Letter from the Forgotten Generation
I am not American, but I feel the same.
I was in a "startup" (won Comdex in Las Vegas in 1999, finalist in 2000 for doing data mining on computers that can't run a telephone today) when I was too young to be taken seriously. Today I just watch business concepts crippling IT industry, continuous marketing and buzzword repetition replacing thinking. And yes, "they" say that my CV is "long", but don't have the patience to understand how much I have to slow down to show them my back...
Who accepts today that (real) thinking is exhausting? That Asimov, Hoyle or Lem knew more about our tomorrow than all "futurists" and storytellers today, because they were patient scientists and serious human beings at the same time?
Who reads this long list of questions with real care anyway? Almost all "Boomers" prefer answers to questions, "Millenials" can process maximum 2000 characters.
Conversation requires understanding. According to my experience, you can talk this way, but only "we" will really listen... :-/
2014. július 5., szombat
2014. június 26., csütörtök
"Futurist manifesto"
Still under Please, Don't Be So Nice. Thank You! by Rita J. King on LinkedIn
Maria: I did read you article, didn't see a place to respond there, so I'll do it here. I think you are missing the obvious - people don't have a chance in the world of accomplishing what you want to accomplish alone. What you are doing may be admirable, but if you want to recruit more people to save the environment, find practicle ways for them to do it. Someone who has to work to pay their bills and buy food and medicine isn't going to take being told their are "abandoning children" so well. Usually they are doing that FOR their children. Maybe you should spend less time judging those people and more time making sure they actually have a recycling bin and know of a place they can recycle that's open after their work hours.
Money: money represents value and yes, we forget that. But it civilization has gotten too large for bartering at this point. Since you asked.
Just made a bunch of spelling errors because I am headed to my job. 8-4. Sorry I can't discuss the future more with you Lorand.
First about obvious things...
Perhaps you forgot to check my profile. I work 8-4 theoretically in an industry that creates high tech garbage. In fact, sometimes in the evenings and weekends, because I am a maniac maximalist. I don't waste any time on "judging others" - but wasted too much time already on hopeless discussions. This is why I am strict in some cases, when I feel I've been there, done that, made no sense.
If you checked my article, you may follow the two links inside. One is about the future without money - or better: show how ridiculous this illusion is, compared to the fact that where we really do something, either at home or at work, we don't use money, but simply organize our tasks to achieve our goals (no barter, of course). We use money to make our motivations less transparent. And we succeeded to make our civilization a total mess! :-D
The other is about why it is so hard to think. I mean rational thinking and understanding, contrary to "be popular, collect smiles, explain our actions and judge others", that we call thinking today. It is really hard indeed. In fact I would recruit people to get enlightened, and this is just as ridiculous as it sounds... and I can't help more than the old Chan monks could, or even less, because I am a -beep- -beep- person, I know :-)
To summarize: a futurist (to me) should be a scientist, who is able to analyze the present (not only the nice things), predict, plan and participate in creating the future. This is what I threw in "red style", because it was a challenge in the article.
I have this kind of vision, but it is out of the common comfort zone. By the way, it must be: if the solution is easy to understand and follow, we would have no problem :-)
Rita, please excuse me for trying hijack your show. I wanted to show you how hard it is to accept a direct "red" answer, and what a red person gets for being red. This is what I have got so many times, and was missing from your "pro-red" article.
I also keep my statements. You are a "nowadays futurist": make your living by creating images that are popular and accepted by the crowd as future. That is a business which has nothing to do with truly predicting or creating the future - in fact, it is also hopeless to analyze and understand the present this way.
Scientific thinking is NOT popular. The fact is that most people simply have no chance to understand it, just the same way as only a few people can drive like Vettel or play football like Messi. Unfortunately, the illusion of "I can understand and have opinion about anything" is part of the self image, and if someone says "you don't understand", we immediately get it as a personal insult. "Hey, I am not as rich as Mr. Branson, I don't look like a supermodel, I do nothing in my life like the superheros in the movies - let me have my opinion at last!" No, sorry, forget about all those lunatic dreams. Talk where you are good, and learn where you are not. This is how you can create real value.
We do have a problem. In fact: we have killed the Earth already (I mean: stepping back is not enough anymore, the ecosystem that is able to support human civilization will not "return to normal soon enough") - but if we are strong enough to kill it, we can be strong enough to save it, too. But to do this, we MUST understand what we have done, and more importantly: WHY we are so dangerous.
This lesson is NOT popular, but painful, and goes directly out of the comfort zone. And that is bad for the "futurist business", so it is beneficial for you to try to ignore it. This is why you reacted in defensive mood - and not like a scientist. You are the professional futurist, I am just an amateur. But I have something on the table you'd better check, because even I don't know if we have enough time to really create our future, or we can only be the victim of it.
Maria: I did read you article, didn't see a place to respond there, so I'll do it here. I think you are missing the obvious - people don't have a chance in the world of accomplishing what you want to accomplish alone. What you are doing may be admirable, but if you want to recruit more people to save the environment, find practicle ways for them to do it. Someone who has to work to pay their bills and buy food and medicine isn't going to take being told their are "abandoning children" so well. Usually they are doing that FOR their children. Maybe you should spend less time judging those people and more time making sure they actually have a recycling bin and know of a place they can recycle that's open after their work hours.
Money: money represents value and yes, we forget that. But it civilization has gotten too large for bartering at this point. Since you asked.
Just made a bunch of spelling errors because I am headed to my job. 8-4. Sorry I can't discuss the future more with you Lorand.
First about obvious things...
Perhaps you forgot to check my profile. I work 8-4 theoretically in an industry that creates high tech garbage. In fact, sometimes in the evenings and weekends, because I am a maniac maximalist. I don't waste any time on "judging others" - but wasted too much time already on hopeless discussions. This is why I am strict in some cases, when I feel I've been there, done that, made no sense.
If you checked my article, you may follow the two links inside. One is about the future without money - or better: show how ridiculous this illusion is, compared to the fact that where we really do something, either at home or at work, we don't use money, but simply organize our tasks to achieve our goals (no barter, of course). We use money to make our motivations less transparent. And we succeeded to make our civilization a total mess! :-D
The other is about why it is so hard to think. I mean rational thinking and understanding, contrary to "be popular, collect smiles, explain our actions and judge others", that we call thinking today. It is really hard indeed. In fact I would recruit people to get enlightened, and this is just as ridiculous as it sounds... and I can't help more than the old Chan monks could, or even less, because I am a -beep- -beep- person, I know :-)
To summarize: a futurist (to me) should be a scientist, who is able to analyze the present (not only the nice things), predict, plan and participate in creating the future. This is what I threw in "red style", because it was a challenge in the article.
I have this kind of vision, but it is out of the common comfort zone. By the way, it must be: if the solution is easy to understand and follow, we would have no problem :-)
Rita, please excuse me for trying hijack your show. I wanted to show you how hard it is to accept a direct "red" answer, and what a red person gets for being red. This is what I have got so many times, and was missing from your "pro-red" article.
I also keep my statements. You are a "nowadays futurist": make your living by creating images that are popular and accepted by the crowd as future. That is a business which has nothing to do with truly predicting or creating the future - in fact, it is also hopeless to analyze and understand the present this way.
Scientific thinking is NOT popular. The fact is that most people simply have no chance to understand it, just the same way as only a few people can drive like Vettel or play football like Messi. Unfortunately, the illusion of "I can understand and have opinion about anything" is part of the self image, and if someone says "you don't understand", we immediately get it as a personal insult. "Hey, I am not as rich as Mr. Branson, I don't look like a supermodel, I do nothing in my life like the superheros in the movies - let me have my opinion at last!" No, sorry, forget about all those lunatic dreams. Talk where you are good, and learn where you are not. This is how you can create real value.
We do have a problem. In fact: we have killed the Earth already (I mean: stepping back is not enough anymore, the ecosystem that is able to support human civilization will not "return to normal soon enough") - but if we are strong enough to kill it, we can be strong enough to save it, too. But to do this, we MUST understand what we have done, and more importantly: WHY we are so dangerous.
This lesson is NOT popular, but painful, and goes directly out of the comfort zone. And that is bad for the "futurist business", so it is beneficial for you to try to ignore it. This is why you reacted in defensive mood - and not like a scientist. You are the professional futurist, I am just an amateur. But I have something on the table you'd better check, because even I don't know if we have enough time to really create our future, or we can only be the victim of it.
2014. június 24., kedd
Being nice - or not
Please, Don't Be So Nice. Thank You! Rita J. King on LinkedIn
... Green groups yes their way through a meeting because they're too nice to shut something down because it might hurt someone's feelings or cause an uncomfortable moment. When it comes time to take action, those same people who said yes passively avoid doing anything, because they know the plan isn't a winner.
Passive resistance when you should speak up in a productive, constructive manner is a form of aggression. It can contribute to a decline in the health of your company culture and business, not to mention yourself. ...
OK, Rita, let me be red to you.
You call yourself futurist, but I checked some of your work and to me you look like a nice marketing agent. You admire the openness of children and wait solutions from them, but hey! we have a very hard deadline, counted in years, to solve problems like Fukushima, global warming, pollution, etc. Your beloved children will have no chance if WE don't start doing our urgent tasks. Now. No time to finish your lunch and chit-chatting with nice children and clueless dreamers.
How to start? Please check some books from real futurists. Fred Hoyle. Stanislaw Lem. Isaac Asimov. They were tough guys, and knew the science required for building structures (not just painting it).
Was it red enough? :-)
Rita: Hi Lorand Kedves.
I'm not sure which work of mine you're referencing, specifically, as I spent four years as a reporter focused on issues including climate change and the nuclear industry. In fact, in the aftermath of Fukushima, I consulted with many major media and myself appeared repeatedly on the news to explain the crisis and how, in part, a solution for similar issues might be approached. Here's a piece I wrote for Scientific American: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/12/failure-of-imagination-can-be-deadly-fukushima-is-a-warning/.
LinkedIn is a professional network, so the writing I do for this community is centered on work skills. However, it is my work on issues such as Fukushima that led to me to become a professional futurist, since in many cases my work was years ahead of public awareness.
Just as with green, red has a dark side. The good side of red is the ability to deliver. The dark side of red is aggressiveness with no particular purpose, and no larger constructive meaning. I will leave it to others to decide which side of the red spectrum your comment falls within.
Quick amendment to my last comment to make sure it's clear that what I mean by "public awareness" is widespread public awareness. There are always people out there who are ahead of the curve.
Dear Rita,
I have checked the "Imagination Age", some of your lectures, the Science House. I like your directions in general, but felt that "greenish aura" around it. You are so smart and charming person with a peaceful mood, imagining and talking about a nice future - while I am a pissed off bastard who is sure that this leads to nowhere. What we need is really different approach, otherwise we ultimately fail. I don't say that I know the truth, but ask far better questions. Sorry for repetition: http://hajnalvilag.blogspot.hu/2014/05/a-question-for-7-billion.html
Looking at Fukushima, you collected some data and presented it in a nice article. I see that today we can be more thankful to the Yakuza than the Japanese government that we still have chance to fix that disaster. With all our knowledge. In decades. No more masturbation in LHC, or travelling to Mars, please. This is the future. Insane hard work on a gigantic pile of garbage that we have created. Fukushima is just one of the thousand.
Sorry, you asked for not to be nice, I just tested if you 1: answer at all, and 2: deal with my statements or your emotions? I leave to you to decide if my "redness" has a purpose, and constructive content. I have a vision of the future, and I am working on my part in it. I don't measure myself to the public, but to the top - unfortunately those guys are all dead... Looking at the current urgent tasks, I am not "years ahead", but behind schedule, and that makes me frustrated.
OK, enough of me, thanks for the answer, red out. Peace and good luck! :-)
[the next day, checking LinkedIn for response, I had to realize that this comment was removed]
Moderation? OK, got it, I shut up. Make the world look nicer without conflicting opinions. See also: freedom of speech :-)
Maria: The futurists are inspiring, but they are just that - futurists. Successful change is usually gradual. You want people who have never recycled in their life to start? Make it easy so that they do it and so do their children. Another sidenote: Nobody likes a smug environmentalist, in their face shaming them. Encouraging positive action in realistic ways is more important than showing the world how right you are - even if it's true.
Just noticed your comment below, and I wanted to add that there's nothing more irritating than someone who is obviously working against their own cause without even realizing it.
Maria, I see a contradiction in your statement (gradual change / recycle to start), and see no other option but recycle to start, on civilization level.
I do try to be positive - unless I am ASKED to not to do it (PLEASE read the article to which I answered in the recommended red style). At least I got answer - unfortunately the detailed explanation was not accepted, in a hard way.
But I can test you as well. Please read this article, and disprove my statement about money (you should be the professional) http://hajnalvilag.blogspot.hu/2014/05/a-question-for-7-billion.html
This is what I think we MUST start the discussion with, if we want to have future at all. Whatever nowadays futurists dream about MY profession (20 years working in IT, thinking about its connection/effects on human civilization). Without even knowing what the (to me: real, hard core scientific, not "salesperson") futurists envisioned around 1960.
Maria: Also, your reference to yourself as a "hardcore futurist" who is far superior to a mere salesperson is downright hilarious. Please take a moment to look at what you wrote and consider how effective you will be at recruiting people to your cause with that.
Maria, you still don't get it. This was a successful scientific experiment and demonstration of a theory on my side.
Rita wrote an article with the title (please, please try to understand, not only read): "Please, Don't Be So Nice. Thank You!" In this article she asked for "red" communication, but did not mention what you GET for being red. So I compiled a red statement and turned it to her, and here the show started.
Got emotional response. Got referring to the public opinion and popularity. Even got a "defender" in you, pointing out how ridiculous I am.
Is there anything I did not get? Yes. A single response on the content of my statement... (at least I got my moderated response back, thank you!)
I think in this way I was able to complete the original article, demonstrating the world of being red - to a green person who wrote an article requesting red people to appear. Sorry. Being red is much harder than being green...
[Sorry for the "moderation" stuff... now I see that LinkedIn has a content filter and holds back content because of non-PC wording. As a programmer, I assumed a warning mail, this is why I thought it was intentional. I apologize.]
Why I do this?
There is a fundamental problem here. OF COURSE I myself would vote to Rita's world against mine. I would love to! The problem is that I think predicting and working for the future requires a scientific approach (no, I don't mean Discovery Channel or the Big Bang Theory sitcom). I spent literally a decade (not just a moment) to realize that being honest on my level and 'recruiting people' does not go together. And chose honesty.
We all get the call that the building is on fire. I am the one who wants to keep the sane mind and find a solution. I am the one whom it is so easy to dislike (almost wrote 'hate'), because I can prove to the daydreamers that they close their eyes; and to the 'armageddon preppers' that they can, but does not worth to survive. And to anyone that it is his/her shallow thinking that causes the fire. I am the one who runs out to do something against it, while you look up from your (more important and much nicer) conversation, and say: 'what an -beep- -beep-'. Yep. And a hopeless believer. In you.
Peace. Red out.
2014. június 21., szombat
Kishantos és az elidegenedés
@Ahasverus: Bár nem tudom, hogy előfordultok-e még itt a Mandin, de mivel látom, hogy értelmes emberek vagytok (nem csupán a kommentjeiteket, de a blogotokat is megnéztem), szívesen folytatnák veletek egyfajta eszmecserét. Diskurzust. Disputát. Párbeszédet. Kellemes beszélgetés.
Kezdem egy kérdéssel, és meglátjuk, mi lesz belőle. (Remélem, egy disputa.)
KÉRDÉSEM:
Ti hogyan definiálnátok az ELIDEGENEDÉS fogalmát?
S hogyan alkalmaznátok a mai állapotokra?
Nem "fordulok elő", de az értesítő levél befut. Sajnos az általad remélt disputának a részemről csak akadályai vannak.
1: Itt? Olyan párbeszéd, amelyet én is értelmesnek tartanék? :-)
2: A téma. Az elidegenedés természetes következménye annak, hogy gyermekes gondolkodással próbálunk felnőttként élni. Én okokkal, és a jelenségek által felmutatott lehetőségekkel kívánok csak foglalkozni.
3: A személyem. Én szó szerint évtizedek óta megszállott módon keresem a folyamatok okait, majd ennek alapján(!) megoldási lehetőségeket. Rendszertervező programozóként ráadásul ebből élek, (vagyis abszolút objektív körülmények között elég jól csinálom). A tény, hogy néha nem vagyok képes elmenni az ordító ostobaság mellett, illetve egyenes kérdésre kötelességemnek tartom válaszolni, még nem jelenti azt, hogy szeretek csacsogni.
Kishantosról. Kértem őket, hogy a romantikus ábrándozás helyett gondolkodjanak el a valós erőviszonyokon (Ángyán Józsefnek még Fideszes korában írtam meg, hogy amit csinál, nem fog sikerülni). El kellett volna adni Kishantost. Politikai témává kellett volna tenni. Erre harapott volna a Fidesz, és talán a mai médiaháború a választás előtt kitört volna. De ennek a bekezdésnek semmi értelme, akkor egyetlen választ nem kaptam, a hajó pedig elment.
Az "oszd meg és uralkodj" elv nem elegáns, de hatékony, és ezer éve működik. Főleg ha a leigázni kívánt tömeg kicsi, felhúzott orrú primadonna-csoportokra bomlik. Így aztán hiába írtam pl ilyet, elhalt a kummogó tömegben, pedig ugyanígy indítottam, mint a programozós nyílt levelemet.
Sajnálom, de én mostanra (utánanézhetsz, sok évnyi kitartó, eredménytelen küzdelem hatására) elveszítettem a hitem bennetek, és a kiutat keresem, mert családfőként ez is a dolgom. Nem vagyok kíváncsi arra, miről beszélget Orbán Viktor a környék ordas diktátoraival. Nem akarom megtapasztalni, miért költözik a várba, és miért akarja széttelepíteni a (nyilván helyi TEK központként is funkcionáló) minisztériumait. De úgy sem akarok tenni, mintha nem lenne számomra nyilvánvaló.
Az elidegenedésről (pontosabban a mögötte lévő számomra fontos lehetőségről) ezt írtam több, mint két éve. Nézd el nekem, ha nincs kedvem csacsogni róla, amikor a megvalósításán is dolgozhatok (márpedig pontosan ezt teszem).
@Bell & Sebastian Azért a Phillips -függvényről mondhatna valamit, ha már lelőttük maga elől az összes, kacsingatós buxát.
"Kacsintgatós buxa"? Frászt. Ez az egész társaság, az engem megszólító "Ahasverus" úrral egyetemben levegőnek néz, egyetlen szavamra nem reagál. Ez számomra természetes és megszokott, de akkor minek szólongatnak?
A Phillips-függvényről szóló cikkre rápislantottam. Ez nyilván komoly véleményalkotásra nem elég, de mindegy is, mert ennyi elég volt ahhoz, hogy megállapítsam, erre a kérdésre is válaszoltam, csak nem méltóztatott figyelni.
KÖ-VET-KEZ-MÉNY.
Nem foglalkozom vele, nem érdekel.
Ha már görbe, a Fred Hoyle által 1964-ben leírt olduvai-elméletet kéne megnézni. Bosszantó, hogy neten csak a peak oil történetbe sikerült belefutnom, az eredeti Of Men and Galaxies írásig nem tudok eljutni. Pedig az idézetek, amelyekkel találkozom, félelmetes egyezést mutatnak a saját elemzéseimmel. Csak míg Hoyle-nak megdöbbentő látnoki képességre volt szüksége a "felfutás" idején ilyeneket írni, tőlem csak annyi szükségeltetik, hogy ne majom módjára ismételgessek kliséket, hanem képes legyek nyitva tartani a szemem, amikor látom a falat közeledni. Továbbá, hogy keressem, megtaláljam, és erőm mértékében megvalósítsam azt, amivel a pofára esés legjobb tudásom szerint civilizációs katasztrófából egyéni szintre mérsékelhető. Mert a hülyeség árát meg kell fizetni, de nem mindegy, hogy tejjel és gyapjúval, vagy hússal, kollégáim a birkaságban.
Azt hiszem kénytelen leszek kikapcsolni a levél értesítést... Ó, itt is a link. Csak ügyesen! :-)
Kezdem egy kérdéssel, és meglátjuk, mi lesz belőle. (Remélem, egy disputa.)
KÉRDÉSEM:
Ti hogyan definiálnátok az ELIDEGENEDÉS fogalmát?
S hogyan alkalmaznátok a mai állapotokra?
Nem "fordulok elő", de az értesítő levél befut. Sajnos az általad remélt disputának a részemről csak akadályai vannak.
1: Itt? Olyan párbeszéd, amelyet én is értelmesnek tartanék? :-)
2: A téma. Az elidegenedés természetes következménye annak, hogy gyermekes gondolkodással próbálunk felnőttként élni. Én okokkal, és a jelenségek által felmutatott lehetőségekkel kívánok csak foglalkozni.
3: A személyem. Én szó szerint évtizedek óta megszállott módon keresem a folyamatok okait, majd ennek alapján(!) megoldási lehetőségeket. Rendszertervező programozóként ráadásul ebből élek, (vagyis abszolút objektív körülmények között elég jól csinálom). A tény, hogy néha nem vagyok képes elmenni az ordító ostobaság mellett, illetve egyenes kérdésre kötelességemnek tartom válaszolni, még nem jelenti azt, hogy szeretek csacsogni.
Kishantosról. Kértem őket, hogy a romantikus ábrándozás helyett gondolkodjanak el a valós erőviszonyokon (Ángyán Józsefnek még Fideszes korában írtam meg, hogy amit csinál, nem fog sikerülni). El kellett volna adni Kishantost. Politikai témává kellett volna tenni. Erre harapott volna a Fidesz, és talán a mai médiaháború a választás előtt kitört volna. De ennek a bekezdésnek semmi értelme, akkor egyetlen választ nem kaptam, a hajó pedig elment.
Az "oszd meg és uralkodj" elv nem elegáns, de hatékony, és ezer éve működik. Főleg ha a leigázni kívánt tömeg kicsi, felhúzott orrú primadonna-csoportokra bomlik. Így aztán hiába írtam pl ilyet, elhalt a kummogó tömegben, pedig ugyanígy indítottam, mint a programozós nyílt levelemet.
Sajnálom, de én mostanra (utánanézhetsz, sok évnyi kitartó, eredménytelen küzdelem hatására) elveszítettem a hitem bennetek, és a kiutat keresem, mert családfőként ez is a dolgom. Nem vagyok kíváncsi arra, miről beszélget Orbán Viktor a környék ordas diktátoraival. Nem akarom megtapasztalni, miért költözik a várba, és miért akarja széttelepíteni a (nyilván helyi TEK központként is funkcionáló) minisztériumait. De úgy sem akarok tenni, mintha nem lenne számomra nyilvánvaló.
Az elidegenedésről (pontosabban a mögötte lévő számomra fontos lehetőségről) ezt írtam több, mint két éve. Nézd el nekem, ha nincs kedvem csacsogni róla, amikor a megvalósításán is dolgozhatok (márpedig pontosan ezt teszem).
@Bell & Sebastian Azért a Phillips -függvényről mondhatna valamit, ha már lelőttük maga elől az összes, kacsingatós buxát.
"Kacsintgatós buxa"? Frászt. Ez az egész társaság, az engem megszólító "Ahasverus" úrral egyetemben levegőnek néz, egyetlen szavamra nem reagál. Ez számomra természetes és megszokott, de akkor minek szólongatnak?
A Phillips-függvényről szóló cikkre rápislantottam. Ez nyilván komoly véleményalkotásra nem elég, de mindegy is, mert ennyi elég volt ahhoz, hogy megállapítsam, erre a kérdésre is válaszoltam, csak nem méltóztatott figyelni.
KÖ-VET-KEZ-MÉNY.
Nem foglalkozom vele, nem érdekel.
Ha már görbe, a Fred Hoyle által 1964-ben leírt olduvai-elméletet kéne megnézni. Bosszantó, hogy neten csak a peak oil történetbe sikerült belefutnom, az eredeti Of Men and Galaxies írásig nem tudok eljutni. Pedig az idézetek, amelyekkel találkozom, félelmetes egyezést mutatnak a saját elemzéseimmel. Csak míg Hoyle-nak megdöbbentő látnoki képességre volt szüksége a "felfutás" idején ilyeneket írni, tőlem csak annyi szükségeltetik, hogy ne majom módjára ismételgessek kliséket, hanem képes legyek nyitva tartani a szemem, amikor látom a falat közeledni. Továbbá, hogy keressem, megtaláljam, és erőm mértékében megvalósítsam azt, amivel a pofára esés legjobb tudásom szerint civilizációs katasztrófából egyéni szintre mérsékelhető. Mert a hülyeség árát meg kell fizetni, de nem mindegy, hogy tejjel és gyapjúval, vagy hússal, kollégáim a birkaságban.
Azt hiszem kénytelen leszek kikapcsolni a levél értesítést... Ó, itt is a link. Csak ügyesen! :-)
2014. június 9., hétfő
"Think different"
Reframe the Question to Reinvent the Answers - on LinkedIn
...
A commonly known problem is the scale of plastic rubbish in the global seas. One such region alone, known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch", is estimated to be from 700,000 square kilometres (270,000 sq mi) to more than 15,000,000 square kilometres (5,800,000 sq mi) large.
I thought it was a great opportunity to resurface an interesting young guy's attempt at solving this problem. It's a wonderful example of Einstein's often cited: "We can't solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them".
...
A "new" way of collecting garbage, and make it "profitable"... Nice one - but for me this is "on the same level".
The real question is: why can't we stop MAKING the garbage first? The whole story is not about "how to save", but "stop killing"! Doctors can work efficiently only when the soldiers stopped shooting, don't you think?
---
Come on, everyone is sleeping here?! Imagine that we have a perfect ocean cleaning mechanism (that we will not have). That means we have a tube: garbage in - garbage out. We also know that in our economy, profit is the ultimate reason: only those things are done that creates profit.
The REAL question is: WHY can MAKING GARBAGE create PROFIT? How can we fix our whole economy not to make pollution that later we have to take out?
I know that these nice cleaning ideas are popular and good for the conscience of some rich guys who have conscience at all. But that does not replace understanding and wisdom, or asking real questions. And then please, please don't say that you are on another level. No, you are not. This is still part of the problem. Sorry.
---
Nikolai Kopelev "We can't solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them", is one of the most famous quotes by Albert Einstein. We all are aware about the ocean pollution, which is not good to say the least. However, please accept my apologies, I do not see the link between the two. IMHO, Einstein has nothing to do with the pollution that should be taken case of.
Let me give you an example. You get advice from a swimming champion while you try to save someone who fell into the water. You say you don't listen to the swimmer because you think he never saved anyone from the water.
Einstein's advice is the most fundamental advice on problem solving:
If you have caused a problem,
you have absolutely no chance to solve it
until you change your mindset.
you have absolutely no chance to solve it
until you change your mindset.
Unfortunately, this article and the lecture show absolutely zero understanding of Einstein's words, so it is no surprise that you ask this question...
Nikolai Kopelev Thank you, Lorand Kedves, for the clarification, but, apologies, I still do not see a link between pollution, which is a disaster of XX! century, and Einstein's philosophical comment that, IMHO,is a a lot broader. Also, I would be grateful for an explanation of your pout "this article and the lecture show absolutely zero understanding of Einstein's words" - what exactly were you trying to say?
Do you know the basic rules of formal logic?
They were formalized in Greece, long before Christ, and either you know them or not, they are there behind any reasonable communication. On the other way: if a communication (or: simple thinking within your brain) does not follow these rules, that is useless: cannot lead to correct, verifiable results. Can you solve ANY problem, including the pollution without rational thinking?
Yes, the rules of formal logic are "philosophical" and "broad"... for those who can't see how practical they are, and how hard it is to follow them in each and every statement you make, even if you don't say it.
So I say it again. 1: Pollution is a problem. 2: Einstein has an advice on problem solving. 3: Einstein is known to be great in solving problems. 4: Perhaps you should listen to him even if he did not know your current problem.
And to the last question: Sorry, I don't repeat all my previous comments when I add a new one :-) For you now: the real question is "how can making garbage be profitable?" I accept that our lives today depend on cleaning - but if we keep polluting at the same time, we have no hope.
2014. június 3., kedd
Changing the world
Bill Hayden: Lorand, I am glad to hear you are an elite thinker and innovator. To say that the current "system" is obsolete and will collapse is just a "math exercise" is an argument of over-simplification. Of course, if you run the numbers, it is easy to see where mathematically financial collapse will occur in the future, unless change happens. But, change can and does happen. That is the whole point of this article. I would be more interested in hearing more specifically about what you can do to change government in a way that avoids collapse and chaos and improves government for and by the people.
Bill, sorry, I can't do anything to change the government, because the same rules that I refer to when saying there is no point in moaning about their corruptness applies to me as well. A mob of frustrated kids raise bad leaders and idols. I can't do anything to "make" anyone grow up, become a responsible adult. What can I do then?
For example, I can imagine a company that creates e-biz solutions, health apps, telephony, etc., in Java, Perl, php; build websites, etc, etc, etc. Do they do anything NEW? Something that can't be replaced by hundreds of existing solutions? Then what the hell are they doing except for keeping the economy rolling around nothing?
I can imagine a long list of programming languages, tools, frameworks. Do they repeat and repeat and repeat the same all the time? I can also think about what is intelligence. I can think about what is the essence of any source code, or why do we have UML, design patterns or GUI generator tools. I can think about how a mug of grey goo can follow multi-threaded procedures, or predict changes in a country or global economy.
I can even think about a fundamental change that occurred around 2000, I can think about the fragile balance of nature or human civilization. I can write it down. You can read it. What I can't do is to make you click on the links, and follow my bizarre paths :-)
Bill Hayden: Ok, then how about this... can you create a better way to do online voting? I don't trust electronic voting, because I don't trust the security or the people who count the final votes. At least with the paper ballots there was a way to verify vote counts at local precincts and add those up by county and state. Can you come up with a way to verify one person, one vote, and have the system electronically verify vote counts at the precinct, county, and state levels and enable individual voters to have a dashboard to see reports anywhere in the country that shows how many eligible voters there were and how many voted and how they voted? (not how each person voted, but anonymously of course by numbers) One of the big problems with government is voting fraud. How about that for a starter?
Bill, this question is like: "If you are an engineer, can you make this iron ball fly?" My answer is: well there are different ways to put it to the air, or even keep it there, but there is an old law called gravity, that makes the ball fall down when it is let alone. So yes, there is a way to make it fly, and you also know all of them - but to keep it in the air as you wish, is impossible.
For human communities, gravity is the shared motivation structure, which comes from how we see the world. This image is held by the community, we teach it to our children, they grow up and act according to this and teach their children. This is an invisible blueprint that we follow in each decision, and through millions of individual, seemingly independent actions we carve it into the world. Today this image has a fatal error that I described, I know the cause as well and it is also dead simple (or as you call it: over-simplified, because your brain can't accept the simplicity of the result, or the ultimate complexity of the analysis that led to it).
Creating a perfect voting system is simply impossible, and you KNOW that.
1: It would require an absolutely precise identification mechanism, which is in fact the fundamental need of a... bingo! the ultimate dictatorship!
2: today with our motivation structures, remote controlling individuals (aka customers, voters) is the holy grail of... bingo! our "corrupt government" and "shadow elite"!
3: keeping the illusion of freedom is the holy grail of... bingo! people like you, who don't like them in control! :-)
Consequence: YOU don't want what you say you want.
Is THIS over-simplification again? Show me the error!
Should I make it? No thanks. I work on something that is almost impossible, but that is still far better than even thinking about a popular nonsense. And in fact, is very close to what you ask for, but with this current global mindset, is useless as well. This is a tool for people who dare to think rationally (know what it is and are strong enough to do it). Yes, it is so hard that I was not able to talk to anyone with this ability. (Or I am completely wrong about the whole thing.)
Bill Hayden
Lorand, people like me, that would be those who believe in the Declaration of Independence, which states that freedom comes from our Creator and not from any government, still believe in the U.S. Constitution. You know, that piece of paper that lays out the plan for government by the people and for the people? The same one that launched the greatest country, that created the greatest wealth, for more people than any other in the history of the world. Your attitude is certainly elitist, I will give you that. But, I would go so far as to say it is also cynical, which is sad. But, go with God my friend. I wish you success and happiness in your pursuit of your own happiness.
Bill, I have no good answer to this, because I can't refer to "people like me". However, in only my name I can say that I am rather practical. You know, I have to design and build systems that work in the real world, not only in a dream. I accept that the USA has great things - but it is the same country that napalmed Vietnam, "defends democracy" with uranium bullets and drones all around the world, does not sign the declaration against LANDMINES, my friend. "For people"... which people?
From your viewpoint, I am cynical - from my side your approach is childish. For me, the Constitution is like a blueprint of a great society, by great and wise leaders, and that is OK. But it requires not only believers, but some engineers, who understand it; and when the society seems to work (at least) questionably, they use it to investigate the issues.
And yes, I am frustrated, because I work for OUR future, not for my own happiness. As I see now, we are not on the same side. The Matrix has you...
Bill, sorry, I can't do anything to change the government, because the same rules that I refer to when saying there is no point in moaning about their corruptness applies to me as well. A mob of frustrated kids raise bad leaders and idols. I can't do anything to "make" anyone grow up, become a responsible adult. What can I do then?
For example, I can imagine a company that creates e-biz solutions, health apps, telephony, etc., in Java, Perl, php; build websites, etc, etc, etc. Do they do anything NEW? Something that can't be replaced by hundreds of existing solutions? Then what the hell are they doing except for keeping the economy rolling around nothing?
I can imagine a long list of programming languages, tools, frameworks. Do they repeat and repeat and repeat the same all the time? I can also think about what is intelligence. I can think about what is the essence of any source code, or why do we have UML, design patterns or GUI generator tools. I can think about how a mug of grey goo can follow multi-threaded procedures, or predict changes in a country or global economy.
I can even think about a fundamental change that occurred around 2000, I can think about the fragile balance of nature or human civilization. I can write it down. You can read it. What I can't do is to make you click on the links, and follow my bizarre paths :-)
Bill Hayden: Ok, then how about this... can you create a better way to do online voting? I don't trust electronic voting, because I don't trust the security or the people who count the final votes. At least with the paper ballots there was a way to verify vote counts at local precincts and add those up by county and state. Can you come up with a way to verify one person, one vote, and have the system electronically verify vote counts at the precinct, county, and state levels and enable individual voters to have a dashboard to see reports anywhere in the country that shows how many eligible voters there were and how many voted and how they voted? (not how each person voted, but anonymously of course by numbers) One of the big problems with government is voting fraud. How about that for a starter?
Bill, this question is like: "If you are an engineer, can you make this iron ball fly?" My answer is: well there are different ways to put it to the air, or even keep it there, but there is an old law called gravity, that makes the ball fall down when it is let alone. So yes, there is a way to make it fly, and you also know all of them - but to keep it in the air as you wish, is impossible.
For human communities, gravity is the shared motivation structure, which comes from how we see the world. This image is held by the community, we teach it to our children, they grow up and act according to this and teach their children. This is an invisible blueprint that we follow in each decision, and through millions of individual, seemingly independent actions we carve it into the world. Today this image has a fatal error that I described, I know the cause as well and it is also dead simple (or as you call it: over-simplified, because your brain can't accept the simplicity of the result, or the ultimate complexity of the analysis that led to it).
Creating a perfect voting system is simply impossible, and you KNOW that.
1: It would require an absolutely precise identification mechanism, which is in fact the fundamental need of a... bingo! the ultimate dictatorship!
2: today with our motivation structures, remote controlling individuals (aka customers, voters) is the holy grail of... bingo! our "corrupt government" and "shadow elite"!
3: keeping the illusion of freedom is the holy grail of... bingo! people like you, who don't like them in control! :-)
Consequence: YOU don't want what you say you want.
Is THIS over-simplification again? Show me the error!
Should I make it? No thanks. I work on something that is almost impossible, but that is still far better than even thinking about a popular nonsense. And in fact, is very close to what you ask for, but with this current global mindset, is useless as well. This is a tool for people who dare to think rationally (know what it is and are strong enough to do it). Yes, it is so hard that I was not able to talk to anyone with this ability. (Or I am completely wrong about the whole thing.)
Bill Hayden
Lorand, people like me, that would be those who believe in the Declaration of Independence, which states that freedom comes from our Creator and not from any government, still believe in the U.S. Constitution. You know, that piece of paper that lays out the plan for government by the people and for the people? The same one that launched the greatest country, that created the greatest wealth, for more people than any other in the history of the world. Your attitude is certainly elitist, I will give you that. But, I would go so far as to say it is also cynical, which is sad. But, go with God my friend. I wish you success and happiness in your pursuit of your own happiness.
Bill, I have no good answer to this, because I can't refer to "people like me". However, in only my name I can say that I am rather practical. You know, I have to design and build systems that work in the real world, not only in a dream. I accept that the USA has great things - but it is the same country that napalmed Vietnam, "defends democracy" with uranium bullets and drones all around the world, does not sign the declaration against LANDMINES, my friend. "For people"... which people?
From your viewpoint, I am cynical - from my side your approach is childish. For me, the Constitution is like a blueprint of a great society, by great and wise leaders, and that is OK. But it requires not only believers, but some engineers, who understand it; and when the society seems to work (at least) questionably, they use it to investigate the issues.
And yes, I am frustrated, because I work for OUR future, not for my own happiness. As I see now, we are not on the same side. The Matrix has you...
2014. június 1., vasárnap
Endgame
A good run on LinkedIn: How Your Company—And Your Job—Will Soon Be Disrupted
Bill Hayden And yet, most mind boggling of all is that our inefficient bureaucratic and corrupt government only gets worse. When is that going to change?
"It" will only get worse. The question: are "you" ready to wake up and understand that this is the natural behavior of an obsolete control system? It MUST collapse, either to wipe out this useless global nursery of moaning and fighting kids, or to make place for a mankind that defines growth not by making more garbage. Or both... http://hajnalvilag.blogspot.hu/2014/05/a-question-for-7-billion.html
Bill Hayden Lorand, I agree to your reference to "you" (as in "me" or anyone else) that we all have a personal responsibility as stakeholders in the political process, to take responsibility for making change happen. However, I for one, am not ready to declare the U.S. Constitution or our democratic republic as "useless" or beyond repair. I do not wish for a collapse. I think, given the subject of this article, that "we" are blessed with many very smart and talented people and it begs the question: Where are the non-lawyers, the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the non-career politicians, with new ideas and ways to improve government at the federal, state and local levels? My comment was intended to "disrupt" the chorus of "me too" comments about how wonderful the technology and change is that we are seeing. The elephant sitting in the middle of the room that nobody is talking about is the government that is sucking the oxygen out of the room.
well... I AM one of those non-lawyers, innovators, etc. who have new ideas. But "you" should read and listen more carefully :-) I have just proven that your elephant (the government) is simple consequence of a fatal error in our mindset, and being that, you can't fight against it directly. Exactly like the Matrix (first episode).
From very inside, the "wonderful technology" is just the same ugly fat kid as the "government", that follows exactly the same broken rules (produces popular, well-selling garbage for profit). As a programmer, I work on a framework that is (already) more efficient than anything I have seen from "big names" or "crowd source". Fortunately, so far nobody took it seriously, because 1: it would require too much of their precious time to understand, and 2: it breaks the fundamental IT business rules.
I am an elite thinker, and as such, I do have the right to question whatever I see irrational. This is not about power, number of followers or whatever, but simple math. I don't care what you are "ready for". This is just a math exercise: I ask you if you find any error in my proof that this system is obsolete, and will collapse, not because I will, but because of the fundamental errors (in fact I am scared of the process that I could forecast quite precisely, and living in Hungary, I see Mr. Putin's rising empire far too close. By the way, you can check our government if you want to see real shame...)
So I AM the one who wants to keep us from collapsing, by letting a broken (more precisely: obsolete) system collapse ALONE, while we watch it from the outside. To me, your personal responsibility looks like: where do you stand? Do you consider yourself an independent and powerful thinker who must choose his side - or you want to keep yelling at puppets, natural results of our evolution?
Bill Hayden And yet, most mind boggling of all is that our inefficient bureaucratic and corrupt government only gets worse. When is that going to change?
"It" will only get worse. The question: are "you" ready to wake up and understand that this is the natural behavior of an obsolete control system? It MUST collapse, either to wipe out this useless global nursery of moaning and fighting kids, or to make place for a mankind that defines growth not by making more garbage. Or both... http://hajnalvilag.blogspot.hu/2014/05/a-question-for-7-billion.html
Bill Hayden Lorand, I agree to your reference to "you" (as in "me" or anyone else) that we all have a personal responsibility as stakeholders in the political process, to take responsibility for making change happen. However, I for one, am not ready to declare the U.S. Constitution or our democratic republic as "useless" or beyond repair. I do not wish for a collapse. I think, given the subject of this article, that "we" are blessed with many very smart and talented people and it begs the question: Where are the non-lawyers, the entrepreneurs, the innovators, the non-career politicians, with new ideas and ways to improve government at the federal, state and local levels? My comment was intended to "disrupt" the chorus of "me too" comments about how wonderful the technology and change is that we are seeing. The elephant sitting in the middle of the room that nobody is talking about is the government that is sucking the oxygen out of the room.
well... I AM one of those non-lawyers, innovators, etc. who have new ideas. But "you" should read and listen more carefully :-) I have just proven that your elephant (the government) is simple consequence of a fatal error in our mindset, and being that, you can't fight against it directly. Exactly like the Matrix (first episode).
From very inside, the "wonderful technology" is just the same ugly fat kid as the "government", that follows exactly the same broken rules (produces popular, well-selling garbage for profit). As a programmer, I work on a framework that is (already) more efficient than anything I have seen from "big names" or "crowd source". Fortunately, so far nobody took it seriously, because 1: it would require too much of their precious time to understand, and 2: it breaks the fundamental IT business rules.
I am an elite thinker, and as such, I do have the right to question whatever I see irrational. This is not about power, number of followers or whatever, but simple math. I don't care what you are "ready for". This is just a math exercise: I ask you if you find any error in my proof that this system is obsolete, and will collapse, not because I will, but because of the fundamental errors (in fact I am scared of the process that I could forecast quite precisely, and living in Hungary, I see Mr. Putin's rising empire far too close. By the way, you can check our government if you want to see real shame...)
So I AM the one who wants to keep us from collapsing, by letting a broken (more precisely: obsolete) system collapse ALONE, while we watch it from the outside. To me, your personal responsibility looks like: where do you stand? Do you consider yourself an independent and powerful thinker who must choose his side - or you want to keep yelling at puppets, natural results of our evolution?
Feliratkozás:
Bejegyzések (Atom)