===============

“Globalization makes it impossible for modern societies to collapse in isolation, as did Easter Island and the Greenland Norse in the past. Any society in turmoil today, no matter how remote … can cause trouble for prosperous societies on other continents and is also subject to their influence (whether helpful or destabilizing). For the first time in history, we face the risk of a global decline. But we also are the first to enjoy the opportunity of learning quickly from developments in societies anywhere else in the world today, and from what has unfolded in societies at any time in the past.“

Jared Diamond

==================

 “At this moment we all face a choice. We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration. Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion.”

September 20, 2016, Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly

=================

“I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always put your countries first. As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interest above all else. ”

September 19. 2018 Donald Trump told the UN General Assembly

===========================

‘Washington, D.C. is now the epicenter of instability in the world.  What it means is something that our friends and allies around the world have taken for granted for 70 years is no longer something that they can take for granted.”

Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution

==================

• Authors note: critique of globalization shouldn’t lead to nationalism, protectionism or isolationism, the dull axe narratives which suggest that are wrong. The leading voices of nationalism foster dull thinking which encourages a country, United States in particular, to retreat from a trade battle that is theirs to win should they elect to stay engaged. Just to get it out of the way upfront. I imagine some people would call me a ‘globalist’ <albeit that sounds like a bad name to be called simply for believing that a globalized economy benefits all>. But I would be naive to not see that a reordering of the globalized economy has begun. While globalization has always had its warts, America has always led, guided, and benefited from its central role in the web of global economics.  Nationalist/protectionist voices have shredded that web with loose rhetoric and offering only instability & uncertainty as well as a slightly warped view <and selling of> of “sovereignty.”

===

Globalization is not a new phenomenon. It has existed, and benefited, countries for centuries. Paradoxically, cooperation is necessary to maximize one’s own benefit. In a zero-sum game your growth potential has an additive cap. In a cooperation world your growth potential is either multiplicative or exponential in terms of a cap. Globalization is, was, and will always be, a flawed cooperation world. By ‘flawed’ I mean there will always be competing interests, but, it will always be underpinned by an understanding cooperation benefits all.

That said. Watch closely. Before our eyes, the world is both coming together and growing apart as never before. The unwinding of the existing globalisation system is going to happen, despite huge investments having been made IN the existing system. With national security (rather than merely commercial resilience or economic competition) becoming a decisionmaking driver, the unwinding is happening faster than one would have imagined. The decades (and tens of billions of dollars) Western firms have invested in capacity in China, as well as the depth of the supply chain and expertise that has emerged there, are make breaking it up a challenge but businesses are motivated and governments interested in facilitating the changes.

Which leads me to suggest globalization isn’t just about trade.

In a globalized world of globalized values and globalized trade, and a globalized economy held together increasingly by multinational companies doing business everywhere it is silly to reduce everything into “Western values.” The world is dotted with dictatorships, autocratic regimes and thuggish governance all of whom participate in the global economy. That said. Globalization, at least from an American perspective, has never been solely about economics. The foundation of an Americanized globalization incorporates some version of diplomacy and democracy. Whether we like it or not they are intertwined <for good and for bad>.

But. Let’s be clear. Once Great Britain ceded its spot as the ‘leader of globalization’ in the early 1900’s … America has owned that spot and it behooves America to champion its type of doing business, i.e., champion the environmental contexts within which business and communities can thrive, because it creates a sense of resilience to the structure of that globalization. Its not pure, but threaded with some important things. It also has had an impact in some strange places. We have even seen the President of China even use some of the words of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:

“No country should view its development path on its own. Development is of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Which leads me to “transactional politics.”

Globalization has certainly benefited the ordinary American as well as contributed some expenses to the benefit. And, yet, viewed on a transaction by transaction basis globalization can look fairly crappy to the every working person.

The problem is, well, there are a couple of problems:

1. whether you have a crappy view of it or not, globalization is now a fact of life and
2. if you have a crappy view of it, well, it is most likely a wrong view.

Trade, particularly free trade, isn’t a zero-sum game. When NAFTA took effect in 1994, trade between the United States and Mexico was only $50 billion each way since then U.S. exports to Mexico have nearly quintupled to $250 billionish which supports 3 million U.S. jobs. Imports to the United States from Mexico are close to $300 billion and those, too, support millions of American jobs. The world is now totally interdependent. This is why any attempt by the United States to retreat from the world’s interconnectedness will:

• instigate a global economic disaster and
• make it even crappier for the everyday working person.

We cannot go back.

It may not feel like where we are is great or that maybe we aren’t getting “the best deal”, but we are not get a “raw deal” and the road which got us to where we are today just doesn’t exist anymore. But globalization isn’t really being challenged by the past nor by economy or jobs or any real practical thing it is actually being challenged by trust … or lack of trust <which needs to exist in order to enlighten and diminish ignorance on a topic>.

As it seems with almost everything these days there is no trust. The public opinion has a lack of trust in any institution which is associated with globalization <banks, financial institutions, governments, foreign policy experts, etc.>.

This is where simplistic nationalism steps in.  It is a pretty straightforward anti-globalization ‘do not trust institutions’ stance.

Nationalism believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favor of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. They typically compound this argument by stating large-scale immigration has weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.

This attacks globalization on three fronts:

1. globalization has forgotten the working person
2. globalization has depressed the working income therefore creating inequality, and
3. globalization has cost me ‘the job I deserve’.

All of that is false in some form or fashion (pieces of it may be true). Globalization certainly puts stress on labor, but inequality is driven first and foremost by advances in technology and second by globalization that has exposed U.S. workers to competition from hundreds of millions of people in other countries. Stepping back from globalization will not bring jobs back to the United States in sectors such as manufacturing and coal simply by renegotiating existing trade deals, such as NAFTA, or relaxing environmental rules. But more importantly is that the U.S. manufacturing sector has in fact expanded since the 2008 recession, even as manufacturing employment has decreased. The problem is that the new on-shored work is being performed in highly automated factories.

Regardless. Anti-globalisation rhetoric centers on economic protectionism <some call it nationalism>:

“It is the consequence of a leadership class that worships globalism over Americanism … Our politicians took away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families.”

These voices warn against “the false song of globalism” criticizing a growing world economic interdependency that they argue hurt American workers.

Well. They are right and wrong. Wrong in that it is because of the elite or bad political decisions, but right n that globalization does affect a nation. Mostly, globalization exposes you to competition. It is almost, metaphorically, like you are an elite team winning a large % of your games and then you step out of your conference and get smoked by another team. My answer isn’t to not schedule the other team, nor is it to change the rules so that it makes it harder for them to win, it is for me to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to win.

I absolutely agree much more needs to be done to improve the lives of workers impacted by globalization. But the idea that protectionism is the answer is wrong.

Free trade (with governing policy augmentation) has long presented advantages and disadvantages to Americans. It has been linked to outsourcing as manufacturing jobs have shifted to countries with lower wages. But it has also contributed to significantly cheaper consumer goods for American consumers and opened up new markets to US exporters <which creates jobs>. I, clearly, support managed free trade, but say ‘reject globalization at your own risk.’

Which leads me to responsibility.

While globalization certainly has its pluses and minuses the biggest concern is responsibility.

“The world is always at fault. China is at fault. Japan is at fault, Germany is at fault and even U.K’s Brexit is at fault too. Everyone is out to cheat America of our lunch. America is one great nation that is willing to consume more than we can produce for export. We don’t blame ourselves for our deficit balance problem with every nation. It’s obviously China’s fault. It’s definitely Russia’s fault. It’s my dog’s fault that it barks at me when I went out of the house this morning.

Why is everyone’s fault and not ours.”

Nationalist policies that attempt to raise American workers by depriving developing nations of the trade they need to grow is not a path toward long term success. We need to recognize how globalization benefits millions, by reducing the price of goods throughout the world, reducing economic instability and increasing overall prosperity globally & domestically.

We need reign in some of the predatory aspects of capitalism like cutting out tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas and offer support and help transition the ‘losers’ left behind to adapt to fill changing industries. Coal and steel jobs ARE NEVER coming back we need help workers transition to more viable industries. And we CAN solve this problem. Undo the tax and accounting rules and laws that reward short term profit taking over long-term DOMESTIC investment. Roll back the trade deals and tariffs that make it more profitable for companies to move jobs and wages offshore. Reward companies that reward American workers with good jobs, pay, and benefits, and punish companies that don’t. Level the playing field for American workers by implementing taxes/tariffs on goods and services from foreign countries. And just as importantly, revitalize the unions by installing oversight to ensure they serve their member’s best interests and not the bosses and criminal elements, so that collective bargaining is once again effective. I would note what I am, fundamentally, suggesting is free trade and the ‘invisible hand’ is an unhealthy myth. The market, globalization included, needs to be constrained and nudged into shapes conducive to the greater good and away from a winner-take-all endgame.

Which leads me to facing reality.

We need to accept that the rest of the world is doing their own manufacturing & business and are gradually increasing their own standard of living. Today’s version of globalization is forcing a re-balancing which will, obviously, create some winners and some losers. But in a global economy the winners don’t win as easily and the losers don’t lose as much as they could have.  That doesn’t mean losses as in slower overall growth or slower wage increase doesn’t hurt, but globalization tends to curb economic exploitation which is what offers the ‘larger than normal’ economic surges in an individual country.

Globalization, and economic interconnectedness, is here to stay. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be constantly pointing America’s compass in the right direction and aligning a cohesive plan with the intent of insuring the best interests of all citizens.

Let me end with one of the most misquoted Obama thoughts of all time:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama

Globalization has created some ‘losers’ which does create bitterness. That is reality. It is a reality that these things have been happening for decades if not centuries with regard to globalization and its pursuit of maximization of the world and its resources. And in its pursuit of maximization some things, people in particular, get minimized. And that is where nationalism and protectionism thrives – minimizing the issues to feed the bitterness and questions about globalization. Yeah. Who would have ever thought that today, with the internet and a variety of other global access resources, we would actually be making things smaller; smaller as in cocooned thinking or gathering up small groups of likeminded people. Maybe social media is maximizing the minimized mind. here is what I would say. Globalization has the potential to maximize the mind and the economies everywhere. The only false song of globalization is that, left to its own devices, it will solve everything. Nothing can solve everything. Globalization, as a tool, can HELP US solve some of the greatest problems we have including the bitterness of people left behind. Ponder.

===

“The United States has a very deep, profound interest in a rising China to be a responsible global stakeholder, to contribute to our shared prosperity and security. But we also know that with a rising power comes a rising sense of ambition, and we will welcome China’s active participation in global affairs so long as it is responsible and transparent.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2011

===

“China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.”
Charles de Gaulle

===

• ** note: just as I was finishing this piece Noah Smith published a piece, A DemTech Economic Agenda: Ten Steps Towards Collective Resilience, which basically states all the essential points to support what I am saying. If you must choose whether you read my piece, or Noah’s, read his.

===

America is what America is and, in this case, what it is, is afraid of China. No matter where you turn someone is claiming China is going to war with US, replace the dollar with the yuan as global currency, spy on every American thru TikTok (albeit no one has clarified what they may do with that spying) and basically making America a third world country. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is an extension of America’s predilection to address everything as either Spinal Tap 11 or, well, zero. China is currently the 11.

Should we be concerned? Sure. Should we be complacent? No. Should we view this as a competition? Yes. Should we consider this a war? No (in my opinion). China is clearly a geopolitical and economic competitor that could pose a threat to American economic interests, but the issue is in the nuance. While it is a competition, we cannot neglect the importance of constructive engagement with China because, well, globalization isn’t going to just go away. It is important to approach the U.S.-China relationship with an understanding in a connected world. There has to be a commitment to nuance. And that nuance needs to extend to rhetoric. US does some things exceptionally well and some others not as exceptionally. The challenge will be to ensure the exceptional things do not lose their competitive edge. And, yes, it is now a competition. An economic power with 20% of the world’s population, China has the ability to reshape the international system and when Xi Jinping says China should “lead in the reform of the global governance system” it suggests ambition. What I will say, without fear, is that an enormously ambitious China is peaking now and a competitive confrontation is upon us.

Before I specifically address the fear of China let me state three underlying beliefs.

1. fundamentally labor and building costs remain higher in the United States than they do either in China or the majority of alternative sources. This is due to a higher standard of living and a cost of living therefore is not easily solvable and maintain ‘lowest prices available’ for consumption or ‘lowest costs’ for creation.
2. we need to discern between creation and consumption. Manufacturing in terms of sourcing is different than markets within which we can sell things.
3. the asymmetry of the US China relationship finally reminded us of an old lesson we had forgotten. Don’t be (over)reliant on a single source for anything. As Toffler once said “if you don’t have a strategy, you are a part of someone else’s strategy.” We didn’t have a strategy except a maniacal blind objective of the pursuit of money (profits and revenue) wherein businesses pursued fragile ‘efficient’ mechanisms of creation and consumption.

Which leads me to looking at this as seeking potential.

The existing situation is a reflection of past behaviors in seeking potential. What I mean by that is as the world became increasingly better at globalization, i.e., ability to distribute creation/manufacturing became more efficient and more markets became open, business, as businesses do, sought potential sales, revenues, margins, and profits. In other words, they sought potential. To be clear, this is business potential not country potential. Business does not prioritize country other than as a criteria for its existence, not its potential. So, by the 2000’s most businesses had fallen into a comfortable balance sheet position wherein their manufacturing is sourced out of the United States and China had a disproportionate hold on both key manufacturing as well as offered a massive user market. Because it was a balance sheet friendly choice, it became a given. And once it became a given, businesses had a propensity to simply build upon that premise to make as much as possible in China. What I am suggesting is that China gained a disproportionate hold on global manufacturing simply by the inevitable gravity of China as the world’s “plant” and US (and some others) as the world’s innovation research hub. To be clear, balance sheets can blind many businesses to potential risks. The good news it is correctible blindness.

Which leads me to exploring potential.

Potential is neither simple nor absolute, but rather within pace layers and pace layering. What is the real potential? And where is the real change? What is a real threat and what is a real opportunity? Those are the questions that we should be asking and asking without fear; seeking direction from the answers we discover. While a common topic within this fear driven conversation is that power is shifting away from the West and from the United States. I have to question is it really shifting power or is it just simply power flexing. The true perceptions of any perceived change or even power flexing typically depends on where one stands. But the entire fear rhetoric creates a siege mentality and this happens when we’re not really sure whether some of the things we’re discussing pose real threats or are they simply perceived ones mixed up combined with a lack of nuance from a political standpoint. In addition, the lack of nuance encourages a zero sum fear winner-take-all attitude lacking the natural proportionality of a globalized economy. What I do know is that is that the uneasiness is grounded in losing what you have.

Which leads me to fear always fills absence.

The current situation demands we at least acknowledge the political policy dynamics. Objectively speaking, viewing substance over rhetoric, the Trump Administration retreated from the global role that the United States typically had in the global interconnectedness. This had repercussions. Some welcomed it, some people became uncomfortable with it, but the truth is in the current moment there is no substitute the leadership that America has offered to the globalized world that exists today. This does not mean that American policies haven’t offered up the possibility that some of the deeds that were implemented may not have been evil, but they weren’t necessarily good. This becomes important because many because many times within the fear-driven dialog much of the citizenry struggles to see how the United States could be anything but benevolent or “good” in a good versus bad binary world. The reality is most American citizens need to stay need to take a step back and under that some of the images and verbiage that get transmitted simultaneously into homes around the world can trigger can trigger opposing perceptions. Where homes in the United States may applaud some behavior there will be other areas in the world that will consider dangerous if not misguided. And where Americans may see consistency other countries may actually see inconsistency. For example, the war in Ukraine it is difficult for any American to think that American involvement in the Ukraine Russia war is not the right thing to do. However what makes it righter then the lack of involvement that America has elected to do in several of the African conflicts which actually involve more people more lives And even pass even possibly more of the global future. Inactions send signals.

That said, we have now veered into a paranoia driven world in which it seems like it’s a one on one combat between China and the United States for control of the world.

First. No one country will control the world. One country can influence the world, but it will never control the world.

Second. From any objective view the United States which has treaties and trade agreements with over 150 countries around the world has disproportionate power than China which I believe only has seven alliances, the majority of which are with very small economies. In addition to that China surrounded by a number of countries and large economies that have no interest in losing their own power to China. I bring that up because while we like to talk about United States versus China there are a number of buffer zones between the two and I’m not speaking just of military engagements, but of economic engagement.

Which leads me to engaging (not in an America First way).

It’s quite possible instead of fear, we should view relationships as opportunistic and transactional. I believe this would be a healthy attitude because believing that the United States use of international institutions, military power, and economic resources to run the world in order to maintain United States dominance is a prescription for disaster. The reality is the United States is made up of 330 million people in a world of almost 8 billion. This does not mean that the United States does not have disproportional power within that larger context, almost kind of like the Intel inside a computer, but to suggest America’s interests can be solely pursued within a global system and have all the results it desires is simply wishful thinking. It seems like the question now should be how to organize to protect ourselves from other countries which desire to undercut the things that are most important to us which would include economic as well as human values. What I am suggesting is that simply pursuing a weakened them and strengthen us initiative is a reflection of an inability to conceive that this could cover up any structural weaknesses that the United States has is as well as assumes that this is but this is actually the best thing for the United States. What I mean by that is that the world really isn’t a zero-sum game that doesn’t mean that it may not be disproportional in terms of who wins and who loses but it is not a zero-sum game. That is important because that would mean that the best American policy for America is actually to seek out the ultimate triumph of a balance, or proportionality, of economic prosperity globally as well as some most important ideals associated with freedom and democracy. But it is hubris to state that United States can defy the economic laws of gravity. What I mean by that is that in order to seek out the best triumph for the United States, within the triumph of global economic prosperity, the United States has to get its economic engine working properly because if you do not maintain your own economic health, it is impossible to fully optimize economic potential. The United States is still the repository of the greatest assets to feed future progress.

Which leads me to why fear should be tempered.

China has a number of countries that it considers allies or partners, although the exact definition and nature of these relationships may vary. Some of China’s closest allies and partners include:

1. Russia: China and Russia have a long-standing strategic partnership, and the two countries have cooperated on issues such as energy, defense, and foreign policy.
2. Pakistan: China and Pakistan have a close relationship that includes military and economic cooperation. China has invested heavily in infrastructure projects in Pakistan, and the two countries have also worked closely on regional security issues.
3. North Korea: China and North Korea have a longstanding relationship that dates back to the Korean War. While their relationship has been strained at times, China remains North Korea’s largest trading partner and a key ally.
4. Iran: China has developed closer ties with Iran in recent years, particularly in the areas of energy and trade.
5. ASEAN countries: China has sought to build stronger ties with its Southeast Asian neighbors through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), with which China has established a strategic partnership.
6. African countries: China has also developed close economic and diplomatic ties with a number of African countries, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which seeks to promote infrastructure development and trade along the historic Silk Road.

“One simple question we should ask is which country—China or the United States—is swimming in the same direction as the majority of the other 191?”
Kishore Mahbubani

I began with China to point out its partnerships, in a cooperative economy, are relatively limited, or, let’s just say its capped. On the other hand, the United States has a number of allies and partners around the world spanning from strategic alliances to transactional relationships – with almost every country in the world. lately, in what appears to be a new interest in reshaping alliances and the economic sub-structure, the United States has deepened relationships in the Pacific Rim, southeast Asia and other countries which constrain China’s ability to expand its role globally.

Which leads me to what I think will happen (so we stop fearing).

One reasonable prediction is the era of global value chains will not come to an end. Offshore manufacturing and global supply chains are just how companies know how to produce stuff now, meaning that — barring a very catastrophic war — we will not go back to an era of largely self-contained national manufacturing economies. That said. I think the manufacturing construct will reshape itself into new blocks becoming less reliant on (a) China and (b) sole source creators. China will obviously attempt to build a block. But, referring back to China’s limited partnerships, China will be limited in how and what they make and own in the creation and who they can rely on for raw materials and other low-value goods. To be clear. There will be struggles over the resources of some neutral countries, including poor countries, and this could turn into some ugly proxy struggles. Interestingly, you can also see how America is attempting to build its own block. The most interesting aspect of America’s version is how ‘pod-like’ the thinking is. What I mean by that is while America benefits in the thinking construct it permits EU and other alliances tap into different creation resources in different ways; all the while optimizing the consumption market size. So, if Americans can finally pull their heads out of their asses and recognize that their country doesn’t dominate the world the way it used to, there’s a chance to create a non-China economic block that preserves lots of the efficiencies of the old globalized system while serving U.S. national security needs. That bloc would not only include America’s formal allies or developed democracies, but also include lots of developing countries – particularly in southeast asi like Bangladesh, Vietnam and Singapore – that would like to hedge against Chinese power and secure access to developed world markets.

“The world needs an international economic system that works for our wage-earners, works for our industries, works for our climate, works for our national security, and works for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries. That means replacing the idea of free markets alone with targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.

It means returning to the core belief we first championed 80 years ago: that America should be at the heart of a vibrant, international financial system that enables partners around the world to reduce poverty and enhance shared prosperity. And that a functioning social safety net for the world’s most vulnerable countries is essential to our own core interests.”

Jake Sullivan

==

Which leads me to possibilities rather than fear.

China has a grand strategy. China has ambitions. USA has a grand strategy. USA has ambitions. Heck. The EU has a grand strategy and ambitions. But they are not on equal footing in a global economy. Currently it is asymmetrical and for the foreseeable future, based mostly on China’s grand strategy, it appears like it will remain asymmetrical. But even if it does become more proportional (China does have 3x the population of the USA) it shouldn’t create fear, it should create a competitive vision of potential and possibilities. Which leads me to end where I began. Fear generates misguided decision-making and potential is wasted. Period. The key to United States prosperity is international cooperation. And here’s the deal. The key to China prosperity is international prosperity. This doesn’t mean China doesn’t have a long term strategy, and ambition, to displace USA as the central player in the global economy just that these two things are not mutually exclusive. That said. While China seeks to become self-sufficient the US should be developing a coalition of interconnected productive prosperity. Instead of a self-sufficient USA it should be a shared prosperity and a self-sufficient coalition of countries. Why? The tide rises higher with a shared prosperity – there will be larger efficiencies and effectiveness and wealth generation. That doesn’t mean US couldn’t stand alone standing upon its own resources, but, why? It only offers a finite path where a coalition offers more possibilities AND maintains a competitive advantage against China.

Which leads me to end with getting out of our own way.

“.. brings into question how serious Washington is about leading the world. Washington’s dysfunction also helps its autocratic adversaries in the global contest over ideology.”

Christopher Chivvis

You can tell the ‘fear’ proposed by political leaders, particularly on the Republican side, is simply performative politics and rhetoric because from a pragmatic standpoint Washington continues to get in the way of actually placing United States in a position to lead the competition with China. It’s an absurd kabuki dance of fact and fiction. I will say, objectively speaking, the words and actions of the Biden administration have been surprisingly forward thinking. Many of the things I have noted in this piece America is actually either doing or discussing. So maybe we should stop fearing and start embracing the changes that are being implemented by ‘the experts.’ Ponder.

I imagine part of everyone’s life is imagining what they would do in a certain situation. What they may say, how they may act within a variety of “what if” situations. I would guess this is actually a healthy thing to do. Mental preparation may not be equal to trial & error preparation, but it certainly generates some mental imprints, some possible heuristic thinking, which could be helpful IF the imaginary problem becomes a problem in reality.

And then the ugly side of this rears its head.

Imaginary problems.

Imaginary problems can span from harmless waste of time thinking to harmful conspiracy theories which subvert thinking.

On the harmless side it just wastes time. I would say the most obvious example of this is managers who have nothing to do, but create problems that don’t really exist under the guise of ‘being prepared.’ In business then can often lead to paranoia, particularly when viewed through a competitive lens, i.e., “them” are out to get “us” (which business loves to do). And while that is business that attitude slips into homes and home discussions and community attitudes and then, well, the harmless actually becomes a bit harmful. That said. To be fair to business, or even the everyday life imaginary problem thinking, this shit has degrees of probability and if the least likely to occur could be catastrophic, well, it may not be a complete waste of time. All I can say here is I wish more people would ponder the probability of some imaginary problem to insure they invest the appropriate amount of thinking time against it. Of course, there is a correlation between the amount of time wasted on this and anxiety. What I mean by that is continuously obsessing over imaginary problems where you can see no attainable solution, fantasy or not, inevitably increases anxiety. This isn’t a societal issue, but it is certainly an unhealthy, harmful, individual issue.

On the harmful side it not only wastes the collective minds’ time but it can actually divert resources through tangible fantasy solutions. So, this type of shit doesn’t just suck up mental time it can actually suck up tangible dollars and tangible resources. What I mean by that is if an imaginary problem becomes large enough in the imagination of a large enough group of people we will, oddly, develop a real fantasy solution to that imaginary problem. Yeah. That’s as weird and ludicrous as it sounds. And before you shelve that thought as some ‘imaginary issue’ I would point out that over 25% of all Americans believe in some conspiracy theory. I would also point out that at one point over 50% of Republicans thought Obama was a Muslim (which begat the Sharia Law takeover imaginary problem which begat a variety of fantasy solutions which, well, you get it, begat some really unhealthy anti-Muslim beliefs). Needless to say (part 1), when a conspiracy theory, an imaginary problem, goes mainstream we demand a fantasy solution. Needless to say (part 2), when we develop fantasy solutions it comes at the cost of time, effort and money/resources applied against a real problem which needs a real solution.

I purposefully broke this down into harmless and harmful to point out that thinking about imaginary problems is a human trait – all people will do it. Therefore, the path between harmless and harmful is a very, very, narrow one at times. I think it is fair for people to discuss imaginary problems and even fairer to discuss them in terms of likelihood in an effort to pare down ‘imaginary to possible.’

That said. Let’s be clear. America has a conspiracy problem. We have an ‘imaginary problem’ problem. And because it is a societal problem it trickles down into daily, individual, problems. Doubt me? We have more fantasy solutions floating around then most sane societies would, or should, have. This is occurring in homes, businesses and government. That makes it a societal issue. That is not an imaginary problem. It deserves more than a fantasy solution of fantastical thinking. Ponder.

===

“Technological optimism means to practice the ability to recognize bad surprises early enough to do something about them.’

Edward Tenner

===

Last week I found myself straddling the technology world and, well, the real world as I sat in a living room in “blue collar America’ discussing the fears of AI.

They all see the headlines of pauses and civilization Armageddon driven by AI and what comes to mind is The Terminator and robots with sentient awareness making decisions on their own. So when I brought up superintelligence and singularity all I got were puzzled looks. Why? Well. “I already think the computer is not only superintelligent but certainly more intelligent than I am.” And with that we get a good dose of everyday reality.

Which leads to the problem with all the discussion surrounding AI and superintelligence and whether technology is intelligent at all.

The technological experts and business consultants gnash their teeth and pound upon tables arguing over what is, or isn’t, technology intelligence and whether in the future technology will be smarter than a human being and, yet, if you were to sit with a normal everyday human being – who works typically nine to five – they would say they already believed that the computer is more intelligent than they are. Among the technology elite the Turing test is discussed as supposed to be the measurement for whether a computer or technology can mimic a human being. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that test occurs with some of the most brilliant minds in existence. The non-brilliant ordinarily smart person already admits his or her computer knows more than they do, can think faster than they do, and can come up with better answers than they can. While 100% of the everyday people I was speaking to that day feels that way, if I were a betting man, I would guess maybe 75% of people already feel this way. my point here is that the technology experts are debating over theory while the real world is attempting to reckon with technology that already exists.

Which leads me to fear.

All the technology experts and business consultants who dominate the headlines with everything that we should fear about the future of Technology and the future of AI is their fear based on some future state that may or may not occur. The problem is that state already occurs to the everyday person so the future fear the technology experts speak about only increases the common everyday persons existing fears that an already smart machine is going to not only be smarter still, but will begin running the world. Once again, my point here is that the everyday person’s future state fear is different than the experts future state fear and the dissonance between the two only exacerbates overall fear. Anyway. I would argue that if technology experts wouldn’t constantly talk about fear, the normal everyday smart person would just enjoy the benefits of the existing AI and technology. That doesn’t mean that we should allow people to be blissfully unaware of some of the negative consequences that AI can apply to a society. But it does suggest rather than encouraging fear we should just be encouraging awareness of the subtle manipulations and encouraging curiosity and exploration of the learning benefits technology offers. Should we be concerned about deepfakes? Sure. Should we be more aware of how algorithms feed confirmation bias? Absolutely. But ChatGPT is not going to destroy humanity <as Grady Booch says an LLM is architecturally incapable of reasoning> and both of the questions I just asked circle around human responses, not technology stimulus. Generally speaking, technology prompts, or should prompt, us to think just a little bit harder, explore just a little bit more and question with sincerity. I would argue that actually doesn’t destroy civilizations and societies, but enlightens them.

Which leads me back to what I always say: technology is nothing without humans.

The moment we turn it off or tune it out, technology has no effect on us. When two people sit in a café and talk it is between humans, not technology. The meeting rooms where people gather and debate and discuss things is between humans, not technology. My point here is that when we do choose to turn it on, and tune in, technology is simply a tool to either learn, not learn, share or gather information and knowledge. It is a distributor of the best and worst of humans – together or within each of us individually. It is, as Jaron Lanier has stated a number of times, a social connection tool. Nothing more, nothing less. I imagine if we were to fear anything it would be to fear that we are not good enough, smart enough, aware enough, to manage the tool we have been provided. But that means we shouldn’t fear the tool, but rather the user. Ponder.

===

“We now live mainly in the map, in the recreation of reality, rather than in reality itself.”

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation

===

Technology has confused the discussion. It has encouraged us to think of different ‘realities.’ The argument becomes we transcend, in some way, physical reality (which, of course, is <1> also mindset, attitudinal realities and <2> bullshit). Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe technology can elevate thinking, awareness, knowledge and possibilities, but, virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, and the metaverse will never replace physical reality. In addition, Chatgpt, algorithms, and AI fundamentally cannot reason so they will never replace human reasoning. But tucked within those thoughts lie technology’s greatest opportunity. Instead of offering different realities, it should be leaning INTO physical reality and structurally enhancing the possibilities of, well, reality. That would demand we, people, began focusing on the right things and the right things within technology. Oh. And make sure we adopt the right attitude. By attitude I mean we need to get a grip on “everything is going faster” because, well, its not.

The reality is that the rate of technology change is no longer speeding up, what is speeding up is the social impact of all the technologies as they not only connect with each other, but become increasingly embedded in everyone’s social connectivity AND as a way of doing things. The embedded aspect is a bit important because technology has become a tool we use to shape our lives and livelihoods.

And that is important because this means is that technology is nothing until it is attached to a human – and, consequently, to other humans. I imagine my point is that technology can help shape the landscape but reality is dictated by humans. Uhm. Unless we elect to live in the re-creation of reality which would mean <1> accepting destiny is shaped by others not “I” and <2> we will have accepted living in the mere shadows of reality and not the rich & royal hues of reality.

That would be sad.

People shape reality and, in particular, the imaginations of people constantly reinvent a better reality – technology cannot do that.

Anyway. This is how technology can shape reality. It simultaneously:

• Creates more random connections
• Amplifies without prioritization
• Is unobviously emergent (unpredictable patterns)

All of those things occur, simultaneously as I noted, through what technology is – a networked distribution platform. It distributes data, information, thoughts, ideas and, yes, even expectations. Those are things that shape the map of reality, but it is simply a poor, incomplete, version of reality.

And maybe that is my point.

Technology can certainly enrich learning and awareness, but it cannot reason. It can only give us glimpses of reality – albeit LOTS of glimpses which we could confuse with reality as a whole. But if we elect to live THROUGH technology rather than living with technology as a tool, we do run the risk of, well, living in some poor-ish re-creation of reality rather than reality itself. I do not believe that would be good. For us as individuals as well as us as civilization. Don’t let technology confuse the discussion about reality. Ponder.

Analog – June 1962 – cover artist – John Schoenherr

===

 “The single most important thing that could be done would be to substitute reasonably accurate positive images of the future for the depressing images that now prevail, especially in the Advanced Capitalist nations.”

futurist Herman Kahn in the 1970s

====

It is just as deterministic to say “if we build social media, the world will be a more connected place” as it is to say “social media will destroy democracy.”

Danah Boyd

==

“We saw Cyndi Lauper convincing a gentleman in a suit to put down his newspaper and dance, I saw a world of possibility, one in which adulthood could be fun, with surprise waiting around every corner.”

Shane O’Neil on the 1980’s & 90’s

==

I almost called this ‘refinding technological optimism.’ Okay. Maybe it is more about anti-technological dystopia. I am not suggesting we be utopian, just that I question why we should ditch optimism. I thought about this in a conversation with Faris Yakob as we pondered our possibly naïve optimism about technology in the early 2000’s. Anyway. Two of the books I consistently pluck off my shelf to remind myself that technology dystopia has not always been the norm: The Cluetrain Manifesto and anything by Jaron Lanier. And while I imagine the Cluetrain authors may suggest that they were naively optimistic, I don’t agree with them. In those heady days technology was going to offer us many of the things that would solve, or resolve, many of the societal issues at hand. And technology, for its part, has held up its end of the bargain. Where things go a bit awry is with humans. And if you agree with that, fundamentally, anything humans make can be unmade. Just because some of the Cluetrain and Lanier positive possibilities have not occurred, doesn’t mean they cannot.

But let’s get to the optimistic part.

The roots of technological optimism arise way before the internet and computer technology. Its roots are grounded in technology (a) better utilizing resources against growing demand and (b) easing some of the societal issues through more efficient productivity/use of human time. Technological growth, in the minds of the optimists, meant technological advance where humanity got more output per unit of input – rather than simply more of an old technology. The optimism gained some momentum with the idea of ‘exponential.’ Technology was to provide exponential benefits rather than a more plodding additive or even multiplicative. In other words, today’s limits would look silly in the future because of the accumulation of a seemingly endless amount of breakthroughs. For the most part, this happened. But. We were also offered a blueprint for what could go wrong at this time. Toffler and McLuhan outlined the cognitive issues (human limits) and Anderson outlined the market issues in The Long Tail theory. Fragmentation in the market, profited exponentially, and humans, cognitively, didn’t quite profit as much. The exponentiality was indifferent to symmetry and asymmetry can be a motherfucker to humans and their minds.

But let’s get back to optimism. Distorted market incentives are solvable, businesses and institutions structured to exploit technology can be solved, even societal expectations and objectives can be solved. None of those things have anything to do with technology; they are human issues. That said. Constructive technological advances could enhance human solutions to those things. Technology, in the right hands, could even combat some of the negative features of existing technology.

To be clear, this optimism is not utopian (although I do believe we should do some more utopian thinking). This optimism is rooted in what we know and what we can actually do. To make a point, almost everyone who signed the AI “pause” letter could, if funded well, could develop technological solutions to much of what dystopians lose sleep over. I say that to suggest we should have technological optimism … as long as the right humans are involved in technology’s future. I imagine my grander point on that is technology has not failed us, we have failed technology. And within that we should find some optimism because no matter how bad people can be, good people have a gravitas that bad can never attain.

“In the long run, optimists shape the future.”

Kevin Kelly

Which leads me to shaping.

An optimist almost has to believe, in some form or fashion, that exponential technological growth will expand resources and minds ahead of exponentially increasing issues. This is a tough thought in today’s world because from most people’s perspective technology is an aggravating factor – amplifying all that is bad – rather than an expansive factor – amplifying possibilities and imagination to be mined. But once again, the problem isn’t the technology; its us (humans). The undesirable, aggravating characteristics, consequences of technology are reflections of humanness which many of us simply ignored or submerged under a variety of other things (results, altruism, etc.). Market forces are most typically a reflection of humanness. That is not to say technology doesn’t tweak our worst instincts, just that technology is equally a force for good and bad and only pursues what we want to pursue. The consequences are more us than it is ‘them’ (technology) so if we optimistically shape our technology we can shape a more optimistically good world.

==

“I don’t think our goal should be to create conscious intelligent machines. Everything that makes a machine useful are generally the things that are not human, why do we need to create an emotional, unpredictable, volatile, machine and put it in charge of something mission critical. The whole point of machines is to do they can do the things we don’t trust humans to do consistently.”

Mike Walsh

===

The fact of the matter is, McLuhan was right: “We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.” Technology is not just about things and devices; it is about processes and verbs and attitudes and people. You have to be a little careful about what technologies you adopt, because each technology is, broadly speaking, a way of doing things. Maybe we place optimism on top of these questions L.M. Sacasas suggests:

1. What sort of person will the use of this technology make of me?
2. What habits will the use of this technology instill?
3. How will the use of this technology affect my experience of time?
4. How will the use of this technology affect my experience of place?
5. How will the use of this technology affect how I relate to other people?
6. How will the use of this technology affect how I relate to the world around me?
7. What practices will the use of this technology cultivate?
8. What practices will the use of this technology displace?
9. What will the use of this technology encourage me to notice?
10. What will the use of this technology encourage me to ignore?

Which leads me to suggest technological optimism is about faith and craft.

To be optimistic is to believe in human ingenuity with no foreseeable limit. Technology can be crafted as an unending cascade of advancement. What this means is a belief that each advancement can not only eliminate the present technological issues, but also stretch the limits of what is currently possible. In its constant stretching both good, and bad, can occur but the good is constantly erasing the bad. Yeah. It’s an understanding that technology is both empowering/enabling and oppressive/constraining; often simultaneously. But within optimism is a rejection of a conclusion that the world is ugly and the people are bad. Optimism rejects dystopia as well as the status quo. I believe the status quo never invents the future, and vision, creativity and innovation crafts the future. Yeats is correct, the center cannot hold, so the center may be the status quo and who’s happy with that today? Instead of griping about what’s deplorable, it seems a discussion about the future would be much more interesting. We can wring our hands all we want, but there’s no going back, so what’s ahead?

“Well, that’s the universal law of technology, that it can be used for good or evil.”

Michio Kaku

“Ahead” technology discussions today careen between an anticipation of doom or deliverance. All of today’s technologists, while they craft for utility, power and profit, appear to have as their north star as rationality. Somewhere along the way the technologists lost the distant dreams and aspirations for a better world. Sadly, I believe this is a reflection of business and society in general (it is a tough time for dreamers these days). While tools could have been shaped to shape a better society and world, the tools were shaped – by human hands and minds – to serve financial objectives (which, obviously, is the easiest way to pay for the technology). So. While we should expect far more from our technological innovations then convenience and efficiency, or even cognitive survival, we do not. It gets a bit worse. We also demand deliverance from problems, even the problems that technology creates, from technology. Yeah. Technological growth clearly aggravates real human problems and it is silly to optimistically count on technological advance to solve all of them. Technology is a mixed blessing capable of producing undesirable as well as desirable consequences. The mixed consequences of technological development is an issue that becomes more critical the more technological advance entails risks with catastrophic potential. That said. There is only “ahead” and we should be focused on delivery (and deliverance from dystopia), and not doom.

Which leads me to why dystopia is so much easier than optimism.

Part of the issue is that technology has become a God-like tool for, well, everything to, well, everyone; not just technological optimists.  As Alan Turing said:

“(Turing) predicted in about 50 years time it will be possible to program computers to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than a 70% chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning. It is at that point we would start deeming a machine’s performance as intelligent.”

The truth is we are at the 70%, if not higher, now. But go on the internet and you can find all the tech nerds and philosophical thinkers adamantly stating all the ways a computer is not human and cannot mimic a human and, in fact, it is not intelligent. Well. The issue is the majority of the world are not tech nerds and philosophical thinkers. To the majority of THAT world the computer is intelligent. In fact (an aside to all the tech nerds and philosophical thinkers), that imitation technology is more easily understood than the tech nerds and philosophical thinkers.

What this puts us at is what complexity theory calls The Edge of Chaos. This refers to the exploration zone of complex systems where interesting things happen. In this zone systems are not so rigid that they cannot change at all, but not so chaotic that they immediately dissolve into useless disorder. The edge of chaos is the fertile ground for possibilities to emerge. It describes where we live in today’s world. It is from this space where optimists thrive and progress towards something better can thrive.

It is time to explore.

I believe there about the same number of neurons in the brain as there are a number of stars in universe. We have used technology to explore space, to explore the brain, to explore the body, to explore the capacity of humans. Technology is the ship which can carry us to the farthest parts of the universe. My real fear and pessimism reside not with technology, but with ourselves – human beings. We have met the enemy and it is us. The truth is technology simply amplifies all the worst things of human beings. I’m not speaking of evil, although it lurks in the depths of the Internet, I’m speaking more about conformity. The internet defines how things should look like and scores of people line up to conform to that likeness. The same thing occurs with ideas and, well, everything. We are imitation machines. More access to all this information and imagery and words just simply encourages us all to become average, i.e., to all become the same. At some point we will all look like each other, speak like each other, and even use all the same words. That is my fear. My optimism resides in the belief that people are not average, they do like to be distinct, and they like progress to something new and better. Yeah. All progress is grounded in some spectacular risk, some spectacular mistake, or some spectacular idea that encourages everybody to zig while everyone else is zagging. And my optimism also encompasses technology because technology mirrors humanness.

Which leads me to end with a thought Pamela McCorduck had: “this thinking machine amplifier would amplify these qualities as other as other as other machines have amplified the other capacities of our body.” The development of AI continues to promise to provide an extension of the human capacities we value most like, well, conversations and exchanges and connections:

====

“The first markets were filled with people, not abstractions or statistical aggregates; they were the places where supply met demand with a firm handshake. Buyers and sellers looked each other in the eye, met, and connected. The first markets were places for exchange, where people came to buy what others had to sell — and to talk.

The first markets were filled with talk. Some of it was about goods and products. Some of it was news, opinion, and gossip. Little of it mattered to everyone; all of it engaged someone. There were often conversations about the work of hands: “Feel this knife. See how it fits your palm.” “The cotton in this shirt, where did it come from?” “Taste this apple. We won’t have them next week. If you like it you should take some today.” Some of these conversations ended in a sale, but don’t let that fool you. The sale was merely the exclamation mark at the end of the sentence.”

Cluetrain Manifesto

Of course, there are reasons to be concerned especially when pondering latency – where effects are manifested long after the initiation of their cause – coupled with irreversibility, or a resistance to correction. Or the zero-infinity characteristic which refers to effects that are extraordinarily unlikely to occur, but catastrophic if they do.

Look. I am certainly not suggesting gambling our future on an optimistic point of view, just that optimism can shape the future we want. And I believe optimism is actually the only way to forge our way to a better future. Let’s go explore. Ponder.

A Human Algorithm: Flynn Coleman

 ===

“Their most hopeful vision of the future is centred around compassion not convenience, emotional not artificial intelligence. The path towards this vision seems to require little technical innovation; it demands simply that people care about people – an idea so laughably naïve, yet so radically transformative.”

Kai

===

• Preface: apologies to all my technology friends because I am going to mangle some technology concepts to make some points.

With all the talk about ChatGPT (large language models), which seems to bleed into a larger technology angst discussion, I thought it may be important to remind everyone about, well, humans.

The one thing smart machines and humans have in common is choicemaking. From there the paths diverge – fairly significantly.

A major difference between humans and computers is that at any given moment people are not choosing among all possible steps. What this means is when humans think of possibilities or ‘desired futures’ they are not even close to making the optimal choices. Instead, we, people, typically lean in on a deeply nested hierarchy of ‘knowns’ in our minds which we recognize as ‘better’ paths, or stepping stones, toward the future we desire. These nested ‘knowns’ are typically bounded biases (self-sealing beliefs). The self-sealing beliefs issues gets compounded by the fact we tend to pursue short term goals, or more immediate gratification/results, rather than maximizing for the future. We may think we are, and we may even may make valiant attempts to do so, but we are inevitably constrained by those pesky nested beliefs and shorter term gratification.

Which leads me to smart machines.

Given enough data a smart machine can recognize your self-sealed beliefs (even the ones you may have submerged fairly deeply). From there it can manipulate your nested beliefs which inevitably changes your view of future possibilities. We all have these nested beliefs, often called heuristic thinking, and they do help us navigate shit. That said. Because they are so embedded it’s difficult for us to see let alone reshape ourselves, but a computer can – sometimes incrementally over time and sometimes in one fell swoop. As you can imagine, this can be very good, and it can be very bad. And that is where this whole thing gets tricky. While we all have personal preferences, computers simply have data and the knowledge to see your preferences – but not understand them or the reasoning behind them – and smart machines are built with the purpose to modify human preferences because, well, smart machines modify human experiences. Preference modification is a slippery slope. It can modify good and modify bad and, well, machines are machines and without some intuition they may mathematically steer a preference away from a more optimal path – specifically to you – simply because the machine has assessed it to be so. This gets compounded by, quoting Brian Christian, “when a computer guesses, it is alarmingly confident.” Look. Machines will most likely make preference modification more statistically optimal (even weighing a 51% probability in a binary way), but the truth is some of the best preference driven choices people make are the less obvious ones. So maybe what I am suggesting is that ‘always optimal’ leads to a less-than-optimal destination. Yeah. Imagine that if everyone did what the computer said the entire world inches a bit closer to the mean (average) and runs the risk of eliminating the soaring heights attained in the improbable. And, if humans are anything, they are improbable machines.

Which leads me to how smart machines are both smart and dumb.

Machines do have an ability to learn at a variety of levels. At one level is repetitive task automation where the machine has been taught how to perform a specific task reliably, but its knowledge cannot grow any further based on its experience or in response to changing conditions. This is a closed loop system and typically very affordable. At another level the computer is able to observe the effects of its performance or results of its analysis and make adjustments to what it “knows”, usually by experimenting with other possibilities that might perform better. This sounds good and it is good, however, it can’t question anything because it doesn’t really have the ability to assess context awareness and learning. It cannot really question anything beyond any of the inputs it has been told to consider in its optimization. This is also a closed loop system just broader than the first that I outlined – a little less affordable.

This closed loop is important because far too many people talk about AI as being some omniscient thing, i.e., an open loop all-knowledge-encompassing process. It can be, but mostly it can’t because of cost. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked with a software developer about an AI/algorithm-based idea and they have responded “that is a great idea, but I don’t know anyone who would have the budget to build it.” What this means is ‘closed loop’ is also ‘budget-manageable.’

Anyway. A smart machine will end up being good at pattern recognition (assuming it has a large enough data base) and will be bad at intuitive sense. For example, machines “see” items as a patchwork of lines and dots and ones and zeros from which they identify things that match what they have in their database. But they cannot easily identify the essence of what item is. And even if a machine is able to successfully match an object to an image in its database, a slight change in perspective can baffle the shit out of a smart machine.

Our brains, however, are quite capable of taking different perspectives and variations into account. Our brains are subconsciously performing trillions of calculations. Basically, artificial intelligence is trapped in a closed loop. That loop can very large like large language models, but however vast they appear, alas, they are a closed loop. Brains, on the other hand, are an open system with nested loops inside. And this is maybe where common sense is not so common gets explained. Individual’s brains love residing in a nested loop. That nested loop of thinking is experience-based ‘data’ where the identification of what needs to be solved pops up as common sense. That said. The issue would be the same as a smart machine in that this heuristic thinking is a closed loop system which ignores additional information flowing in. That being said the brain is an open loop system and has the ability to be to be able to feed consistent additional information into any one of the closed nested loops within our brain, if we elect to permit it in.

“The fact that digital computers are able to outperform humans and performing some mental tasks should come as no surprise they were designed to do just that.”

University professor Phil Auerswald

Which leads me to the fact good decisionmaking is not always the optimal decision.

Good decision making has always been in the purview of humans. While we all bitch and moan about the lack of good decision making by certain people, the truth is the majority of us make good decisions most of the time. Or, maybe said, we make the best decision that we possibly can in the moment with the information that we have at hand. Which leads me to say people have learned to make the really hard decisions by first making a lot of easy ones. People gain skills and confidence from simple situation decisionmaking where it can be determined afterwards whether a decision was made well or not. So. If we were to allow smart machines to take over these ‘starter decisions’ and leave only the highly ambiguous situations for humans, there is a risk that effective decision making would be a less-than-optimal choice for humans to make. Yeah. They would just suck at decisionmaking. Yeah. If fewer people understand how to diagnose a decision because they’ve never had to run the gauntlet of all the easy ones, how would we be able to even assess whether a good decision has been made on the hard ones later on? I sometimes worry that we will find ourselves under a smart machine decision making autocracy by default in which less educated, or less concerned, decision makers automatically follow the decisions of smart machines. I’m not suggesting this will always be a bad thing. In fact it raises the possibility that a lot of good things happen faster. But it will only be a good thing until it’s not. Sometimes it will be a very very bad thing. And I worry we humans won’t know which is which. But then again, if we absolve ourselves of responsibility for all the easy decisions, aren’t we by default divesting humans from the hard decisions?

Here is what I know.

A smart machine will always make optimal choices. The best future is rarely, if not ever, found by making optimal choices. In fact, it’s the less-than-optimal choices that tend to foster the spectacularly-more-than-optimal results. And I tend to think humans are the best spectacular error and spectacular success machines in the world. Ponder.

===

“No, I’m not interested in developing a powerful brain. What I’m after is just a mediocre brain, something like the president of the American Telephone and Telegraph company.”

Alan Turing

=====================

“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

–

Albert Einstein

=========================

“We need timeless principles to steer by in running our organizations and building our personal careers. We need high standards — the ethics of excellence.”

 –

Price Pritchett

=======================

Ethics are our morals in action. Ethical behavior is the system we develop framed within our moral code. Our moral code, or our morals, are a system of beliefs emergent from our values. Values are the foundation of our ‘right/wrong judgement’ which create some belief system. This is personal, an individual decision, not universally accepted.

“values are our measures of importance, whereas ethics represent our judgments about right and wrong”

(Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 438)

It may seem like I am parsing thought here, however, in the business world all the words get tossed around flippantly (interchangeably) – particularly when it comes to culture. It is important because culture is emergent, not dictated. Culture is a collection of individuals, with individual values, who act in a coherent behavioral fashion, within an organization (where the systems enable or suffocate the individual behavior). I say this because this is when “principles” comes into play. Principles encourage a specific coherence not by dictating but rather by establishing some common agreement. In other words, despite each person having their own value prioritization, the organization establishes its value prioritization (establishing not what to do, but what not to do).

Look. Here is a truth.

We don’t really like to admit it but Life, in general, more resembles a constant teetering on the edge of a slippery slope than anything else (especially with regard to ethics, i.e., “doing the right thing.”). Life, and business, constantly, relentlessly forces you to make, well, ethical choices. Now. They may not look like ethical choices, but if you look real closely you will see the face of ‘right or wrong’ staring at you wagging its finger. We don’t look that closely because it would force us to admit:

• Right & wrong is often contextual
• Right & wrong is often not a clear black or white
• Right & wrong is often measured, ultimately, in consequences not actions, yet, we are demanded to choose right or wrong and act now

You will most associate this constant teetering (also a recognition of being on the slippery slope of fading ethics) as “just this once” behavior. We don’t really like to admit it because ‘just this once’ tends to be used to explain away some of our more dubious behavior and decisions.

This ‘dubiousness’ gets couched in a variety of ways. Safety. Utility. Benefits (functional and ‘to me’). We find a lot of ways to justify our behavior, decisions and attitudes before we ladder up to ethics. As my friend Faris Yakob (see image) suggests it is almost a Maslow-ian decision model. Its not that we ignore ethics or even not care about ethics its just we prioritize a number of things before we get to ethics. This suggests ethics is not a foundation from which decisions emerge, but rather are a final, fairly wide, box in which a decision has to be checked against.

source: Faris Yakob

If that is true, then ethical fading is commonplace, yet, justified by ‘pragmatism’ criteria. I bring up pragmatism because, whether we admit it or not, unless you actually think about ethics, morals and values (in a non-meta philosophical way) then it becomes a little more difficult to understand how principles can play a fairly important pragmatic guardrail role. The truth is that ethics are constantly challenged, in context, by safety and utility. For example, would we steal to feed our children or lie to keep us safe.

Sound moral judgment is rooted in strong values and acted upon by our ethics. An organizational judgement, a collection of these individuals, is herded in common principles.

Principles, yes, before you despair, principles guard against ethical fading. Principles are the cornerstones of your ethical building. Without principles you have no solid ground to stand on in a world constantly trying to tip you over into a variety of holes, slippery slopes and dead-end tunnels.

‘Principle’ is defined in Nuttall’s Concise Standard Dictionary of the English Language as, “n. the source or origin of anything; a general truth or law comprehending many subordinate ones; tenet or doctrine; a settled law or rule of action; to impress with any tenet; to establish firmly in the mind.”

Principles protect, in a very fragile way, against ethical fading.

They do so in a number of ways

1. They establish a foundation, or a moral filter, for ethical behavior. Maybe call them the ground rules of how you assess what is right versus wrong
2. Unfortunately, the foundation is a framework not a “how to do” manual. Therefore upfront they help define exceptions to the ground rules and, yes, we will always find some exceptions. Some ‘blurring’ of the guardrails as it were.
3. Unfortunately (part 2), this blurring, while not always creating ‘just this once’ behavior, it CAN create just this once behavior which is, well, the slippery slope of ethical fading. In this situation principles can actually be the solid lily pads of ‘no more’ certainty from which one can stop the slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading.
4. Unfortunately (part 3), principles, while resilient, are not immortal. Facing the onslaught of ethical fading they can, well, fade and once they have made their last stand you are screwed. You are on the slope and the only question left to answer is how far down the slope you end up.

So, despite their fragility, let me talk about principles.

“The most important ingredient we put into any relationship is not what we say or what we do, but what we are. And if our words and our actions come from superficial human relations techniques (the Personality Ethic) rather than from our own inner core (the Character Ethic), others will sense that duplicity. We simply won’t be able to create and sustain the foundation necessary for effective interdependence.”

Stephen R. Covey

To me principles revolve around a discussion of soul (selling your soul ). Some people may disagree with me but, to me, soul represents the intersection of I & We. It gives us life energy (call it our subconscious passion). It what joins us together with an external shared common vision – kind of our common value proposition for Life. It creates a connective tissue for, well, acting in a humane fashion with other humans. It is within this intersection in which we seek the common ground between morals, ethics and value and arrive at a coherent principled behavior as a community or business organization.

Let me suggest 4 cornerstone principles (not ranked, just foundational):

• Inviting culture premised on affection for humanity. Lives are to be lived for others (therein lies where we gain meaning), not just for our own success and advancement. We must model lives that matter if we want to nurture into living lives that matter. We believe that we are not islands unto ourselves but social beings who need community to flourish and become our best selves. Believing you are in, and of, community.
• Commitment to character demands involving oneself into multiple traditions and frameworks for what makes up a good life (contextually expanding your view). This means accepting a responsibility to pose questions which introduce one to a variety of cultures and contextual questioning.

Believing that character takes involvement & commitment & work.

• Do good. I imagine I am suggesting that if you do good you will contribute in a meaningful way (some call this a purposeful life). We must simply follow Aristotle’s advice, or Emerson, that “the purpose of our examination is not to know what virtue is, but to become good.” The point is not merely to study the good, in a detached and academic way, but to invite oneself to develop as a person of character.

Believing that a virtuous life is not found in attitude, but behavior & actions.

• Be curious about everyone and everything. Keep your head in a swivel as context changes. Exhibit a dedication, imagination and commitment to context as the fertile ground for intellectual growth, knowledge and ethical resilience. Ethical resilience is NOT rigid ethics, but rather strongly held principles which can accommodate the nuances of cultural context (reflective of cultures surrounding the person and decision). This principle, in particular, does not dictate character, but is intended to provide a compass to help each person find their own path and to grow in their awareness of self (and others).

Believing principles are not steadfast and unmoving but rather depending on adapting to new learning.

I will note that all the Principles are solid in belief but adaptable to time, knowledge and context. This is a recognition that we, humans, are not of self but rather of something bigger – society, community, connectivity.

Yes. This suggests Principles are not simple, but complex.

This leads me to leadership.

Leadership can be of one’s own life or it can be in combination with other people. Regardless, someone must develop some skills for successful leadership – for self or for group.

The first is the mindset that leaders see leadership as a skill that needs to be continually developed and improved (active listening, giving feedback, talking to people).

The second is a recognition that certain things happen under the surface and have a significant impact on the performance of the team, such as interpersonal dynamics, the way individuals work, disputes and tension between people (typically originating from the past). Leaders have to have the skills to bring these things to the surface and resolve them.

** note: this is also true of self and inner conflict

The third is power and inclusion. Power dynamics effect any social structure (you are misguided if you don’t believe this). You have to recognize, and acknowledge, power dynamics in order to be inclusive, empathetic and create complete connections. If you elect to ignore the relationship between power and ethical behavior, i.e., how power stresses individual values prioritization and behavior toward goals, you will ignore the truth that the more power you need, the more likely ethical fading is to occur.

That said. In old structures (hierarchy) power can be directed, but in future organizations power emerges (networks evolve) and leadership is expanding potential from emergent power dynamics. This will demand a different type of character. This type of character navigates the I, we, larger We dynamics of an interconnected life, business & society.

“Character, like oxygen, is most noticeable when it is missing.”

Richard Reeves

The new powerful leadership will not lead with power, but rather principled driven energy and instead of just accumulating wealth/profits/achievements, seek to accumulate outcomes to be proud of.

Look.

These are very strange times. I would not say it’s the worst of times, but it seems to be a world that demands binary, black & white stances despite the fact navigating ambiguity and uncertainty is the path to not only success, but progress. What I can say is that holding onto something in a black and white way in a world of swirling colors, and grays, creates an ongoing sense of uncomfortableness. Maybe worse is attempting to hold onto binaries you will slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading without even noticing until its too late.

And maybe that is where I will end. You would think ethical fading would be associated with gray and the graying of morals and choices, but its not. Ethical fading occurs one black & white step at a time.

In the end.

We often speak of “principled leadership” or desiring leaders to have principles. I would argue each of us, to be successful, need to grapple with our own relationship between values, ethics and principles. Because, in the end, while we may be grounded in our values and measured by our ethical behavior what will matter will be the principles which make all of these decisions coherent to our Life – what we will, or will not, do. Yes. Refusal of “ethical fading” suggests “we are what we refuse to do” or, as Paul Chippendale stated, “we are what we refuse to adapt to.”

==

“The rules cannot be understood apart from the virtues at which they aim”

==

Telos is the Greek word for a human’s ultimate aim. Its kind of the smart version of today’s dumbed down “individual purpose. It represents his ultimate purpose and function — an essential nature that can only be realized by throwing off the inertia of default desires and actively striving after it. Its kind of like attaining “what you could be”, your potential best, if you could clear the decks and do it. to be clear, this isn’t excellence, it is more about flourishing as a human being.

Which leads me to virtuous.

Here is what I mean by virtuous:

• Do good. I imagine I am suggesting that if you do good you will contribute in a meaningful way (some call this a purposeful life). We must simply follow Aristotle’s advice, or Emerson, that “the purpose of our examination is not to know what virtue is, but to become good.” The point is not merely to study the good, in a detached and academic way, but to invite oneself to develop as a person of character.

Believing that a virtuous life is not found in attitude, but behavior & actions.

I believe it was Aristotle who suggested being a good human was both functional and objective which means that being virtuous is not just lived within what you do (so asking to be judged by your actions may mean well but you are likely to be doomed within judgement of) but also within intent (your aspirations to be better). That said. I imagine the conflict of self, in life, mainly resides in the liminal space between who we are and who we could be at our best.

Which leads me to coherence.

Far, far, too often people suggest consistency is the key to attaining your purpose or even a life better lived. They would be wrong. It is coherence. Life, business, shit, everything, is driven by connections with others and other thoughts. And within each of those connections you have conversations – with others, their ideas and even in your own head. At some point, if you want to make any progress, this lends you some coherence within all the scattered ideologies and feelings and attitudes and opinions so you can shape some perspective. It shapes both imagination and reality all of which shapes identity.

I would argue they shape your telos as well as create the platforms for a better life, business, and society. And while these three things may never be completely in sync, I would argue that the constant coherence around seeking the sync is where things get better – everything.

That coherence establishes some parameters and ultimately people, not just an individual, get mobilized within those parameters to do better things, think better things, and become better.

I imagine this is an argument for each individual doing the right thing, and if they get close to individual telos, the greater good, the greater community and society, is positively impacted.

Which leads me to end with rules do not help.

While I don’t want to confuse, or conflate, morals and virtue, I will use philosopher Alasdair McIntyre, “when a moral culture lacks a teleological element, rules become the primary concept of the moral life” to make a point. Rules do not define behavior nor do they define virtue. Rules are a default mechanism for people too weak to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is virtuous and what is not.  Simplistically, a societal system, or even a business culture, which lacks a coherent understanding of its telos, there can only exist negative proscriptions for appropriate behavior, i.e., rules shape behavior. The reality is rules are not meant to move people toward meaning or purpose or mattering, they are simply reductive, and restrictive parameters, to basic behavior. If you want to be better, as a person, as a business, as a society, rules will not get you there. I am not suggesting rules should be abolished, but I am suggesting the closer we get to a true telos mindset, the less we will ever have to use rules. Ponder.

===

“a series of steps, each building on the last, but without a predetermined plan. We did what was necessary and as we made progress or ran into problems it became obvious what needed doing next. It wasn’t a straight line. We made mistakes and not everything worked. But we realized we were learning by doing.”

===

“The devil isn’t just in the details. He’s in the definitions. And, most of all, he’s in the analytical distinctions: in the ability to tell one thing from another. To not mix things up.”

Hanzi Freinacht

===

Where does all our crappy behavior and crappy perceptions of the world come from?

Like most things, it’s mainly the product of learned behavior. That may sound horrible, but we humans are imitation machines. Our subconscious minds constantly take in signals from the environment and integrate them into our mindsets, attitudes and, yeah, even behaviors, all of which end up guiding our perceptions and our actions. And while we want to blame social media, and media in general, the most influential part of any environment is the people in it.

Which leads me to a Toffler, Future Shock, thought.

….. impact of Warehouse of Images (before Instagram existed) …..

Pre-internet we were exposed to a fairly finite, and fairly rigid, sample of the human population to ‘imitate’ or judge our perceptions and behaviors. The people in our neighborhood. In our schools and libraries and community gathering places. At the grocery store. In our office. On the street. On the bus. We lived in smaller community echo chambers, where signals were fewer, and meanings/cues were clearer or, at least, more well defined. The internet exponentially expanded our universes wherein the number of signals we receive has increased exponentially and meanings/cues became scrambled into a moshpit of signals. Our common, well, any commonality, and agreed upon sensemaking lost clarity and gained some fairly vague outlines. In other words, social coherence lost accepted boundaries. Our imitation muscles were overworked as we attempted to learn behavior from a seemingly limitless onslaught of cues of which it became almost impossible to discern the majority from the minority.

Which leads me to the danger and opportunity.

We simultaneously see more crappy behavior than ever before, which creates a perception that everyone is crappy, and, yet, we see more kind and moral behavior than ever before (maybe just not from what we would have easily accepted as an established traditional local influencer in the past) which creates a perception that not everyone is crappy. Generally speaking, it is confusing. Are people good or bad? What that means is because we see more information about other people than ever before we need to be very, very, careful what we normalize because while we may not exactly imitate – we may simply begin accepting some version of crappy behavior. We see videos of crappy behavior of kids in schools, crappy crazy drivers, crappy acting adults arguing in grocery stores, let alone the insane amount of insane self made crappy video rants. All of these things we already knew happened occasionally, but virality implies it isn’t confined to the occasional.  And, well, what a culture sees, is what a culture becomes. The more a person sees something, especially another person’s actions, the more they will either gravitate toward it or simply accept it as “how we are” as people (whether we like it or not). It creates the message that “this is how society is.” Even if it is really not.

Which leads me to what we see (and what we become).

In the wayback machine, we had more control over what we would see. Plus. A smaller community controlled what we saw (in some form or fashion). Simplistically, we had to work harder to see the less-than-normal shit. The problem in today’s world is what we are ‘shown’ doesn’t care about proportionality so the ‘less-than-normal shit’ takes on an oversized shitstorm feeling of everywhere all the time. All this to say we get caught in the wretched inbetween of knowing that access to all this information makes us smarter, can make us safer, and actually can create a more equitable (accountable) society AND knowing that a consistent onslaught, or drip-by-drip, of exposure to crappy behavior, well, suggests we begin imitating some of that behavior in order to be ‘competitive’ in today’s crappy society/world. It’s kind of like the tragedy of commons just with behavior. This all breeds a sense of what is called ‘learned helplessness’. This is where we become conditioned to believe that a bad situation is unchangeable, resulting in an unrealistically negative view of the world and a sense of permanent crisis. Ultimately this eliminates hope, or diminishes it (through crappy perceptions), and we either disengage or assume some crappy behavior aspects.

Which leads me to creating a culture which we want people to see so it can become a better culture.

I have written far too often about how algorithms shape what we see and, therefore, shape culture (at least by my measure). But humans are smarter than algorithms, humans create algorithms, and algorithms do not have culture, do not understand culture nor do they even care about culture – algorithms feed people what they ‘say’ they want. Period. So, we can choose to spread the good stories and starve the bad ones of attention. Period. End of story. The stories we tell and we share, becomes what a culture sees and, ultimately, what it becomes.

By assuming this responsibility, hopefully, we learn something new, good; and we change course.

In the end.

Everyone should think about this a bit because the basic premise I offer is the thought if we continuously see crappy behavior, we will start doing some crappy behavior. A lot of people will balk at that. They will believe they can recognize crappy behavior as unacceptable and will never do it. Uhm. I am not so sure about that. I think it becomes just a bit easier to do some crappy things, on occasion, if you have a crappy perception of the context and think everyone else is going to be crappy. Shit. Think about how business culture works (and doesn’t). That said. Ponder. It feels important.