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.

Financial Myopia

Today, the United States finds itself disillusioned by an idealistic image of prosperity. Having molded a society based on single-minded profiteering, only to be let down by an economic collapse so severe, that the fundamental business models of large standalone financial institutions is being questioned. These institutions, which have represented a great and prosperous nation, find themselves grappling to keep their noses above water. Highly leveraged, and surviving on capital created from inflated valuations, their leaders have failed to realize that even in the age of Globalization, business must support the nation in which they were founded and in which they flourished. To humanize this notion, this principle is synonymous with “Work for your family and support your roots, not in spite of them”.

A significant shortcoming revealed by leaders of these institutions is that they have failed to collaborate with the nation’s regulatory bodies; viewing the legal structure in business as a hindrance to profitability and growth. A sound regulatory structure is viewed as a business benefit only inasmuch as it enables transactions and controlled liquidity in the capital markets for large enterprises to operate. As momentum grows, increased regulation is required to prevent corruption and deceit, accounting scandals or otherwise. When regulatory bodies evolve to match the scale and complexity of financial transactions, a tension between the profiteering interests of business and the integrity-ensuring interests of regulatory bodies collide. This is where the leaders of financial institutions have failed the country, and ultimately their own institutions. With a rash disdain for laws such as SOX, GAAP frameworks, and the like, they have failed to see the importance of such regulation for the long-term (read indefinite) sustainability of their enterprises. Further, they have failed to see the immense impact their enterprises can have on the country’s economy at large. These leaders have been plagued with a single-minded focus on generating capital, which has led to vague and unstructured business models based on unreasonable levels of speculation. While much of this has taken place due to competitiveness in the markets, many such models have been created largely to circumnavigate the country’s legal framework through sheer complexity.

Partnering with politicians without the objective of helping advance favorable, “business friendly” interests is considered poor business logic. Corporate backing of political parties through monetary gifts and public support lacks even the faintest hint of patriotism, implying only a single-minded, profit-seeking bias. While decisions to support political parties might promote the short-term success of a single large enterprise, they are not sustainable once companies achieve the size and momentum that many of the premier American financial institutions have attained. The enormous impact such enterprises can have on the nation’s economy requires their leaders to support political parties with patriotism (not profiteering) as their underpinnings. More importantly, they must do this in spite of any short-term consequences that any proposed regulation by that political party may have on their next quarter's income statement. The prevailing perspective that patriotism takes a back seat to business lacks the perspective required for an indefinitely sustainable enterprise. This principle holds true despite the effects of globalization, and becomes increasingly important as the economic impact of institutions on the nation at large increase.