthly, in which I focus on the shift of paradigms society must experience to create a sustainable future. One of the  behaviors that will be changing when this paradigm shift occurs will likely be a reduced adolsecent demand for everything right away. We have become an “on demand society” and fully expect everything to be available to us now, right now! And the market accommodates this demand as things continue to move faster and faster to keep up with this mass obsession with “I want it now.”

Is this drive to gratification on demand healthy for us? Or is it serving as a palliative for our over-stimulated psyches leading us to becoming so obsessive about accumulating material stuff and experiences?

If there is any chance for us to transform to a sustainable society we must curb our propensity to obsessively consume. We will need to let go of this insatiable albeit adolescent desire for instant gratification.

As we accept greater responsibility for our reality, our world, we will pass through passages of emotional and spiritual maturity that we’ve all known only on a physical level. This is the transformation that awaits us as a species. This is the passageway to a new way of living and working together.

I welcome your thoughts.