stargeek
HEEEE'S BACK: WHAT'S COMING UP ON HOW TO SAVE THE WORLDHEEEE'S
|
Apologies for my unannounced silence since
last Saturday. The power supply on my Dell failed, draining the
battery
so I couldn't even back up my files to another computer. I just got it
back now. More on this spectacular failure next week. This week has
given me the chance to work on my novel, The
Only Life We Know, and my book Natural Enterprise, as well as a chance to catch
my breath and think about (a) what to blog about next, and (b) what to
do with myself once the three books are finished.Here are some of the things I'm planning on blogging about in the next few weeks. If there's anything else you'd like me to write about, let me know.
|
 In Beyond Civilization, Daniel Quinn
says:People will listen
when
they're ready to listen and not before. Probably, once upon a
time,
you weren't ready
to listen to an idea than now seems to you obvious, even urgent. Let
people
come to it in their own time. Nagging or bullying will only alienate
them.
Don't preach. Don't waste time with people who want to argue. They'll
keep
you immobilized forever. Look for people who are already open to
something
new.
When presenting a new
idea, you don't have to have all the answers. It's better to say 'I
don't know' than to fake it. Make people formulate their own
questions.
Don't take on the responsibility of figuring out what their difficulty
is. We each internalize information differently. If you don't
understand
a question, keep insisting they explain it until it's clear. Nine
times
out
of ten they'll supply the answer themselves.
Above all, listen.
Your close attention is sometimes more important than your
articulateness in winning converts. And learning is always a good
thing.
When I've talked to people about the ideas I've presented in this blog, I get the sense that maybe 10% really understand and appreciate what I'm saying. Perhaps another 40% are ready to listen and want to believe, but either my inarticulateness or their internalization mechanism garbles the message. After all, saving the world (or, as one recent commenter 'geo' put it more accurately "changing how humans live so we as a species can continue to survive") is not easy or obvious, or we'd all be busy doing it. This reading list is for that 40%, in the hope that better writers than I can convey more clearly and compellingly what we need to do and why. The remaining 50%, I suspect, are not ready. Five years ago someone gave me The Spell of the Sensuous and I gave up after five pages -- I just wasn't ready. Here's the list -- 56 books and articles that forever changed my worldview, and my purpose for living:: What Life was Really Like Before Civilization: Revisionist History
Radical Analysis, Radical
Solutions (these are the most important readings, but you
probably won't 'buy' their arguments unless you've first read much of
the material above)
Toolkit for Change: Knowledge We Can Use to Save the World
|
 During
my ten years as a Chief Knowledge Officer, I spent a lot of time
trying
to figure out how people should use knowledge, and to some extent how
people learn, but it never occurred to me to develop an overarching
'theory of knowledge' until I decided to write a book called The Cost of Not Knowing. This
article summarizes that theory.This is not a new epistemology. I am disinterested in academic arguments that use language, a clumsy and artificial abstraction, to try to justify theories that to me are needlessly complex, counter-intuitive and of no practical use. For students of philosophy, and I'm sure this will come as no surprise to my regular readers, my theory is consistent with Maurice Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological view of epistemology. For those interested in the philosophical basis for this theory, I would recommend David Abram's Spell of the Sensuous, much of which is devoted to explaining Merleau-Ponty's philosophy. I'm merely interested in its practical implications, in work and in life. My theory starts with learning. Learning is the process of direct and indirect experience and observation, and knowledge is simply the personal, collected, internalized result of learning. We learn in different ways (fig.1): The best way is through active participation, which engages all our senses in the learning experience. Next best is observation, where we see or hear but where some of our senses are not engaged. The least effective way is second-hand, through communication of reports from someone else. When a squirrel learns, by personal trial and error, how to defeat a baffle on a bird feeder, this is powerful knowledge, well retained and employed. When that squirrel instead watches another squirrel show how to do it, the knowledge is less valuable, less credible. The observing squirrel may not be able to replicate the other squirrel's moves, and the method may not be the best one for the observing squirrel, which may have a different body-weight or dexterity than the demonstrating squirrel's. And if one squirrel merely tells another, unfamiliar squirrel of the presence of food in a bird-feeder 'over there' that can be accessed by navigating around the baffle, that knowledge is even less valuable. The squirrel listening may doubt whether the baffle was or even can be overcome -- perhaps this second-hand report is merely bragging or a ruse on the part of the reporting squirrel. In human activities, we now get almost all of our knowledge second-hand, through books, newspapers, television and online, and its relative lack of credibility causes us to develop and assign a trust 'rating' to different sources, based on how often, in our experience and that of others we trust, that report has turned out to be accurate or useful. A blogroll is one manifestation of that need to rate the trust-worthiness of second-hand sources of knowledge. Schools, unfortunately, now provide almost all learning second-hand, and it is not surprising that 'field trips' are so loved by students -- an experience to learn something first-hand. It is also not surprising that the most effective and credible form of second-hand report is the story, which conveys knowledge in a way highly analogous to the way we might have experienced it personally. Why do we learn? The squirrel learns in order to survive -- by direct participation at first in play and then, often by observing its parents, in gathering food, building a nest etc. The squirrel draws as well on instinctive knowledge, which is coded in its DNA as an evolutionary advantage, which 'teaches' it the knowledge of its ancestors, for example to 'freeze' when it senses a predator species, which is often more effective than fleeing predators whose eyesight is attuned to motion, more than shape. That instinctive knowledge also tells it at what point, as the predator approaches, to flee, based on its ancestors' cumulative learnings of that point at which the probability of evasion through flight begins to exceed the probability of non-detection by the predator. Instinctive knowledge doesn't need to be learned, so it doesn't appear on fig.1 above. We're born with it. In natural systems, where the community, the physical area in which animals spend their entire lives, is small and almost completely 'knowable', we learn only to survive and make a living, and because nature has evolved us, as an adaptive mechanism, to find learning fun (fig.2). In such closed systems, we can get almost all the knowledge we need from direct experience and observation, and from our instincts -- there is little need to rely on second-hand reports as a source of learning. As that physical area that we need to know to survive increases, we can no longer get by with direct experience and observation, so we need to evolve languages to convey more and more knowledge second-hand. Our society becomes inevitably more interdependent, and in addition to survival there are now three more reasons to learn:
I had dinner last evening with some of our neighbours, and we were talking about some of these immense problems, and one of my neighbours, a student of history, said that no problem in history has ever been solved until it got so bad for so many that there was a spontaneous revolution. What would it take, he asked, before these problems -- overpopulation, famine, oppression, violence, disease, resource scarcity, pollution, war, suffering, cruelty, misery -- got bad enough that people would rise up and demand immediate resolution? I think the massive unrest and strife we see everywhere in the world indicates that we have already passed that point. However, in order to have a revolution there must be (a) consensus on the need for change, (b) consensus on the change that is needed, and (c) a simple process to bring about that change. Historically, the solution has been political -- to oust, violently if necessary, an identifiable oppressor, the cause of the problem, and replace him (or them) with new leaders committed to the consensus solution. And although billions have shown that they see Bush's corporatist imperialism, and the oligopolists' 'free' trade and globalization, to be causes of some of the major problems we face, once we get rid of these scourges, most of the biggest problems will remain. These more intractable problems have no identifiable enemy and, as yet, no consensus solution. They are systemic problems that can only be changed by a radical change to our entire global economic and political systems. And changes to these massive, entrenched and leaderless systems have historically almost never come about by political means, but rather by introduction of disruptive technology innovations that undermine the existing system, as the agricultural and scientific and industrial revolutions did. It is tempting to believe that scientists, not collective human energy and collaboration, are the only hope we have for saving us from ourselves, of rescuing us from our colossal ignorance. What is the cost of not knowing when, even if we could communicate enough knowledge to achieve global consensus on the need for change and the change that is needed, there is still no simple process to bring about that change? If we were to magically and suddenly be able to bring knowledge to bear that would persuade the vast majority of people on the planet that unless we quickly reduce human population below one billion and reduce each human ecological footprint to no more than one eighth of the current Western footprint, would that be enough to precipitate a combination of voluntary abstinence, intense social pressures, and (over the objections of the very powerful elite) laws and taxes and sanctions, to ensure that these targets were met? We did bring about the end of slavery this way, and the end of the Vietnam War, and in much of the world women's suffrage. Is the intractability of our greatest problems really the lack of a simple, known solution, or is it rather the lack of consensus on the problem, and of its severity and urgency and what needs to be done to find a solution? -- The cost of not knowing. Until the reactionary cult of leadership took over business thinking a few short years ago, there was a consensus that the best way to run a business was to agree on and articulate the business' objectives, get each employee to define their role in achieving those objectives, remove the obstacles that prevented them from fulfilling those roles effectively, and otherwise stay out of the way and trust the Wisdom of Crowds to produce better results than the arrogance of a few. Could the same principle, applied to the world's most challenging and threatening problems, work in society as a whole? And if not, why not? It is the examples of slavery and the 60s peace movement and women's suffrage that have caused me, insufferable optimist that I am, to think that there is hope. The solution of reducing human population by 90% and ecological footprint by 10% (in the third world) to 90% (in the West) is daunting, but it's also a simple, clear, measurable objective. And if we have six billion people working on it, convinced that this is what must be done to save the world, there's no reason why it shouldn't be achievable. Women choose not to have babies if they know pregnancy would put their lives in danger, why wouldn't they choose likewise if they knew it put their world in danger? Would knowledgeable people agree to participate in an annual lottery for the right to have a baby, and live with the results, as they now compromise so many of their 'rights' for the greater good? Would they agree to a 100% tax on all wealth beyond sustainable consumption levels, to be distributed to the poor? Would they shut down permanently businesses that knowingly damage the environment? Would they abandon urban sprawl and big centralized governments in favour of self-managed, self-selected, self-sufficient communities if it could be shown that these are more socially and environmentally responsive, and responsible, political units? Would they wrench power, by citizen and consumer action, from unrepentant corporatists who refused to give up their excessive wealth and influence? It is hard to give up old paradigms. I know a lot of people that see the salvation of the world in global government, to which all states will cede authority. I see no reason to believe that bigger more powerful governments, which largely got us into this mess, and which are more removed from the people they supposedly represent, would do anything but make the problems worse. But as the Internet has shown, the real power in any system remains at the ends: The front lines, the communities, where people learn by direct experience what works and what does not, what makes sense and what does not. It is as individuals and as members of small communities that we define ourselves and establish our belief systems and commit ourselves to action and to change. As citizens and consumers and members of communities, if we only knew, we could accomplish what needs to be done. It is time for a bloodless coup, the taking back of power and authority from central corporatist political and economic institutions and its reinstatement in local communities and in individuals. To bring it about, we need only accomplish these four daunting tasks:
The cost of not knowing is the end of our world. It's too great a cost to pay, and the answer, if we use the power of knowledge, is within our collective reach. |
 Last week I listed
forty actions
-- technological, social, entrepreneurial, political -- that could
create a new
'tipping point' to restore our planet's, and our, health, and replace
the thirty thousand year old, well-intentioned but fatally flawed and
unsustainable culture called
civilization. These forty actions would undermine civilization and
render it obsolete, not by taking us back to hunter-gatherer culture, but by taking us
forward to a
post-civilization culture in balance and harmony with nature. This transition to a new culture --which I have called Relater-Sha rer culture -- could, I argued yesterday, take decades or even centuries to accomplish. It will start slowly, as more and more of us abandon the existing political, educational, economic, business, religious and media systems and institutions, and build a new culture with the building blocks shown in blue in the chart above. Increasing natural scarcities, pressures and disasters (factors shown in green above) -- all consequences of civilization's excesses and failures -- will begin to dissuade adherants of civilization's perpetual growth mantra, and create a further sense of urgency for a sustainable, Relater-Sharer culture, as the established institutions of civilization continue to prove themselves unable to adapt. I also made the point yesterday that the mechanisms by which we usually try to bring about change -- politics, law, economics, and formal education -- really aren't up to the job this time, and although sympathetic changes to these systems won't hurt, ultimately they're neither sufficient nor necessary to take us forward out of the mess we have created for ourselves and our world. For that reason, they're not represented in the building blocks of Relater-Sharer culture shown above. And although these artefacts of wealth and power will be wielded, as always, by those most determined to maintain the status quo, they ultimately won't be effective against builders of the new culture who will simply opt out of these bankrupt systems, which are as unnecessary in a Relater-Sharer world as they were in the Hunter-Gatherer culture that preceded civilization. Several readers have said this analysis is informative but not helpful -- it doesn't indicate what each of us, as individuals, can do that will at least not make things worse, and which could make the transition a little less painful and a little quicker, perhaps, for our descendants. Here is such a list, a combination of the forty actions in last week's post and the Save the World Roadmap I published last year, but taken down to the personal, practical, present-day level. Answers to the question: What Can I Do Now?  Trust your instincts:
Reconnect with them, listen to them, and don't let other people tell
you you're stupid, crazy, irrational, or immoral. If you're unhappy
it's for a reason. Your gut
feeling, your intuition, is written in your DNA, and it's the source
of
knowledge that allows every living creature to know
what to do. And it worked for man for the first three million years of
his life on Earth as well -- before language, before laws, before
codes
of right and wrong -- and these were arguably the most successful,
leisurely, and happy years of man's existence. Listen to them, and
they'll tell you what to do. Listen, Learn, and Teach
Others:
Spend time both in nature, away from civilization, and with people,
listening and talking about things that matter. In nature, reawaken
and
reconnect with your senses, focus each sense until you really see,
hear, smell, taste, feel, connect with the rest of the living organism
called Earth. Open yourself up to the joy, and learning of nature. Pay
attention. Re-learn to wonder. Then, 'back' in civilization, have the
courage to talk openly to people about things that really matter to
you. Ignore the raised eyebrows and comments about your seriousness
and
intensity -- you'll find most people care, too. Then listen, don't
preach. Leave behind one
practiced, important (to you), articulate idea or thought with the
other person, like planting a seed. Learn to tell stories -- it's the
only effective way to teach. But share what you know. When you're
talking to someone who strongly disagrees with you, listen, don't try
to convert them. There's a reason
why they feel so differently from you -- ferret out and really
understand what that reason is (don't assume they're ignorant or
stupid). Then sow a single seed of doubt. And read quickly and
selectively, but don't let it keep you indoors, or away from people.
The real learning is outside. So travel when you can, but forget the
hotel chains and chain restaurants. Live with the locals, talk to
them,
try different things, listen and learn. Learn and Practice Critical
Thinking:
Challenge 'established wisdom', especially your instincts tell you
it's
dubious. Learn your vulnerability to spin, and how to recognize and
discount it. Learn to avoid the intellectual fallacies of groupthink
and arrogance, but also avoid black hat thinking.
Develop emotional
intelligence, but never
use it to manipulate. Re-Learn How to Imagine:
The school system and most business environments drive it out of us,
and it's easy to get caught up in your own left brain. It can also be
frightening: imagining literally means putting your thoughts into
images. But it's powerful, motivating, educational, and creative.
Imagine -- picture it -- what
it happening in Sudan where genocide is happening right now. Imagine
what is happening in the factory farms before you decide what to make
for dinner. Imagine what you could be doing if it wasn't for your
boring, meaningless job. Imagine a better way of doing something, a
better way to live. Imagine what could be. Your instincts will tell you what to do
next. If we can't imagine, we can do anything. That's what got us into this mess. Use Less Stuff:
Consumerism is doubly addictive -- you get the fleeting pleasure of
acquiring something, and then you have to work harder and earn more
money for The Man so you can pay off the debt you incurred to buy it.
Learn to live a Radically
Simple
life -- buy better quality stuff that lasts longer, make your own
meals
instead of using processed foods, think before you buy, don't get into
debt (only buy when you have the cash in your account), buy local
rather than imported goods (especially stuff from countries that have
poor social and environmental standards), complain about excessive
packaging, recycle, reuse, buy used, share tools with neighbours, turn
off the lights, cover the pool, use energy-efficient lighting, keep
your tires inflated, carpool, walk or bike instead of driving -- you know what to do. Make a list,
draw up a schedule, and do it. Stop at One:
Consider the virtues of a single-child family. Learn why children in
such families are the happiest and most successful. Better yet,
adopt. Become Less Dependent:
Learn how to fix things and make things instead of always having to
buy
replacements. Cut your own lawn, and perform other services yourself,
even if you can afford someone else to do it. Self-sufficiency is good
for your self-esteem, reduces consumption and waste, helps the
environment, and is good exercise. Become an Activist: Pick a
cause you care about, research what needs to be done, use the Internet
to organize, and do it. But follow Peter
Singer's advice
to make sure your time is well-spent. Especially the parts about not
getting caught up in administration, and not trying to change, or
enforce, laws. The most fruitful activism is all about informing and
educating people, making them aware of their options, and their power
as citizens and consumers, often one person at a time, until enough
people have changed their minds or their behaviours to change the
system. Volunteer:
Rather than sending guilt money, go out and spend time helping those
suffering or in need. Pick a charity that you really care about -- the
soup kitchen, the animal shelter, whatever. Get involved, and talk to
the people you're helping. Don't get talked into fundraising
activities
-- really get out there and do something with your own two hands.
You'll learn a lot, you'll feel better, you'll make a difference, and
you just might find out something important about yourself. Be a Role Model: Talk to
others about, and show others, what you're doing,
not just what you're thinking. People are far more inspired by a good
role model than a good speech. And if people tell you you're a good
role model, get out there and flaunt it in the right places -- if
you're a woman engineer, go out to the schools and tell girls what a
great career it is. If you're doing half the things on this list, you're a great role model -- inspire others
to follow your example. Be a Pioneer:
If you have the time and the passion for it, pick a new cause, use the
Internet to find like minds, do your homework, organize, and do
something completely new. Start a community energy co-op. Set up a
'virtual' market for local crafts, organic or free-range foods, or
whatever needs better local distribution. Establish a community-based
business. Or create a whole community, self-selected, self-organized,
self-sufficient, with people you love, and show the world how much
more
sense this makes than living in a community of strangers and driving
long distances to work for someone you dislike so you can buy stuff
you
don't need made by other strangers even unhappier with their lives
than
you are. The new culture will be built bottom-up, one community at a
time, and the sooner we start finding a community model that works
well
in a post-civilization society, the better. Find or Create a Meaningful
Job:
Each of us has talents, interests, and time. It's amazing how many of
us spend all our time doing work that we find uninteresting, and which
doesn't effectively use our talents. We become wage slaves,
underemployed and bored because we're convinced or afraid that a
better
job doesn't exist. And we work so hard at it we have no time left to
challenge that conviction or fear. That's what the corporatists are
counting on. Don't give them the satisfaction. Find the time to figure
out what you really would like to do with your life, how you'd really
like to make a living. Then research the possibilities, talk to people
who are doing it, find out what's possible, learn what's involved in
creating your own business (and don't listen to accountants or MBAs).
If we were all doing jobs we loved, with people we love, and in charge
of our own careers, the corporatists would have no staff, and their
environmentally devastating empires would crumble. Share Your Expertise:
If you have talents, specialized know-how, or technical or scientific
skills and knowledge that could be useful in solving birth control,
clean energy, disease prevention, conservation, animal cruelty,
pollution and waste, local self-sufficiency, non-animal foods,
'more-with-less' product streamlining, self-organization,
collaboration, consumer and citizen awareness and activism, animal
communication, conflict resolution, mental illness, and other issues
contributing to environmental deterioration, create 'open source'
spaces where others can access what you know, contact you, and
collaborate with you and with others to solve these problems. Be Good to Yourself:
You're not going to be any use saving the world if you're depressed,
unfit or stressed out. Don't take the problems of the world
personally,
or blame yourself for them. If news or failure to accomplish something
gets you down, go out and do something you enjoy. Eat healthy and stay
fit, but don't make a religion of it -- indulge yourself from time to
time. Learn how to prevent illnesses instead of waiting for them to
occur. Spend time with people who like you, and accept their
compliments warmly. Love yourself, realize that you can do anything
you
want to do. Appreciate that you're part of the solution, and that
makes
you extraordinary. Infect Others With Your Spirit and
Passion:
Love openly, completely, as many people as you can. Be emotional,
except in those very rare occasions when dispassion is needed. Smile
excessively. But refuse to tolerate cruelty, suffering, unfairness,
bullying, jealousy, apathy, despair, cynicism or hate, in yourself or
others -- alleviate it, disarm it, discharge it, whatever it takes to
stop these negative emotions and activities, and appreciate that
they're signs of sickness, not evil. A period of great change is always turbulent and unsettling, and the transformation to a Relater-Sharer culture won't be achieved in our lifetime. So we will need to be, like all pioneers, patient, indefatiguable, and aware that the beneficiaries of what we do starting now will be our descendents, future generations who will only know us from stories. As human beings, and as the species that created this mess in the first place, we owe them no less. We know, instinctively, that that is why we're here. |
 If
you're a regular reader of this blog, you probably know that I'm
opposed to unregulated 'free' trade, very worried about the
extraterritoriality of the WTO, NAFTA, Davos and other corporatist
captives, strongly opposed to domestic corporations 'offshoring' jobs,
using influence with the Bush regime and other right-wing governments
to circumvent social and environmental laws and responsibilities, and
a
great believer in taking the pledge to buy local, and in community
self-sufficiency.At the same time, I'm a strong supporter of the UN and other multi-lateral NGOs, and I believe that we each have a responsibility for the well-being of all the people and creatures of this world. Some readers have said this view is inconsistent, and I wasn't quite sure how to respond to such charges. Fortunately, Peter Singer, in his recent book on global ethics, I'll have more to say next week about Bush's fraudulent and despicable Earth Day media blitz, and the major media's shameless lack of critical evaluation of the utter nonsense that his propaganda machine has been churning out this week on the environment -- newspeak of Orwellian proportions. The first part of Singer's book deals with environmental responsibility, and his prescription for increasing it -- immediate ratification of Kyoto by the US and other holdout countries, and introduction of an emissions trading mechanism to make the realization of Kyoto feasible (subject to the need for some oversight on the disposition of the proceeds of such trading when it involves autocratic governments). The second part of the book deals with the global economy, and Singer adroitly tears apart the Economist's (and other neocons') naive assertion that economic globalization somehow benefits both rich and poor countries. He then goes on to prescribe a substantial reform of the WTO and the GATT, which could actually lead to more equitable distribution of wealth and more efficient production of economic goods, while safeguarding human rights, labour and the environment. Unfortunately, the multi-national corporations and corporatists who hold sway in the WTO would never tolerate Singer's prescription, since it would entirely divert the benefits of economic globalization from their pockets to those of the world's poor. The third part of the book deals with international law, and Singer lashes out at Bush for his unconscionable refusal to ratify the International Court of Justice, and for the UN's continued hesitancy to accept a duty (not a right) to intervene in situations of genocide and other humanitarian crises, even within a single nation. Singer is sanguine about the limitations and dangers of 'global government', but supports strengthening the UN to enable it to act as a 'protector of last resort', and including in its mandate the responsibility to supervise elections in all member nations. The fourth and final part goes back to ethical principles and proposes that countries must, in this world where national boundaries no longer have any logistic meaning, set aside national interest and embrace, once and for all, global interest, impartially. That does not mean cultural homogenization, but imposes a responsibility for the reduction of inequality, both of economic resources and personal rights and freedoms. Always the pragmatist, Singer concludes by worrying out loud about how the responsibility for a global ethic could be managed: It
is widely believed that a world government would be, at best, an
unchecked bureaucratic behemoth that would make the bureaucracy of the
EU look lean and efficient. At worst, it would become a global
tyranny,
unchecked and unchallengeable. These thoughts have to be taken
seriously. How to prevent global bodies becoming either dangerous
tyrannies or self-aggrandizing bureaucracies, and instead make them
effective and responsive to the people whose lives they affect? It is
a
challenge that should not be beyond the best minds in the fields of
political science and public administration.
I'd like to believe that this was possible, because if it isn't, we're in serious trouble. We cannot expect national governments to set aside parochial interests, especially when this entails accepting a responsibility that would, for the richer nations, inevitably lead to a drastic redistribution of wealth to poorer nations and hence a sudden and sharp reduction in, at least, economic living standards (if not necessarily well-being). But as John Ralston Saul has so eloquently argued, larger organizations and institutions, whether public or private, are almost always, and inherently, less efficient, less agile, more resistant to change, more hierarchic, and less transparent than smaller organizations. So the challenge is to achieve the best of both worlds, having organizations of global scope and authority and responsibility, but broken up into sufficiently small, autonomous and dynamic units that they are sensitive, resilient, responsible and responsive to the people and communities they serve. We can only hope that "the best minds in the fields of political science and public administration", wherever they are, are up to the task. |
 A year ago I predicted that Civil War would break out in Iraq as soon as the occupation force left, no matter how long that took, and that such a war would probably end in the division of the country into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia nations. As the Bush Regime beats a hasty retreat from its latest military, humanitarian and PR disaster in the Mideast, that prediction looks more and more likely. In fact, the civil war has already begun, as various factions are already massing militias, assassinating each other's leaders in the provisional government, and aligning with local tribes, warlords and foreign military and intelligence supporters. This week's New Yorker contains the latest insights from award-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. None of the factions, he says, is happy with ex-Baathist hitman Iyad Allawi, the man selected to be interim Prime Minister when the US occupation force formally transfers power next week. The group least happy with recent developments is the Northern Iraqi Kurds, who, in the latest accord, have lost the guarantee of autonomy that had been promised them by the occupying force. They are agitating for an independent Kurdistan region (see yellow on map above), and the Israeli military and intelligence services have a large force in this region training Kurdish commando units. The Kurds have the largest military force in the country, the 75,000-strong peshmerga army, and their leaders recently wrote to Bush that if their autonomy rights are not restored they will not participate in the new Shia-controlled government. Watch out for an attack by the peshmergas on Kirkuk as the first sign of all-out civil war. This flashpoin t city, Iraq's 5th largest, is part of the historical Kurdish homeland, and the centre of one of the richest oil areas in the country, but was 'Arabized' by extensive resettlement under Saddam Hussein. Hersh quotes an American military expert who predicts "If Kirkuk is threatened by the Kurds, the Sunni insurgents will move in there, along with the Turkomen [the Turkish ethnic minority in Northern Iraq], and there will be a bloodbath." Kurdish military action will also likely provoke joint response from Iran, Syria, and (until recently unaligned) Turkey, as all three countries have sizeable populations and areas dominated by ethnic Kurds, who believe these lands should be part of a greater Kurdistan. Although Wolfowitz apparently favours an independent Kurdish state in Iraq, and the Israelis would be delighted to have the Kurds as an ally in the region, the official US position remains that Iraq should remain united. That's easy for them to say, now that they are leaving -- they can blame the civil war and break-up on the new Iraq government and on the UN, who will oversee it. There is a very real threat that the civil war will quickly spread beyond the borders of Iraq. Turkey, which has become decidedly less pro-Western in recent months, has said bluntly "We tell our Israeli and Kurdish friends that Turkey's good will lies in keeping Iraq together. We will not support alternative solutions". And Saudi Arabia, always the most reluctant, unlikely, and taciturn ally of the West, has been the target of insurgents who are making it harder and harder for the rich Saudi elite to hold back the fiercely anti-American and anti-Western sentiment in the country and stay on the sidelines. If forced to take sides between an Islamic alliance of Iran, Iraqi insurgents and Syria on one side, and America, Israel and Kurdistan on the other, there is no question where its sympathies would lie. Its role, or willingness to sit out a civil war on its Northern border, will be pivotal in determining the length and outcome of the war. Look to them to try to look neutral, while financing and arming the Sunnis, while Iran will be much more overt in its political and military support for Iraq's Southern Shia. What is particularly frightening is that there is little doubt that Iran either now has, or will soon have, nuclear weapons capability, so that, as in the India-Pakistan conflict to the East, it is likely that nuclear bombs will be threatened by the area's bitterest enemies, Israel and Iran. In both countries a threatened (but not actual) nuclear attack on the other country or its Iraq allies would probably be politically acceptable to the citizens at home. And both countries' governments would welcome a foreign conflict to divert world and domestic attention from their controversial, unpopular and morally questionable activities at home. It in unclear to what extent the Sunni Moslems of Central Iraq will be willing to coexist with the Shia Moslems of the South. While Shia Moslems make up 60% of Iraq's population, except for Iran they are hugely outnumbered by Sunnis in the rest of the Mideast, notably in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. And the Sunni central section of the country contains most of the oil wealth and pipelines. When the common enemy, the occupying force, leaves next week, the gloves between the two factions may come off. That would pit Iran against the other Islamic countries in the Mideast, a situation it will likely go to great pains to avoid. Expect some back-room dealing between Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, which may prolong the conflict but will probably ultimately produce a partitioning of the country. All of this is likely to mean a long period of unrest and continued death and destruction, as a country with three peoples who dislike and distrust each other, after a hiatus under Saddam and another under the hapless and underresourced Americans, finally get down to determining the future of their country. In such cases, Balkanization has been a global trend for more than a century, so I will predict that there will be, more or less, three countries, uneasily coexisting, after a prolonged and brutal war. The South may combine with Iran, the Kurds will agitate for additional territory in Turkey, but probably settle for what they can get, and the Centre will be squeezed to share oil revenues and infrastructure with both, and become, Yugoslavia-style, all that remains of what was once a much larger Iraq. The sad thing is that every country except Iraq itself stands to gain from such a war. America can say it got rid of Saddam and then left (people will forget the intervening year of incompetent occupation soon enough, especially if the neocons lose power in November so military involvement isn't further prolonged). Israel will have a new ally in Kurdistan. Iran will have entrenched itself as the preeminent power in the area. The Saudi government will once again be able to be vocally anti-American and keep its people happy. Even the Turks will be able to tell its Eastern Kurdish residents that if they don't like their status in Turkey they can now go to their own new country next door. The military contractors will all make a fortune, the mercenaries will have jobs for their short lifetimes, and everyone will have Iraq as an excuse for ignoring their own domestic problems. The sticking point, of course, is the oil. The Western addiction to oil is now being matched by a similar thirst from China. The corporatists will, as a result, get free rein, no matter who is elected, to rev up arctic, offshore and other eco-sensitive and wilderness area drilling, the coal industry will finish off Appalachia and start strip-mining and burning lots more coal in other countries, and the nukes will be dusted off and fired up. At the same time the cost and unsustainability of this addiction will start to dawn on North America, which will follow Europe, at last, in accelerating use of renewable energy, and upping the price of hydrocarbons to discourage their use (and grab needed tax dollars in the process). Whether that's enough to forestall an energy crisis unlike anything we could imagine is unclear, but I don't see the intermittent sputtering of supplies from Iraq being enough to tip it one way or the other. My final prediction is that, just as in Afghanistan, the West will lose interest in what's happening in Iraq long before the people of the country settle their differences and truly begin rebuilding their shattered lives. But at least now, that inevitable, bloody process can start. |
 I hate commercials. They're an insult to the intelligence. They're grating. They're repetitive. They're unimaginative. They're a colossal waste of money that could be spent on something useful to society. Mostly, they're depressing -- they show the low level of intelligence that big corporations can profitably pander to, to hawk their dreadful, overpriced crap. And they show the low level of creativity of Western society -- with untold millions of dollars to spend in a medium that can present almost anything imaginable, this garbage is the best they can come up with. How can these bloated corporations and slimy advertising agencies be surprised that the biggest hit of the last television season was TIVO -- a tool that finally allows us to skip their god-awful tripe permanently? And what can be more pathetic than millions of people watching a football game each year just for the ads, which are mostly for companies that sell third-rate mass-produced beer and other products that are either bad for you or manufactured in third-world sweatshops anyway? Why get so worked up about this? Why don't I just turn them off? Because they're one of the engines of corporatism, the means by which, from a young age, we're brainwashed to believe that our possessions, what we buy and wear and eat, determines our identity, our value and rank in society. And because, just like politicians who bribe us with our own money through 'tax cuts' (which are in reality simply service cuts), corporations in their advertisements are pressuring us to buy their product with our money. The cost of advertising, which can amount to up to 80% of the 'cost' of a brand-name breakfast cereal or sneaker, is passed along to us, the consumers. And we pay it because (a) the ads that we're paying for coerce us into believing that their brand name is somehow worth the hugely inflated price, and (b) the huge market share that this coercion brings allows these brand names to monopolize retailers' shelf space and drive those that produce small, local, reasonably-priced products out of the market. Such oligopolies control every industry in our economy. What's the answer? The usual solutions to deal with this problem are to boycott the overpriced, overhyped brands and the goods of socially and environmentally irresponsible corporations and oligopolies, to educate ourselves on alternatives by belonging to organizations like Consumers Union, and to pledge to buy local. These are good ideas, but they are not enough, by themselves, to reach a tipping point to bust the oligopolies, make expensive and deceptive ads unprofitable, and squeeze the hidden inflationary cost of exhorbitant ads out of the price of the products we buy. What we need to do is to take back the airwaves, to realize that the media bandwidth is a public resource and it should be owned by, and for the interests of, the people, not corporations and advertisers. As the owners of the airwaves, we should allow them to be used only for public purposes. As radical as it may seem to those of us in North America (it's not a radical idea elsewhere in the world), advertising should be prohibited on our airwaves -- it is not in our best interests. How then should programming be funded? Publicly, with the budgets for programs determined by a public foundation with a mandate to support a mix of entertainment, cultural and information programming, and guided within limits by what viewers actually watch, and by a code to be inclusive, politically and culturally balanced and courageous, and to encourage creativity and investigation, and stretch the limits of the media and the minds of the people. Yes, this would be paid for by tax dollars. But remember, we're already paying for it. Not only would public funding of the airwaves let the people, not the advertisers, determine what we can and should watch for our money, but the profligate waste of billions of dollars in advertising could instead be spent on real programming. And the taxes that pay for the programs would be progressive (income taxes), based on ability to pay, instead of regressive (consumption taxes), based on how much you've been duped to buy. Because of the savings on advertising, the cost (and hence price) savings on products would more than offset the cost of publicly funded programming. We'd end up with, almost certainly, better, more varied, commercial-free programming. The cost of many consumer products would plunge. Oligopolies would be unable to sustain their stranglehold, making many industries much more competitive, opening the door to more small, local, entrepreneurial businesses with the commensurate boost in jobs, and rewarding innovation more and brand less, which would benefit the whole economy. To those that find the idea of public ownership of the airwaves too radical, think about information and the arts as a public good -- like education, health, parks and public spaces. The neocons want to 'privatize' all of these things, too -- run them for corporate profit and to hell with what the public wants. Most of us can see that in education, health, parks and public spaces the benefits of public ownership and stewardship in the people's interest far outweigh the 'efficiencies' of private, corporate ownership. We need to fight back against the greedy corporatists -- in the private sector and in government -- who try to bribe us with our own money and denigrate the value of public goods. They're every bit as great a threat to our democracy as terrorists. P.S. Last week CBS refused to carry the Moveon anti-Bush spot. Since those that control the media, our airwaves, won't allow you to see this important message, you'll have to see it here. Too bad tens of millions of others won't have that opportunity. |
 Thanks to
Torontonian AllSeasons for
providing this simple list:Peanut Butter Canned Fish Baby Formula Mac & Cheese Cereal & Bread Soup Pasta & Sauce Rice Fruits & Vegetables It's the list of suggested items on the brown paper bag from the local food bank. "Your grocery list is someone else's wish list" it says above the list. Speaks for itself. And the very next blog I visited was another Torontonian, Daily Dose of Imagery, who, to my astonishment, had just posted the extraordinary shot below.  Check out these two great blogs, and then...well, you know what to do next. |
 Just
got back from the McMaster World Congress on Intellectual Capital and
Innovation, where I made two presentations. I'll have more to say
about
the Congress in a few days. In the meantime, I welcome any Congress
attendees that have found their way to How to Save the World. I'd like to direct them to:
|
 The N
YT reports:
"With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the
United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking
proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global
economy, according to a report made public today by the International
Monetary Fund. In nearly 60 pages of carefully worded analysis, the
report sounded a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the
United States, questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration's tax
cuts and warning that large budget deficits posed significant risks
not
just for the United States but for the rest of the world."I told you so. Historically, this kind of fiscal mismanagement, and the commensurate warnings from the IMF if ignored (and the Bush administration has already said it will ignore them), trigger the following consequences:
This is not an exaggeration. Ask anyone in a country that has faced it. And while no one in the world wants to see this happen in the US (because it will have a domino effect, pushing the whole world into a depression), the world cannot afford to allow any country to borrow wildly beyond its means. Bush is playing brinkmanship here, rolling the dice and hoping that the economy will somehow recover and achieve unprecedented and sustained record prosperity for at least a generation to repay his staggering debt, before global investors lose their nerve and stop lending to the US, and the IMF is left with no alternative but to step in. The Times reports: "Though the International Monetary Fund has repeatedly criticized the United States on its budget and trade deficits in the last few years, this report was unusually lengthy and pointed...Fund officials warned that the long-term fiscal outlook was far grimmer, predicting that underfinancing of Social Security and Medicare would lead to shortages as high as $47 trillion over the next several decades, or nearly 500 percent of the current gross domestic product in the coming decades." This is the first warning from the IMF. It will be ignored, as it was in Argentina. The consequences, for all of us, will be devastating. You know who to thank. |
 There has been a lot of discussion lately, at least in moderate and left-wing circles, about the growing evidence of the Bush Regime's deliberate abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, on the basis that respecting it compromises the 'war on terror'. The best report was Friday on Bill Moyers NOW on PBS, which included a lengthy interview with Scott Horton, the lawyer for the NY Bar Association, about the Association's report on the Bush Regime's arguments for ignoring the Conventions, and their implication for the safety of American troops, and the integrity of international law. The report was commissioned in part because of concerns expressed by the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) office about alarming and inconsistent instructions that military personnel were receiving about non-application of the Conventions. These concerns stemmed from a whole series of classified memoranda from the very top of the Bush Regime, justifying widespread setting aside of the Conventions on flimsy grounds, notably a memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo developed to pre-justify systematic contravention of the Conventions. Or as Newsweek puts it "a legal framework to justify a secret system of detention and interrogation that sidesteps the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions." There is a great deal more on this story. The NOW site above has links to additional stories. And Joe Conason at Salon.com has a good summary of it this week. So the question is: Why is John Kerry not raising this as a serious campaign issue, a defining distinction between his policy and Bush's? In the interview with NOW, Horton says that all the major media, especially the TV networks, have refused to provide significant coverage of this issue because "it is too complex to be understandable or of interest to the public." This is an astonishing position for the media to take, and a total abrogation of their journalistic responsibility. So, for the benefit of these media, allow me to make it simple, so that even a media mogul could understand it:
If we reserve our outrage and only prosecute those on the front lines that follow the orders they are given, and even then only when there are provocative photos, and if by our inaction we actually encourage those that commission the illegal and dangerous acts, give the orders, and then hide behind executive privilege and secrecy, what does that say about us? It's time for John Kerry to speak up. Photo: Interrogation room at Guantanamo, where Bush has declared that no prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions. |
 Virginia
reader Myke Myers kindly
brought to my attention the work of his fellow Virginian William
McDonough.
McDonough is an architect and designer who has garnered a lot of press
for his bold yet pragmatic view of design. In a recent interview with
New Scientist he says:Consider this: all the ants on
the planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of
humans.
Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years, yet their
productiveness nourishes plants, animals and soil. Human industry has
been in full swing for little more than a century, yet it has brought
about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature
doesn't
have a design problem. People do... McDonough maintains four websites: His firm's, his partnership's, his own, and his intelligent design
site. The sites are as effectively designed as his buildings -- easy
to
browse, productive, engaging, and advancing the cause (the media are
invited to select from ready-to-plagiarize materials that simplify
writing about McDonough or his businesses). He's won awards as a
visionary and environmentalist, and his firm's designs have won awards
for eco-efficiency. And he's written a book, Cradle to Cradle
(itself made of recyclable polypropylene, not paper), with colleague
Michael Braungart, that explains the vision that underlies all his
work. It is, simply: Learn from, and
imitate, nature -- nature knows how to design and build things right,
everything recycled, zero waste.The Earth's natural systems can probably support a few hundred million of our species, but soon there could be 10 billion of us... Eco-efficiency, where you try to reduce everything to zero, is not much fun. And nature itself is not that efficient. It's effective. Take a cherry tree in the spring. It's not efficient - how many blossoms does it need to regenerate? But it is effective: it makes cherries. We celebrate the cherry tree not for its efficiency, but for its effectiveness - and for its beauty. Its materials are in constant flow, and all those thousands of useless cherry blossoms look gorgeous. Then they fall to the ground and become soil again, so there's no problem. We can celebrate abundance where it is ecologically intelligent. From my designer's perspective, I ask: why can't I design a building like a tree? A building that makes oxygen, fixes nitrogen, sequesters carbon, distils water, builds soil, accrues solar energy as fuel, makes complex sugars and food, creates microclimates, changes colours with the seasons and self-replicates. This is using nature as a model and a mentor, not an inconvenience. It's a delightful prospect. When I'm working with business people I talk business. We talk about how much money can be made or saved, because that gets their attention. We never try to convert someone who is calcified: we never try to teach mules to play the violin. It sounds terrible and the mules don't like it. This is the kind of thinking we need -- assuming we can somehow solve the fact that there are at least ten times as many people on the planet as it can healthily support, and that our culture, and its political, legal and economic systems are utterly dependent on an unsustainable concentration of wealth, abuse of power, ever-accelerating growth in consumption of resources, and subjugation of human will and dignity. McDonough calls himself an optimist, and thinks we can turn everything around by just redesigning our world. But I think sooner or later in this century, whether we solve the population and culture problems quickly and intelligently, or go crashing into the wall of eco-catastrophe, we are going to need to radically redesign and rebuild our culture, our economy, and our social systems. We can only hope that with guidance from people like William McDonough -- and also listening to nature and our own instincts -- we will design and build the next human culture more responsibly and intelligently than we did the current one. So that those of us lucky enough to live in that brave new world will know only balance, beauty, harmony, abundance and peace. Just as our ancestors lived for three million years before we invented civilization, and just as every other species on our world has always done. Imagine. |
 I've
always been a game player -- cards, pool, board games, and outdoor
games and sports. For me, it's not about competition, or winning. It's
about playing. The attributes
of the best games are:
|
 Winter World, the latest book by Bernd Heinrich, whose books Mind of the Raven and Why We Run I've reviewed before, is not as ambitious nor as eye-opening as his previous works, which focused on animal intelligence, endurance and sensitivity. It's more laid back, and that's perhaps fitting for this time of the year when the deep freeze here in Ontario seems to be interminable. Heinrich's lovely illustrations, like the one above, instil in the reader profound respect and love for the book's subjects -- the many animals who winter outdoors in the Great White North. The book is mainly about adaptability. It explains how birds, mammals, amphibians and insects are able to survive and even thrive in relentlessly cold and snow-covered lands. The chipmunk above, for example, builds a 12-foot burrow system that includes a nest chamber three feet underground, several food storage chambers, and escape tunnels as well as the main channel. They hibernate, not when it's cold, necessarily, but when there's a low food supply. Hibernating mammals like the arctic squirrel awaken and warm themselves up to their usual 37º body temperature periodically during the winter, for no apparent reason except to get REM sleep. My friend the beaver, creator of the fine work next door to us (a bog), builds a conical lodge that looks much like a tepee and functions similarly. Up to ten feet high, in three feet of water, it freezes solid in winter, protecting the beavers from the elements and predators, with a small air vent at the top. Entrance is only from under the ice, which is why beavers cut trees and drag them to the pond so they are accessible from under the ice all winter long (beavers don't hibernate, and eat up to 50lbs of wood per day each). Wren males build the nest framework, and in some cases build multiple nest frameworks. Then the females choose their mates, and do the interior lining and finishing on one selected nest, to seal the marriage. The book is an engaging read with some amazing stories. At its heart it is also a mystery. There are many methods that Northern animals use to conserve energy, and science is able to show how in combination they allow so many species to live comfortable lives in what we would consider inhospitable surroundings. Heinrich's mystery is the golden-crowned kinglet, a tiny (not much more than 1" long with feathers, weighing 4-6 grams), energetic bird that is seen periodically in small groups in Northern winters. These birds defy Heinrich's scientific explanations and investigations -- with such tiny weight and size and such huge energy use they should simply not be able to survive in cold climates. The mystery remains unsolved -- at least until Heinrich's next book. |
| A
friend of mine in executive recruiting is looking for a substantial
number of consultants in, believe it or not, business process
re-engineering. Requirements include a good general knowledge of the
discipline, willingness to travel very extensively, and an ability to
deal comfortably with senior executives. The positions are mostly
full-time, starting ASAP, and the work is all over North America.
Salary is in the high five figures Canadian. Probably of greatest
interest to the young and unattached, but I thought I'd ask anyway. If
you're interested, e-mail me your CV, any
requirements/conditions, and any companies you don't want to receive your info.
|
 Last year I waded through Jeremy Rifkin's The Hydrogen Economy and wrote a blog post that explained what's promising about hydrogen as a fuel, and its two major drawbacks. I used two charts, reproduced here, to explain how it works and what's holding it back. The chart above shows the energy economy we have today. Red boxes are non-renewable, polluting and environmentally damaging energy sources and green ones are clean and renewable. Whether we use hydrocarbon fuels or electricity to light, heat and cool our homes, it's likely that non-renewable, damaging sources are producing it. Our cars likewise burn fossil fuels, and although hybrid cars are certainly an improvement, they still depend on fossil fuels to create ('reform') the hydrogen that the fuel cells convert into electricity. The chart below shows the energy economy in twenty years, if we can solve the two major dilemmas of the hydrogen economy.  Under this scenario, hydrocarbons are replaced by solar, wind and other renewable, non-polluting, non-damaging energy sources. The central hydro utility is replaced by a local energy co-op, which produces energy for your community from its own solar collectors, wind turbines etc. The compressed hydrogen used to power next-generation pure hydrogen vehicles is produced from some of this electricity, and distributed through local service stations. The excess electricity produced by these cars can be used to provide light, heat and cooling to the home or sold back to the local energy co-op. The cars themselves will have no engine, no pedals, clutch or gearshift, make no noise and produce no harmful exhaust. The entire process will require no burning, no pollution, and no grid at the mercy of multinationals and sheikhs. What are the two catches? First, the current cost of electricity produced from non-renewable sources is very expensive, and the process is cumbersome and not yet terribly efficient. Even more problematic is the $100 billion cost of building the infrastructure to generate, distribute and store the electricity and hydrogen, obsolescing a comparable amount of existing energy infrastructure, and probably causing some consternation to and resistance from the owners of that infrastructure.  Yesterday the University of New South Wales
predicted that by 2010 a new generation of photovoltaic
'harvesters' based on titanium dioxide ceramics will both collect
solar energy and
use that energy to produce compressed hydrogen from water. A 10m
square
array, such as that depicted at right, mounted on just half the
households in a sun-rich country like Australia, could produce the
entire country's energy.This would allow an even more distributed, decentralized model than that depicted above: With each household able to produce its own energy, the local energy co-op might be nothing more than a virtual market, and the need for local service stations selling or even producing compressed hydrogen would be obviated. We'd all change from consuming to producing energy. The university has even higher hopes for the titanium dioxide technology behind this advance: They believe it will allow innovations in other areas such as "water purification, anti-viral and bacteriacidal coatings on hospital clothing and surfaces, self-cleaning glasses, and anti-pollution surfaces on buildings and roads". Anyone know anything about titanium? I know it's a metal, but is it plentiful and easy and clean to extract? Is it recyclable? Durable? Toxic in landfill sites? I sense a bit of grandstanding and breast-beating by UNSW here. Is there another catch they're not telling us about? |
(Warning: some financial math ahead.) A Ponzi scheme, named after its early 20th century inventor Carlo Ponzi, is a form of pyramid scheme. Basically it involves selling a nearly worthless security to a small group of investors, with the promise of great returns if they promote the security to more investors, and so on, ideally, forever. Like any pyramid scheme or chain letter, of course, it eventually collapses when it runs out of suckers. The first ones in get rich, and the last ones in (much greater in number) get shafted. As we all know, the stock market is focused on the short term, and fluctuates wildly in response to a single quarter's earnings, external economic events, even rumour. If you look at it holistically and long-term, however, it has all the markings of a century-long Ponzi scheme, the most lucrative, and potentially most devastating, in history. Let's take a look at the US S&P 500 as a surrogate for the entire stock market, the entire market for equity securities of listed public corporations. The index goes back to 1917, but was revamped in the 1940s and recalibrated so that the index for the average of 1941-43 was 10. It slowly rose to 100 over the next 50 years, and then to 1000 over the next 12 years. This broad index earned, in 2003, about $55 per average share of the component securities, using GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles). So at its current level of about 1100, it has a P/E (price-to-earnings) ratio of about 20. That means investors are willing to pay $1100 now for a share that will theoretically 'pay back' $55 next year, and hopefully successively more in future years, to justify the 'present value' of $1100. To think of ir another way, it's like a bank charging you $55 this year, $65, say, next year, and so on for at least 50 years, as 'interest' on a loan of $1100. The 5% interest in the first year isn't very attractive for such a risky 'loan', but since future 'interest' will be dependent on (hopefully rising) earnings, there is the prospect of a very lucrative return eventually. So the S&P 500, like all equities, is said to 'discount expected future cash flows'. A general rule of thumb says th |