Clarity through Altruism

"The world is our kaleidoscope, and the varying combinations of colors it presents to us at every succeeding moment are the exquisitely adjusted pictures of our ever-moving thoughts."
-James Allen

Boston seems like a village after a month in New York City but a booming urban metropolis after a month in Colorado. Why is this? A 65 degree day in November feels much warmer than a 65 degree day in July. Why? While circumstances certainly play a role in awareness, how would one distinguish between truth and illusion amidst varying circumstances? How do we know if our inner interpretation of the world is in accord with reality? I would like to propose that traditionally altruistic attributes of empathy and compassion, that are not ordinarily associated with the business world, can improve a company's perception of the market landscape. That the clarity with which a company perceives the market, improves as the company's guiding principles incorporate these altruistic elements.

Empathy may alleviate some of the challenges associated with perceptual difference. It helps a company identify with the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes of another person; customers or not. It helps us experience the world through their skin and reason through subjective issues with another value system. In order to truly empathize with another person, we would have to trust that their perspective is pure; untainted by superficial ideas and trivialities. Trusting another person enough to "know" that their lens will provide more clarity than distortion, seems to be a matter of judgment. But is it unreasonable to propose that empathizing with anyone provides insight into reality beyond what we experience on our own? I guess the only way to tell for sure would be to reassess the accuracy of our own perceptions after empathizing with another person. If the result on our own perception is positive, it may be safe to assume that we now have a more accurate interpretation of reality than before. If however, the result is negative, empathizing with this other person might ultimately have been distorting. A distortion here, however, must be carefully considered before it is discarded; resulting ultimately in more clarity. Accordingly, any empathetic thought or action either causes us to experience reality from another perspective, or forces us to consider the accuracy of that perspective by reassessing our view of reality.

Secondly, is compassion a result of empathizing with others? When seeing another person in pain, I would think that most people (including myself) would want to help them end their suffering. Fundamentally, why would we do this? Could it be because we can relate to another person's suffering on some level and would not want to experience such pain ourselves? The experience of feeling another person's plight is uncomfortable for most individuals and ending that discomfort would most likely involve ending the other person's pain. If it is a pain that we have never felt before, experiencing it vicariously would expand our perception of reality. Thus, if this empathy results in compassion, and compassion expands our perception of reality, it seems likely to bring about more clarity.

So if compassion is the result of empathy, and empathy helps us reconcile differences in perception, it would follow that compassionate people would have a more accurate view of reality than those who are indifferent to another person's disposition. Those benevolent few among us would not only be good Samaritans, they would reap the benefits of improved perception. It is interesting to note that compassion is viewed as an altruistic endeavor in modern consumerist societies. The compassionate qualities of kindness and generosity are antithetical to the selfish and egocentric outlines of the business world. However, if we consider the idea that compassionate ideals improve perception, the selfish paradigms that propel business today might consider reassessing the wisdom of their values.

And who knows? Altruism might ultimately even have a permanent place in the business world.

Virtualization

In today's enterprise-level data centers, virtualization is the term that describes the abstraction of tangible computer resources. It is essentially the separation of physical computing equipment (processors and hard-drives) from the applications that rely on them. A "virtual" application allows a piece of software compiled for a specific computer to run unmodified on different computers and operating systems. Even multiple operating systems can safely coexist on one physical machine. In an economic contraction such as the one we're currently experiencing in the U.S., the virtualization of computing resources is becoming increasingly important to organizations. Because of virtualization technology's ability to reduce costs and decrease reliance on physical hardware, a company's IT infrastructure doesn't rely as much on new servers and storage devices. Instead, it uses existing hardware to increase productivity. While such productivity gains are an obvious and near-term advantage in virtualization, the technology has considerable implications if we consider how the computing landscape will fundamentally change with the separation of physical resources from applications.

Consider first, that business innovation has accelerated in recent years with the emergence of faster technology deployment, more integration between disparate systems, and the rapid surge of world-class human talent into the high-tech industry. Because virtualization reduces the need for organizations to ramp-up expensive physical resources in order to deploy new technology, the adoption and use of new applications is much faster. As these new applications are integrated into a company's business processes, business capabilities are enhanced and overall efficiency increases. With the resulting improvements in productivity and collaboration, the business case for virtualization extends beyond cost savings and into organizational effectiveness.

Second, the architecture of an organization becomes more flexible as a result of virtualized applications. Businesses which experience "spikes" in IT requirements (ticketing agencies during big concerts, toy stores at Christmas, health-care data centers during flu season, weather centers during hurricanes, etc.) no longer need to design their IT architecture around their maximum computing requirements. With more reliance on virtualization, IT infrastructure can be made more resilient and handle demand spikes. Businesses can continue to operate without worry of exhausting their IT resources due to limitations in physical infrastructure.

Third, and most fundamentally, consider that the core of a business process no longer relies on a machine, but rather a piece of intellectual capital. What does this do to the business world in which we operate? Would the increased "liquidity" of intellectual resources in this cloud of processing power and data storage be bound by the same rules of supply and demand as all other economically driven processes? While it may sound rather far-fetched, I would like to propose that if a company's intellectual capital IS its product, and that intellectual capital is no longer bound by resource constraints in the physical realm, the traditional axiom of supply and demand is no longer applicable. If companies were able to break free from this fundamental productivity contraint simply by shifting their products to those of a more intangible nature, the business landscape would be changed forever.

Business productivity that relies on physical materials tends to be linear in relation to infrastructural investments. The increased data liquidity that virtualization enables changes the way that data centers and consequently businesses, architect themselves for the future. In addition to aforementioned gains in productivity and technology deployment, the fluid and highly cooperative nature of virtualized environments will inevitably lead to symbiotic relationships between different business applications...an evolution of sorts. It is interesting to note that we have already observed such transformations in biological systems...but that's another blog post.

Market Correction

What exactly is a market correction? What is it that the market is correcting when this happens? Today, one might argue that assets have been overvalued, and the irresponsible trading of financial derivatives resulting from these overvalued assets have led us to the current market correction. So what the market is actually correcting is the fact that it is trading on value that may not actually exist. So I guess the next natural question would be: What is considered to be value that does exist? Merriam Webster defines value as "a fair return or equivalent in goods for something exchanged". If we apply this definition of value to asset values in the financial context, we would have to define the value of financial derivatives as the equivalent in goods or services for an asset that a particular derivative represents. In applying this to an example then: I get a loan from a bank to buy a house for $1m. The bank takes my loan and chops it up into 10, $100K pieces with a higher future value since I am going to pay the bank interest on this loan, and whoever buys it from the bank wants to make an investment in its future value. These 10 pieces (or mortgage-backed securities) are traded in the stock market with other such (future-value based) financial instruments. If I ultimately default on my loan and do not pay the bank, the bank would then no longer have the financial value necessary to fulfill its obligations on the securities it has traded. In this scenario, when did the bank determine value? Was it when they chopped up my loan and sold it, or was it when they determined whether or not I was credit-worthy enough to get a $1m loan? If they didn't think I could pay the loan, they probably would never have given it to me in the first place. However, since they wanted my business because I was willing to pay them interest, they took a "risk" on me. So the value here must lie in the risk right? The less risk that the bank would have to take on me (determined by my credit-worthiness), the more valuable my business would be to them. Conversely, the more of a risk they would have to take on me, the less valuable my business would be to the bank. Isn't this all so simple?

So I ask again. What is a market correction? What is being "corrected"? Is it the value that the bank places on risk? If so, someone is not doing a very good job at evaluating my credit-worthiness. In order to accurately value the risk of giving me a loan, the bank would have to be able to predict the future; whether or not I would be likely to default on my loan. According to current methodologies on determining credit-worthiness, the best indicator of the future, is the past. Given my credit history (and probably liquidity and other such metrics), the bank would likely be led to conclude that I have excellent credit worthiness and thus, am a low risk candidate for the loan. However, how good are we at predicting the future based on the past? Has this methodology (of basing future predictions on past events) succeeded throughout history with enough frequency that we would base an entire market system on it?

The truth is that predicting the future is not possible. We can reduce our risks with these predictions by leveraging knowledge from the past but by placing a monetary value on that reduction of risk, we are creating a market system that will always be plagued by market corrections and other such crises. After all, what one person thinks the future holds is likely to be very different than what another does. Further, the criteria that one person uses to predict the future may not necessarily be the past, but rather something very VERY different. Spiritual guidance even. I have a theory here: People who base their life purpose on spiritual guidance are more credit worthy than those who don't. Don't believe me? I'll bet you a million dollars I'm right.

Cognitive Surplus

Throughout most of the 20th century, media has proliferated throughout society in a unilaterally, where viewers have consumed media but never interacted with its creators. Clay Shirkey, in his 2008 presentation at the Web 2.0 conference, "Where do people find the time?", argues that for the first time since the industrial revolution, people have become accustomed to interacting with media while consuming it. In the past, most people have been consumers of media, with only a select few have it producing it. The internet is now allowing amateur producers to distribute and share media effectively at very low costs. Since the internet has become a common vehicle for media delivery, the level of interaction, and thus, the collaboration between the consumers and producers has grown. More importantly, the audience now view media with the expectation of direct interaction with its creators. Similarly, creators expect immediate feedback from their audience. This collaboration in the media landscape is resulting in growing bodies of knowledge that would have never existed if people were unwilling to devote less time to broadcasted media.

If we consider the amount of time invested by people to generate content who would have otherwise exclusively been media consumers, it would be an interesting exercise to measure their "cognitive surplus". Shirkey defines cognitive surplus as the amount of intellectual capital that could have been used for productive purposes but was instead diverted towards unproductive areas. To put this in terms of a simple example, if all people watching television during a given year were using that time to create a piece of intellectual capital (such as that in a Wikepedia article), how much more knowledge could be proliferated throughout our society?

So some simple math...

Pure production (Wikipedia): All of wikipedia represents approx. 100m hours of thought (IBM statistic)
Pure consumption (Television): 200B hrs. of TV watched in the U.S. each year (US Census statistic)
Latest English article count in Wikepedia (9/20/09) - 3,038,292 articles
100m hrs. / 3,038,292 articles = ~33 hrs. per Wikipedia article
200B hrs per year / 33 hrs. = ~6 million Wikipedia articles per year
So...6m articles + 3,038,292 = ~9m Wikipedia articles

So if everyone in the U.S. stopped watching TV for an entire year and instead used that time to create Wikipedia articles, we would be able to triple the size of Wikipedia's body of knowledge within 1 year. That's a lot of cognitive surplus!

Culture & Efficiency

"Dancing with the feet is one thing; but dancing with the heart is another."

-Jamaican Proverb

Can emerging economies be characterized with this truism? Culture is rarely addressed when assessing the dynamics of economic output. However, economists and business-people alike must start considering culture when analyzing the potential of growth markets. Cultural homogeneity has resulted from having to accommodate contrasting personalities within a single, harmonious community. Complying with conventions of mannerism, courtesy, and even fashion can silence innovative minds. In abiding by these codes of civility, are individuals suppressing their creativity? By infusing a culture with extreme diversity, is process efficiency and short-term productivity sacrificed?

Consider China; with its deep historical roots alongside considerably less genetic diversity within its population. In the modern world, China has been the epicenter of manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction through economies of scale. When it comes to taking a proven process, and refining it until maximum benefit has be extracted for the lowest cost, China has developed a level of expertise found nowhere else in the world. Their mastery of manufacturing has become so pervasive that we can observe it in everything from computers to clothing. Such efficiency requires a lot more than well-designed factories or reliable materials suppliers. It requires similar ideologies and parallel thought paradigms among the workforce. With 98% of China's population being "Han Chinese", there is a high level of ethnic and cultural unity in the country. In fact, a study conducted by the National Center of Biotechnology Information showed that Han sub-populations in different regions are genetically close to local ethnic minorities. Is it a coincidence that a country this homogeneous has been able to master efficiency and repeatability?

Contrast this with a distinctly different culture: The United States. The "Melting Pot", often touted as the most racially, ethnically, religiously, and genetically diverse country in the world which coincidentally, also boasts a high proportion of free thinkers and non-conformist eccentrics. With such an eclectic population, how does US manufacturing efficiency compare to China's? While the U.S. is currently the world's largest manufacturer (as of 2008), this may not be true much longer. Just 4 days ago, it was announced that Chinese manufacturing is likely to surpass the US within the decade. While economists might attribute such a shift to cheaper labor, lower taxes, and favorable foreign exchange rates, culture is rarely considered to be a explanation of why Chinese manufacturing is so successful. To illustrate; the US has had a ratio of manufacturing output to GDP between 16% and 19% since the 1940s. Productivity gains during this time have largely been the result of increased automation and "outsourcing". China, on the other hand, has readily invested in manufacturing with human capital in addition to automation. 350,000 additional engineers join the Chinese workforce each year, for example.

In light of this, what kinds of disciplines is the US currently excelling in? Innovation-centric outputs such as music, film and art, seem to thrive in the US. In these disciplines, creative vicissitudes define productivity and individuals are granted the luxury of time and resources. With its credit-leveraged prosperity and obsession with "cool", the US provides such an atmosphere quite effectively. Not surprisingly, this country is the ganglion of the world's media and entertainment industry, and generates creative input for pop-culture internationally. In film, music, fashion, and often art, the US often defines the standard. Does the abundance of cultural diversity here drive this creativity? Moreover, does reduced cultural homogeneity impede our manufacturing efficiency?

Irrespective of the many opinions on this matter (and I'm sure there are many); in considering the economic shifts we are observing in our world today, any economist would be remiss if he/she did not consider the cultural context of an economy before assessing its productive potential.

Biomimicry

Has nature already solved many of the challenges that mankind is facing today? As technological evolution increasingly interferes with the delicate balance of our ecosystems, may we turn to existing biological processes for solutions to technologically-driven problems? While historically, technology has solved problems with more applied science and automation, we have begun to reach the limits of this approach. Toxic chemicals and perfunctory mechanics now underlie almost all new technology. Life, on the other hand, has evolved for ~3.8 billion years, and creates the foundation upon which all biological evolution has taken place. As a result, all technologies created during this time have existed within the paradigm of biological evolution. Through the manipulation of materials, physical, and chemical states, technological evolution has taken a decidedly different approach - one that largely ignores the refinement of nature's design, and the balance of its ecosystems. In the 20th century, technology has trended towards even more reliance on raw material extraction, and their formation into innocuous new compounds. If our current rate of environmental degradation leaves any doubt, this trend is not favored in nature.

According to Czech philosopher Radovan Richta, technology evolves in three stages: tools, machine, automation. This evolution, he says, follows two trends: the replacement of physical labor with more efficient mental labor, and the resulting greater degree of control over one's natural environment, including an ability to transform raw materials into ever more complex and pliable products. Let's think about this for a second: "Transform raw materials into ever more complex and pliable products" and "exert control over one's natural environment." hmm...

So if technology allows us to exert control over our environment, are we now the arbiters of nature? If we can manipulate our surroundings to such an extent, that the forces of natural selection no longer determine survival, has biological evolution stopped? In considering this, it is important to note that dependence on technology is almost a prerequisite to survival for many people today. Much of the middle east would not be habitable without technologically driven infrastructure for water. The world's 6.9 billion people could not be fed without genetic engineered plants for higher crop yields. Hell...I might not make it through a Wednesday without my triple grande nonfat macchiatto in the morning.

It is important to note that there is a very serious conflict of interests here. As technological evolution continues to manipulate the environment by transforming raw materials into complex products, its effect on the balance of natural ecosystems is destructive. While our cultural needs have evolved to rely increasingly on technology, our physiological needs as organisms remain largely unchanged since the Cambrian Era. In light of this, one must ask: Is the current form of technological evolution sustainable? I would argue that a fundamental shift in our view of technology is required to address this conflict between nature and technology. I *would like* say that a fundamental shift in nature is required to address our reliance on technology, but alas...natural design is the product of 3.8 billion years of refinement and above all else, has stood the test of time. Would it be possible then, to leverage natural design principles to "evolve" existing technology?

Enter - Biomimicry. Biomimicry is an ideology that takes inspiration from nature to help make technology more sustainable. Read about it here.

The Brotherhood of Man

For 7 days every year in Pamplona, Spain, men from all over the world get together to celebrate the Y chromosome. The Running of The Bulls in San Ferma is an event that not only tests a man's ability to outrun and protect himself against an angry bull, it hinders his ability to do so with the massive quantities of Sangria consumed the previous evening. "Why would anyone do this to themselves?" is a common question that is often asked about this event.

Imagine the following for a moment:

Its 7:30 in the morning. You're still a bit tipsy from a night of debauchery and lacking your usual coordination. Your mouth still sweet with Sangria and the intoxicating scent of vomit, sweat, and urine surround you. You hear a rocket; signaling that six bulls ("Los Toros") and six steers have been released to kill you. With the Sangria still sloshing around in your stomach, you run as fast as you can, but rough cobblestone roads and slow runners in front limit your pace. The bulls run at about 15 mph (fast) and if you find yourself in a section of the run with no balconies to hang from or barriers to climb, you just might get gored. If you're actually able to outrun the bulls, you will complete the run and arrive in a bullring with about 100 other equally drunk men and a roaring stadium. Don't relax just yet...because once the last bull enters the ring, the gates will close and you will be locked in with nothing but the red and white clothes on your back and maybe a newspaper.

Ever wonder what a bunny rabbit stuck in a cage with a Kodiak bear feels like?

For the next hour, a series of angry bulls will be released upon you and your bull-running brothers. As everyone torments the bulls with newspapers and drunken ramblings amidst a thundering stadium, it gets angrier and angrier until it finally tires....at which point this bull is taken in and another "fresh" bull is released. This entire hour involves chasing the bull with a newspaper or running for your life (literally) from one end of the ring to the other. The experience of being petrified, encircled by thousands of hollering fans is nothing short of surreal. The ground reverberates each time the 2,000 lb. bull collides with a person, wall, or steer. If you touch the bull or grab its horns, you will be attacked by EVERYONE ELSE in the ring and the crowd will cheer on as you lay in the dirt like a defeated gladiator. Battle scars are admired and getting trampled wins you a helping hand. People getting tossed 10-15 feet in the air and run over are common occurrences and if you are able to leave the ring without at least a bruise or two, consider yourself a lucky man. After the last of the 7 bulls have been unleashed upon the men and the gates open, there is an overwhelming feeling of camraderie. High-fives abound - you may not know anyone except your friends, but for next five minutes, every man in that ring is your brother. So why would anyone ever do this to themselves? Well, its for that last 5 minutes.

Intrinsic Love

Is Love just another emotion similar to happiness, compassion, anxiety, or doubt? Ancient Greeks had four distinct words for love: agape, eros, philia, and storgē. (Translations cited below). In English, however, the word love encompasses all of the complex feelings associated with its different interpretations. With emotions ranging from general affection to passionate romance, the all-inclusive nature of this word carries but a modicum of clarity, distilled only by the context in which it is used. Love between two brothers with its camaraderie and shared understanding, is very different than love for parents, or love that a man feels for his sweetheart. While some of these feelings must overlap, the intensity of emotions involved, and even the nature of intent behind those emotions can vary quite dramatically. To linguists, the English definition of love might seem very broad; failing to consider the variations of love and how one might experience it differently with different people.

But what if the experience of love is the same, irrespective of context? What if the array of feelings associated with love actually result from society's need to differentiate between what feelings are appropriate for different types of relationships? Do infants feel love for their brothers and sisters the same way they feel love for their parents? In this view, love for a friend would be no different than love for a parent or a sibling. While the difference would lie in varying intensities of love, the fundamental understanding of love between all people would be the same. Every love would be, for lack of a better word, intrinsic. The all-inclusive english term "Love" then, would not be broad at all. It would be quite accurate.

• Agapē refers to a general affection. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.

• Eros is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. It can also apply to dating relationships and marriage.

• Philia means friendship. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, and includes loyalty to friends, family, and community.

• Storge means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.
  

Simplicity

Before the days of oil-based economies and billion dollar monopolies; when vehicles for transportation were manipulated with gravity and momentum, rather than by corporate greed and political stampedes, our world was run with uncomplicated, plain vanilla mechanics. Transportation was a means to a purely functional end, rather than a symbol of social rank. The droves of people sitting in their oil-thirsty automobiles driving to nearby locations are a reminder that complex technology without foresight can be extremely wasteful. As we have become more reliant on our cars, we have failed to account for the impact they have had on our natural resources. The movement towards increasing complexity in transportation has not been accompanied with enough foresight to ensure its long-term sustainability. As a result, we now find ourselves in a situation with wasteful means of accomplishing the simple task of small-scale (1-5 miles) transportation. Our morning commute is just one such example.

Every once in a while, an idea comes along that presents a very practical solution for a large-scale, mainstream problem. Longboarding for urban transportation is one such possibility. Almost as fast as a bicycle but much more maneuverable and portable, a longboard is a practical and simple alternative to walking, bicycling, and even short drives. Unlike skateboards designed for ollies and tricks, longboards are much safer and more stable, even on less than perfect roads. They are quiet, easy to use, and do not require any more infrastructural development than the existing bike lanes and sidewalks that are already common in most cities. Beyond learning how to push and turn, longboarding is easy enough that almost any middle-aged office-goer in a suit and tie could half their walking time to work and reduce their reliance on more carbon-intensive forms of transport. In comparison to a bicycle, it is skirt-friendly and doesn't have any greasy gears or sprockets to dirty your pants. Learning to use one requires much less commitment (and money) than that needed for a bicycle or a car and for an innovation with so many benefits, it is almost suspiciously simple!

The problem of small scale transportation has been addressed by a myriad of relatively complex innovations ranging from Smart cars to Vespa scooters. As a resident of Manhattan, I have been intrigued by the recent popularity of "Segway" (www.segway.com) transporters. An electrically powered short-distance "personal transporter", this rather complicated piece of technology relies of accelerometers and gyroscopes to to balance itself and its passenger. It is powered by lithium ion batteries which can be recharged at proprietary charging stations. While it is often marketed as a "zero emissions vehicle", it is important to note that the energy required to charge it comes from your local coal-fired power plant and relies on the same antiquated, carbon-intensive energy infrastructure that emits millions of tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Having ridden one, I would say that its probably more difficult to ride and less safe than a longboard. While it does propel you at about 10mph, this is approximately the same speed as a longboard. In considering the complexity in the design of a Segway (accerlerometers, computing power, lithium batteries, etc.) one must ask; what is it about the urban congestion problem that warrants such a technologically sophisticated solution? And what additional transportation benefit would this solution have over a longboard, to justify its environmental impact?

Given the practicality and benefits of the longboard for small-scale transporation, it is remarkable that such a practical solution to the urban congestion problem has not achieved as much mainstream market penetration as the Segway. With such simplicity in its favor, it is unlikely that this is due to any functional deficiency in longboard design, but rather due to the perception of skateboarding in the public eye. I would like to suggest that the stigma associated with skateboarding (juvenile, rebellious, anti-establishment, etc.) is the primary obstacle to the adoption of longboarding by the mainstream market. To illustrate, I wear a suit to work on most mornings and having skated up to my building and walked into the office with my longboard, I have had colleagues question my "maturity". Even some Police departments, having adopted Segways for their patrollers (See: http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,37515-1%3B52931-3,00.html) likely did not consider the longboard due to this stigma.

The shift toward simple transportation is not a comfortable one. In order for the mainstream market to adopt longboarding, it will have to shed predispositions and adopt a new thought paradigm. One that values originality, function, community, and the beauty of natural esthetic. In this view, creativity and spontaneity will prevail over uniform technical standards and complicated machinery. An example of such principles in action today is company called Bustin Boards (www.bustinboards.com). Bustin is dedicated to the cause of environmental preservation and natural design. As artistic innovators of the longboard, they are successfully overcoming the stigma that longboarding faces with originality. A growing community of longboarders and artists committed to environmental preservation, Bustin represents a model of ideals for a sustainable future. Much respect Bustin!

The truth is that simpler is, in fact, better. Its more efficient, more reliable, and more carbon neutral. Complexity requires the kind of foresight that architects, engineers, and scientists have never had in the past, and this is what has led us to the unsustainable practices of today. There is an overwhelming need for our society to revert back to its roots and stop relying on resource-intensive technologies with marginal benefit. This shift can only be made with a commitment to the environment under a new thought paradigm, such as that exhibited by Bustin Boards. While the longboard is one way for society to make this shift, there are many more if we shed our biases and think openly. In doing so, I'm sure that many people will observe what I did; that the most compelling solutions to large-scale, mainstream problems are unexpectedly simple.