2021/02/02 To Understand This Era, You Need to Think in Systems | Zeynep Tufekci with Ezra Klein | New York Times

In conversation, @zeynep with @ezraklein reveal authentic #SystemsThinking in (i) appreciating that “science” is constructed by human collectives, (ii) the west orients towards individual outcomes rather than population levels; and (iii) there’s an over-emphasis on problems of the moment, and not enough on the history that brought us to that point.

Here are some notable excerpts:

EZRA KLEIN: What does it mean to think in systems? What’s even the alternative?

ZEYNEP TUFEKCI: When I say systems thinking, I’m saying looking at the whole and its interactions as much as possible to understand both each part of it, but also how it all comes together.

[….]

EZRA KLEIN: The difficulty of thinking in systems is that you need to learn about systems. And in particular, you need to learn about many different systems. So how do you do that? You’re a sociologist. I follow your work on politics. It’s very good. That’s my system that I know pretty well. You’ve been way ahead on coronavirus. You’re very good at moving into new disciplines and understanding how those systems work. And I’m curious what your approach to that is. How do you learn about new systems when you identify one you need to understand?

ZEYNEP TUFEKCI: So I try not to move into completely new stuff, of course, because that’s how you get into epistemological trouble, where you try to think about things you don’t really understand well. And I did kind of move into pandemic writing, partly because there was an emergency. There needed to be more writing on certain aspects. And I was in a position with a platform to do so. So I ended up doing that.

And I don’t really have a formula, but one of the things I do, do is, I read a lot of things directly. I mean, I don’t just read newspaper articles or press releases about a paper. I go read the paper. And I have enough of a background to at least understand some of the statistics or methods, especially if it’s a field like epidemiology, which has a lot of relationship to sociology. And plus, it was something I taught a lot as part of teaching people sociology. I used to teach pandemics. I wasn’t completely unfamiliar with it.

And then I go out of my way to try to find experts in the field to keep asking questions, too. 

[….]

… there’s a principle called the “principle of embarrassment” when trying to understand the historical accuracy of stories, is that if a story is really embarrassing to the teller, you kind of think they might be telling the truth. Because otherwise, it’s the kind of thing that people don’t usually admit about themselves, or institutions.

So, when China was telling us after January 20th that it was spreading during the incubation period from people that didn’t have symptoms, that was actually making it look very bad because they had told us until then it wasn’t happening at all. And all of a sudden, they’re telling us something. And I thought, you know what? They’re telling us the truth. Because right now, they just really want to prevent the pandemic because they covered it up for too long. They kind of got caught. Now it’s going to spread to the world. And they’re going to get blamed for it. And now, they’re telling the truth.

So I had a completely different sense of what they said before January 20th when they lied and covered it up. And it was kind of not treated with the correct suspicion compared to what they said afterwards. Now the reason I’m telling you all this is, there’s these ways in which even if you don’t necessarily have direct evidence on the medical side, if you kind of understand how institutions and authoritarians work, there’s a way in which you get more information about their claims.

[….]

EZRA KLEIN: One of, I think, the more poisonous lines in this whole conversation is, we need to listen to the science. It is almost always said on things where the science cannot give you a full answer, where there are values that play differing equities, things that we don’t fully know.

But I think the idea of science operates on an undue level. There are things where the science really can tell us things, right? Do these vaccines work? The science has an answer. The science cannot tell us exactly how to structure who gets them first and who gets them next and which direction we go in. I have to think, though, there’s a difference between this idea of listen to the science, and then listen to the scientists.

[….]

EZRA KLEIN: You’ve done a lot of work on social media, on social media algorithms. How in the end did you feel about Twitter and Facebook’s decision to ban Donald Trump?

ZEYNEP TUFEKCI: Well, let me say that to give an answer would be starting the story very late. So that’s the problem, is, by the time we got to the point of needing to deplatform the President of the United States, it’s almost too late to be talking about it. So whether or not one thinks it’s justified or not, the real question is, how on Earth did we get here? And what role did our information ecology from Facebook to Fox News play in this to the past decades of everything from the financial crisis to the Iraq War?

So I almost feel like we’re focusing on the period at the end of a sentence, rather than trying to understand how we got to that point. 

[….[

EZRA KLEIN: All right, what is the best book, in your opinion, about systems thinking?

ZEYNEP TUFEKCI: One of my favorite books I think is “Normal Accidents” by Charles Perrow, which is living with high risk technologies. And it’s about sort of accidents like Three Mile Island. But it’s really a nice sort of example of how things interact with each other. There’s a lot of concepts there about how things interact with each other in complex systems. And it’s looking specifically at systems that have potential catastrophic outcomes, but you don’t have to apply it just to that. You can apply that kind of thinking to a lot of things. And in fact, ideally, you’d have a field called systems thinking and how you think about these big systems, but you don’t.

Source

Zeynep Tufecki, “To Understand This Era, You Need to Think in Systems”, The Ezra Klein Show, Feb. 2, 2021, The New York Times at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-zeynep-tufecki.html

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Uncategorized

2019/04/09 Art as a discipline of inquiry | Tim Ingold (web video)

In the question-answer period after the lecture, #TimIngold proposes art as a discipline of inquiry, rather than ethnography. This refers to his thinking On Human Correspondence.

Digest from question-answer session, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ztVBhbO8E&t=152s

— begin paste —

[75m26s question] I am curious to know what art, or how art, informs what you are doing here. We are standing on the art school. I have a bit of a worry that all of us just go on and interpret or over interpret what you just said.

[73m46s Tim Ingold] Okay, yes. I have been working on the interface between anthropology and art and all of that has been driven by a concern to treat art as a discipline of inquiry on a par with anthropology.

[74m05] That both concern with inquiring into the conditions and possibilities of human life in an environment, in a world, I think, and they can learn from one another on that level

[75m19s] In the history of of my own discipline of anthropology, unfortunately, an ethnographic approach has been predominant in which art is treated as the productions of people that we can then study and analyze.

[75m34s] So instead of thinking about anthropology AND art we’ve had we’ve had a massive anthropology OF art.

[74:39] Now, anthropology comes along says, just as well, you know here’s a kinship system, we can analyze that. Here’s the city of Richmond, we can analyze that. Oh here’s some art, let’s analyze it.

[74m49s] And that’s intensely boring. I mean it gets us it gets us nowhere.

[74m54] So I think that where we can we can come together is to think of of art as as a form of inquiry. And again it comes to the same thing I said in in answer to your question here, that our job is not to is not actually to interpret the art — to sort of set ourselves up on a pedestal as having some special expertise to explain to everybody else what it means.

[75m29s] That’s ridiculous, I think, and politically somewhat abhorrent.

[75m33s]But what our job is I think is — and I’ve used the word — is to correspond with it.

[75m37s] I’ve been developing this idea of correspondence, not in a sense of matching one thing to another, but in sense of answering to, co-responding in one, as in a conversation.

[75m47s] They’ve got two people are having a conversation and each is responding to the other. Or in a string quartet you got the violin and the cello and whatever and and and they’re all answering to one another. And that processes is carrying on.

[75m58s] So that it seems to me that that that art is, to my mind, a certain way of corresponding with the world, of answering to it. And we in turn answer to the art.

[75m11s] And I would like to think of anthropology my own discipline joining art in that way. And,. but to do that, we have to stop thinking of art as objects to be interpreted, and stop thinking of ourselves as master interpreters.

[76m30s] And, in other words, stop pretending to be artcritics. We can we can do without them I think. I don’t really see what they’re contributing.

— end paste —

Ingold sees beyond science as an objective means of inquiry, seeing opportunities for transmitting wisdom based on more inclusive communications.

— begin paste —

[92m34s] For people who are engaged in research in one way or another, and then thinking about sharing their ideas in quite linear forms like papers — do you have — so varied and and and and mixing and about these gradients and and like things to do with like behaviors that happen in local social systems. Do you have any thoughts on — how is — what are some of the better ways to share ideas, and share what you what you find, in ways which are, yeah, less linear, I suppose.

[93m20s]it’s a big problem and, I think there’s something very seriously wrong with academic publishing at the moment, in that it’s become desiccated, really, and also driven — particularly in the sciences.

[93m26s] I mean there are these big publishers, Elsivier and so on, just making millions of pounds of profit on the back of all this stuff.

[93m41s] But the degree to which it’s appalling, the degree to which, are the writing of research reports has become standardized to a particular model, the extent to which, our own voices — the voices of the authors of these papers — have been eradicated

[94m08s] And I think, in the name of the objective dissemination of research findings.

[94m15s] And I think that this disconnect, between you, as a person who’s doing research, and what do you produce in the form of research output is very very damaging.

[94m282] And I think one of the reasons why we need to bring the arts in, is to try and introduce some sort of correction to that.

[94m38s] And somehow we need to get it across that, an author speaking personally on the basis of their considered experience is not somehow an inferior form of knowledge, to one that rules that out.

[95m00s] So, what I think what has happened, is that knowledge has become commodified within the the overall scope of of a global knowledge economy, and it’s the commodification of knowledge that has been created this this kind of situation.

[95m19s] And it and and you know young scholars are forced into it by the refs.

[95m24s] By all this kind of thing, when they supposed to publish — write and publish in certain kinds of ways — which I think are objectionable. That if we could just …

[95m34s] It can’t be right that there are two kinds of literature, that there’s one that’s sort of research literature and the other that’s called poetry.

[95m43s] You know and they’re not supposed to touch one another. And that can’t be right. And it must be the possible to find ways of communicating what we know, in ways that actually are infused with some sense of engagement of feeling with what we’re talking about.

[96m04s] And in that sense to create a more inclusive — actually more democratic — conversation. How we change that?

–end paste —

References

Ingold, Tim. 2017. “On Human Correspondence.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 23 (1): 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12541.

Ingold, Tim. 2019. “What on Earth Is the Ground?” Lecture presented at the Approaching Estate: Methodologies for practices of site and place, University Arts London, Central Saint Martins, April 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ztVBhbO8E.

Ingold, Tim. 2019. “What on Earth Is the Ground?” Lecture presented at the Approaching Estate: Methodologies for practices of site and place, University Arts London, Central Saint Martins, April 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ztVBhbO8E.
Posted in Uncategorized

2019/10/16 | “Bubbles, Golden Ages, and Tech Revolutions” | Carlota Perez

How might our society show value for the long term, over the short term? Could we think about taxation over time, asks @carlotaprzperez in an interview.

[35:00] Golden Ages are very clearly state-led. When you get a Golden Age, it’s because the state is shaping it. And that means taxing.

Finance has to be taxed properly.

We should have very high taxes for anything, any operation, anything that you earn within one day, with like the Fast Finance, and all of these things, 92% tax. That’s not unique. That happened in the 1950s. So, you get 92% tax for anything within one day, 80% tax for anything within one month, 50% to 60% tax for anything within one year, zero tax for 10 years.

So, you actually get finance to be interested in the long term, because without long term, we don’t have proper innovation.

Perez (2019), Exponential View

There’s some supporting information in a 2017 interview.

That is why now is the right historical moment for the government to come back on the scene, boldly, actively and wisely. In a turning point, government is not the problem: government is the solution.

This is what eventually happened from the 1940s. Government action and the Second World War led to mass production and mass consumption. Large numbers of people had access to relatively cheap products. Suburbanization made it profitable for firms to innovate for the family in the electric home with its insatiable hunger for new products. At the same time, the Cold War led to government investment in high tech. The reconstruction of Europe also stimulated economic growth and the demand for equipment and other goods.

Carlota Perez: post-war golden age

The welfare state enabled mass consumption. That’s one reason why high taxes were possible without resistance. The top rate was around 90% throughout the 50s. The money went out of tax-payers’ pockets, passed through the hands of government, and came back as solvent demand for consumer goods or procurement. Firms prospered because they were able to pursue an agreed common vision of what “the good society” looked like and what innovation was needed to make it happen. Everyone was going to have a home with cheap appliances. Credit was available that enabled people to buy houses and goods. It was an intelligent positive-sum game between government, business and society that led to the greatest economic boom in history.

Perez (2017) Forbes.com

Reference

Carola Perez, “From A Casino Economy To A New Golden Age: Carlota Pérez At Drucker Forum 2017”, Forbes, Nov. 25, 2017 at https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/11/25/from-a-casino-economy-to-a-new-golden-age-carlota-perez-at-drucker-forum-2017

Carlota Perez, “Bubbles, Golden Ages, and Tech Revolutions”, Exponential View with Aseem Azhar, October 19, 2019 at https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/10/bubbles-golden-ages-and-tech-revolutions

Tagged with:
Posted in Talk Audio Download

2020/07/13 “Making Growing Thinking” |Tim Ingold (web video)

For the @ArchFoundation, #TimIngold distinguishes outcome-oriented making from process-oriented growing, revisiting #MartinHeidegger “Building Dwelling Thinking”.

Organisms are made; artefacts grow. The distinction seems obvious, until you stop to ask what assumptions it contains, about the inside and outside of things and the surface between them, and about form and substance. Tim Ingold argues that instead of putting thought at the start of making, and the made object at the end, with growth in between, we should put both thinking and making inside a process of growth which yields not a proliferation of ends but perpetual beginning. Tim is a social anthropologist, currently Chair of Social Anthropology at the University of Aberdeen.

Tim Ingold, 100 Day Studio: Day 67, July 13, 2020
Architecture Foundation (UK), 100 Day Studio, Tim Ingold “Making Growing Thinking”

While the best way to appreciate this content is to listen the the 49-minute web video, here is an excerpt of some pertinent ideas.

[05:59] However, when Marx tells us not what really distinguishes the human artifact from anything found in nature is that it begins with a thought in the mind of the maker, he’s translated this distinction between inside and outside into a quite different ontological register.

[06:26] Because, for now, the surface of the artifact no longer marks a physical division between a medium like air, on the one hand, and a substance like earth, on the other, but a metaphysical distant division between the domains of mind and matter.

[06:45] So no longer an interface between solid substance and gaseous medium, the surface of the artifact comes to stand for the very surface of the material world, as it confronts the creative human mind.

[07:00] And when we speak of objects of human manufacture as material culture, as analysts often do, this is exactly what is implied. It’s as though the cultural products of the human imagination wrapped themselves around materials of nature, impressing them with their forms and …meanings.

[07:24] So on the inside is stuff, on the outside this talk.

[07:28] Now, obviously, words like making and growing can have ever so many shades of trying to come up with exact definitions or to legislate on their use. These are very rich polysemic words.

[07:46] For example, one can make a bed, make love, make hay, and make fire. And each entails a different sense of making. And likewise, one can grow a beard, grow potatoes, grow weary. And again growing means something different, in each case. So you can’t say come up with it a clear-cut definition. I’ve determined there’s no point in trying.

[08:10]But I do want the highlight a contrast between the focus on outcome, and a focus on process.

[08:21] So, making, generally in invites the kind of question: what are you making?

[08:26] Imagine you come up with some somebody engaged in some project, some work going on. You say “what are you making”, and they’ll answer by saying in terms of what they’re helping to end up with.

[08:40] I’m making a basket. I’m making it making a house. Whatever it is.

[08:44] But growing invites a different kind of question. It’s more like what is going on here? So it’s about the becoming of things, the ontogenesis, rather than about end product.

[09:00] And that distinction between a focus on product and a focus on process, with making on the one end and growing on the other, is exactly parallel to the one that Martin Heidegger drew in his very famous essay “Building Dwelling Thinking”, of which I, of course, modeled the title for this talk.

[09:20] So making and building are pretty much the same sort of thing. But then also growing and dwelling are pretty much the same sort of thing. So, what building was to dwelling for Heidegger, is what growing making is to growing for me.

[09:38] Now, in his essay, Heidegger argued: rather than dwelling going on within building, we should think of building as going on within and conditional upon a process of dwelling.

[09:53]That is, he turned the conventional order of building and dwelling back-to-front.

[10:00] We don’t dwell in buildings. We build, because we dwell in the world.

[10:09] And that’s exactly what I wanted to do with these terms, making and growing. And in doing so I want to show that we’ll have to think quite differently about thinking itself.

[10:23] So the question: which comes first making or growing?

[10:27] Now for Marxists, we’ve seen and indeed almost a century later, from one note, every artifact begins with an ideal form, a conception, which is imposed from without upon a material substrate.

[10:45] So, you start with the idea, and end with the object. And in between the start and end points, stuff happens. Materials are mixed, shaped and transformed. There’s a sort of …becoming. But it’s a growth that is bracketed between the two ends of making. Between the initial idea, and the final form. They have the idea, here a final form there, the growing is happening in between those two the beginning and the end. And we can call that growing in making.

[11:24] And that indeed might be how it looks, from the outside.

[11:28] But if we join with the makers in their work, it begins to look very different.

Those unfamiliar with Heidegger (1971) might look into that. Otherwise, this lecture builds on ideas previously reviewed in Ingold (2000) and Ingold (2013).

References

Heidegger, Martin. 1971. “Building Dwelling Thinking.” In Poetry, Language, Thought, edited by Albert Hofstadter, 143–59. New York: Harper & Row. Search on Google Scholar.

Ingold, Tim. 2000. “Making Things, Growing Plants, Raising Animals and Bringing up Children.” In The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, 77–88. Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203466025.

Ingold, Tim. 2013. “Making, Growing, Learning: Two Lectures Presented at UFMG, Belo Horizonte, October 2011.” Educação Em Revista 29 (3): 301–23. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-46982013000300013.

Ingold, Tim. 2020. “Making Growing Thinking”.” 100 Day Studio. Architecture Foundation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FptmjWzj6Vw

Posted in Uncategorized

2020/04/09 “Can Ecological Economics Shape a Shock-Resistant Planet” | Herman Daly (web video)

Sustain What, April 9, 2020

In web conference, #HermanDaly says #EcologicalEconomics used to get attacked from the right, now it’s from the left. Panel @revkin @jon_d_erickson @ktkish @sophiesanniti #TimCrowshaw #KatieHorner livestreamed #sustainwhat . Most #EcologicalEconomists used to come to study from economics, now most come from other disciplines.

Can Ecological Economics Shape a Shock-Resistant Planet | April 9, 2020

[62:24 Herman Daly] Ecological economics is used to being criticized from the right from … the neoclassical growth-istic economists, right-wing criticism. We’re not so used to getting criticized from the left, but that’s been coming from some neo-marxist folks recently, and they don’t like the idea of markets.

[62:48] They don’t like the idea of prices. And so, at that point, I say well wait a minute, I’m all in favor of more social justice, of greater equality in the distribution of income, but when you when you go all the way to central planning, as opposed to Marxist, then I sort of recoil, and say, wait a minute, let’s look at history.

[63:16] You know what happened with the war, communism efforts of the early Soviet Union, they had to back off from the abolition of markets. What happened to the collectivization of agriculture? That was a big failure. And how are you going to handle the huge information problems of central planning?

[63:38] So I would say markets are necessary, although certainly not sufficient. We need a whole lot of planning, to keep markets as good servants rather than bad masters.

[63:53] I wonder how how you react to what I think of as a kind of ecological economic principle of … raising the price for the sake of resources, basic resources,for the sake of inducing efficiency and capturing the rent — the resource rent — and redistributing that for the sake of equity.

[64:22] Does that make sense? Many people, I think, don’t buy that. And so I’d be interested in hearing your views.

Reference

Sustain What: An intergenerational conversation as Herman Daly and Jon Erickson meet emerging scholars in Ecological Economics | April 9, 2020 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeAU4xbiZcY

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2018/11/19 Niall Ferguson | “Networks and Power” |Long Now (web video + audio)

Niall Ferguson at The Long Now Foundation

Complementing the idea of a @longnow , @nfergus provokes the challenge of a #shortthen as the online social media platforms distract the larger perspectives on history.

{Stewart Brand, 5:50] The conceit of long now foundation is that we’re sort of in the midst of a 20,000 years story of civilization dating back to the first towns and agriculture and dating forward to what remains to be seen and what remains to be done.

[06:05] And in consequence we’re sort of in love with historians who are all about killing the long story, in ever new ways.

06:14 And the civilization story is basically a story of argument. Swarms of arguments.

[06:25] And these arguments get played out and firms often of power. There’s an argument about economic power, arguments about political power, arguments about military power.

[06:37] And from time to time arguments about the whole mode that power gets played out in. And that’s what we hear about tonight from historian Niall Ferguson. [….]

[Niall Ferguson 07:34] I’ll be talking quite a bit about what’s in my most recent book, The Square and the Tower, but I’ll also be trying to go a little further than I did in that book, thinking about what we need to do if we are to manage what has been created in the extraordinary giant online social networks made in Northern California, in our time.

[08:06] The Long Now, I guess, is an attempt to situate the present. And I have always admired what Stuart and his colleagues have done in helping us to understand our position in a continuum of human history over thousands of years.

[08:30] But the corollary of the long now is the short then. And the short then is a phrase that hit me as I was hurtling up 280 this evening.

[08:45] What I want to convey to you is how near the past is and how relevant it is to the problems that we confront today, and that some of the things that we know about events 500 years ago can illuminate our long now

Niall Ferguson at The Long Now Foundation (Part 1)
Niall Ferguson at The Long Now Foundation (Part 2)

Source: Niall Ferguson, “Networks and Power”, Long Now, November 19, 2018 at http://longnow.org/seminars/02018/nov/19/networks-and-power/

http://podcast.longnow.org/salt/salt-020181119-ferguson-podcast.mp3
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Talk Audio Download, Talk Video Streaming

2018/10/09 Dan Stokols, |Social Ecology, Systems Thinking, & Psychology | How to Save the World (web video + audio)

Social ecology and environmental psychology described @dstokols @Social_Ecology , interviewed by @katiepatrick . References #WilliamsJames on attention. Book on Social Ecology in the Digital Age released in 2018.

[01:02 Katie Patrick] Can you explain what social ecology is, and also what environmental psychology is, and how they’re different and how they fit together.

[01:11 Dan Stokols] Well, social ecology grew out of the field of ecology which started in biology back in the 1800s and it’s basically looking at the interrelationships between organisms and their environments — their living environments, other species as well as abiotic features of the environment, climate topography, and that kind of thing.

[01:29]And those biological principles were applied to human communities in the early 1900’s. And that field became known as human ecology. But it was almost a literal translation of Darwinian assumptions about how different kinds of organisms adapt to their environments, only applied to human communities.

[01:46] So, the economic system was seen as the engine of adaptation, and social ecology has provided a broader view based not just on biological principles and economic principles, but also law, ethics, sociological views, how people react to their physical environments, architecture.

[02:05] So it’s a really a transdisciplinary view of how people interact with their everyday large scale and smaller scale environments.

[02:13] And now environmental psychology is a part of that. It looks more at individuals and small groups, they perceive the environment, how they learn to behave in certain ways toward the environment, how they’re influenced by communication and persuasive efforts to get them to change their behavior, how they’re affected by exposure to nature natural environment.

[02:32] So it’s very much at the kind of personal and small group level. Social ecology extends from that individual level all the way up to the global sphere.

[02:41] So how is global climate change affecting the quality of our natural environment? How is it affecting public health? Those kinds of issues.

An ecological perspective relates to attention.

[35:52 Dan Stokol] There’s research suggesting that ocean shorelines and seascapes are particularly restorative to people they help people kind of recover their attentional energy.

[36:00] William James, a famous psychologist in the late 1800s, posited this difference between voluntary attention and involuntary attention.

[36:09] So, voluntary attention is where you rivet your attention on some tasks. You’re studying for an exam, you don’t want to be distracted, you’re screening out distractions, and you engage in that kind of behavior long enough, you start to get mentally fatigued. Your attention gets fragmented you get tired mentally.

[36:24] What James suggested is, if you can give people opportunities to engage in spontaneous attention — put them in an environment where their attention is drawn to whatever is interesting to them — And the more you have that opportunity for spontaneous attention, the more you can recharge your batteries and resume more of a focused attention

[36:41] So, what nature does, according to Steve and Rachel Kaplan — they’ve developed this theory they call it attention restoration theory of nature — when you put people in natural settings, it gives them a lot of these opportunities to be fascinated by the waves of the ocean, or the sound of birds, when you go on a nature hike. It allows you to get away from your usual routines. If you’re living in the city core or if you’re engaging and very mentally taxing work throughout the week, it gives you a break from that. So that’s one of the ways in which nature seems to work in terms of restoring our attentional faculties. But there are also several studies suggesting that it has direct physiological benefits. It calms us down. It’s associated with better physical health outcome,s as well as psychological.

Social Ecology in the Digital Age: Solving Complex Problems in a Globalized World (2018)

Source: Dan Stokols, “Social Ecology, Systems Thinking, & Psychology” | October 9, 2018 | How to Save the World Podcast, web video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0OX2eqA8XE ; MP3 audio at https://podtail.com/en/podcast/how-to-save-the-world-1/social-ecology-systems-thinking-psychology-with-pr/

Social Ecology in the Digital Age: Solving Complex Problems in a Globalized World (2018), at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780128141885 and https://www.elsevier.com/books/social-ecology-in-the-digital-age/stokols/978-0-12-803113-1

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Talk Audio Download, Talk Video Streaming

2019/04/01 Philip Sheldrake | Interpersonal data, identity, and relationships | Self-Sovereign Identity Meetup (web video)

Concerns on #personaldata should be reframed as interpersonal, says @sheldrake , less the nodes and more the edge connections. “I want to take back control” superficial, @hartzog says control doesn’t scale. Agency is about negotiation in the world, more rhizomatic than Newtonian.

[25:07] Personal data ends up being node-centric. This is where we get personal data vaults from, and data wallets. It’s like the data’s got to be at the node.

[25:12] Actually, interpersonal data describes the relationship between people. It sits between us. It’s on the edge that connects the nodes.

[25:23] Personal data is very much about control, control, control. If there’s one thing that’s mentioned almost as as frequently as data markets, and data as property it’s: “I want to take back control”. But control does not scale.

[25:41] If you want to understand that a little bit more clearly, Woody Hartzog — there’s a great YouTube video to explain how, when you think about the real time huge quantities of data, 4 billion connected people are kicking off, this isn’t about control. That just doesn’t scale

[25:58] This is about agency. This is more about the negotiation in the world. This is more natural. This is more how the world works, than how we might think in Newtonian ways it might.

[26:08] And unlike the tree-like nature of personal data — which informs our sciences and the way we structure our databases — and it’s all very neat, and then this is two subcategories of a category — it doesn’t work like that. Data is just … I guess if you want to think about it … I think about the data flowing on a coral reef or in a rainforest or just in human culture without bringing digital in it. And you can see it’s not tree-like.

[26:33] It’s it’s what might be called a rhizomatic, which is a different kind of root structure which is … well, chaotic! Right. This is nature that we’re grappling with here.

[26:45] So, let’s not try and constrain it. Let’s not be Newtonian about it.

Source: Philip Sheldrake, “Interpersonal data, identity, and relationships — in pursuit of collective minds” | April 1, 2019 | SSI (Self Sovereign Identity) Meetup, at https://ssimeetup.org/interpersonal-data-identity-relationships-pursuit-collective-minds-philip-sheldrake-webinar-24/ , web video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXkcswvYn2I

Philip Sheldrake, “Webinar on Identity, Interpersonal Data and Collective Minds for SSI Meetup” | April 5, 2019 at https://www.philipsheldrake.com/2019/04/webinar-on-identity-interpersonal-data-and-collective-minds-for-ssi-meetup/

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2017/11/29 Tim Ingold | “The Art of Paying Attention” | The Art of Research Conference (web video)

Doing science should be wayfinding (pathfinding), says #TimIngold , gaining grounding in the art of paying attention, towards research as the pursuit of truth. Truth is more than objective facts, where science and art are embraced with materials, so that we can see the quality inside the natural world as it forms, rather than as the artifacts after it’s dead.

Tim Ingold, The Art of Research Conference, 2017/11/29

[42:00] So this it is the fundamental problem with science, that it is founded on a dilemma, that it tells us that we are parts of the world, and yet it can only have the knowledge it has by saying that as scientists, we stand outside the world.

[42:23] So we need to be able to show how knowledge can grow from the inside of being, from the crucible of our participatory and observational of involvement with the world around us, that is, within the give-and-take of life.

[42:37] And of course that takes us right back to the issue of data, from which I began. And it takes us also to the idea of research which is a central topic for this conference.

[42:53] Research again is one of those words that has become used and abused to the point that no one any longer knows exactly what it means.

[43:01] Or, it’s lost its grounding. And I want to insist that research is, and must be, the pursuit of truth. If we live …. If we lose that — if we say “oh truth, that’s too hot to handle, I don’t know what truth is” — then we we lose any grounding for research as a legitimate and ethical activity.

[43:23] Now, of course, there are all sorts of ways of defining truth, but here is mine: Truth, I argue, is the unison of imagination and experience in a world to which we are alive and that is alive to us.

[43:45] That means that truth depends on our full and unqualified participation in the world, from which it follows to, that truth is absolutely not the same as objectivity These are very different things.

[44:01] And I think at the moment we are in grave danger of conflating truth and objectivity because of the current panic about post-truth. Nobody wants post truth but most of the people, most of the commentators, who are warning us of the dangers of a post truth era, in which sort of anything goes, in which using the data one can invent any kind of story, is that they’re assuming that truth means pure and simple objective fact.

[44:37] it was a pure and simple objective fact that there were more people at Obama’s inauguration than a Trump’s. Okay. And it was post truth to pretend otherwise but if that is all we mean by truth — how many people were at the inauguration, was it this number or that number — then that is a very very reduced a very impoverished sense of what truth is. And I think it’s a real challenge — and this is a challenge for art as much as anything — to insist upon what truth means, beyond the mere facts of objectivity. […]

[45:14] At the end of the 19th century, the chemist Friedrich August Kekulé …

[45:48] … He said to the to the aspiring scientist: Note every footprint, every bent twig, every fallen leaf, and there you will see where next to place your feet. So. An then he called this way of doing science — and, so, you’re going walking very delicately through through the woods, and noting every twig, every every fallen leaf, and then deciding, yes, that’s the next place to put your feet — he called that pathfinding. And he thought of science as a pathfinding — or I would call it wayfaring. And the thing is, that the path finder corresponds with things in their formation rather than being informed by what is already precipitated out.

[46:34] The pathfinder doesn’t just collect, but accepts, what the world has to offer because he is paying acute attention to everything. And I think it’s here rather than [rather than] in arrogating to itself the authority to represent a given reality, it is here that science can join with art as a way of knowing in being. That is that in practice the hands and minds of scientists, just like the hands and minds of artists, absorb into their ways of working a perceptual acuity attuned to the materials that have captured their attention.

[47:18] And so as these materials vary, so does experience. And what that suggests is that in practice scientists are differentiated by their actual experience of working with stuff. That a glaciologist, really having spent so much time with ice, really appreciates — and in a tactile haptic way — the qualities of ice. It’s almost looking at ice with icy eyes and … and a botanist, or a mycologist, as my dad was, would … look at fungi with … eyes that already have a sort of fungal quality inside them. And that was the science that I grew up with as the son of a mycologist.

[48:02] In my childhood, in which we were — I and like my peers were — felt a sort of wonder in the beauty of the natural world. It was a it was a science founded in care, in attentiveness, and in gratitude, for what we owe the world, for our existence

[48:27] What concerns me now is that science, as it is presented to schoolchildren today, has turned Wonder and gratitude into commodities. They no longer guide its practices. They no longer guide the practices of science. but are used … to advertise its results, so that more and more science has listed art in order to promote its hard sell. To offer images that beautify its results, that soften its impact, and mask often its collusions with corporations whose only interest in research is that it should drive innovation. Because in a neoliberal economy of knowledge, only what is new, sells.

Source: Tim Ingold, “”The Art of Paying Attention” | The Art of Research VI Conference: Catalyses, Interventions, Transformations | November 29, 2017, Espoo, Finland at http://artofresearch2017.aalto.fi/programme.html . Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mytf4ZSqQs

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2019/01/31 Mariana Mazzucato, “The value of everything: rediscovering purpose in the economy”, Blavatnik School of Government (web video)

We should be more vigourous, says @MazzucatoM , in debating differences between value extraction and value creation, and between profits and rents.

Mariana Mazzucato, “The Value of Everything: Rediscovering Purpose in the Economy“, Blavatnik School of Government

[20:55] What I tried to do in the book was to bring these problems back to some fundamental debates that occurred in economics, which weren’t just lost over time, but kind of moved over thinking “oh that’s just kind of old style”, you know, “it’s just the classical economist who talked about value”.

[21:15] ” Now let’s actually just kind of confront more interesting questions” But literally the word “value” kind of went missing from economics departments. You don’t have textbooks as we used to have, even in the mainstream economics tradition, that even had that word kind of “value”. What is value, and then big debates about that.

[21:34] What I argue is that when we kind of allowed this concept of value to leave economics departments, and simply to go to business schools where the word is everywhere — think of it — shareholder value, shared value, Michael Porter’s very important work “value chains”. When that concept left economics departments and went to business schools, it — I don’t know how many business school people are here — it kind of became more flakey and fuzzy.

[22:02] And let me just say that in a kind of facetious way, but also in the process, made it less contested, less debated, within sort of the heart of economic reasoning and economic debates, and in the process made it much easier to extract value in the name of value creation because, what is valued?

[22:21] Right. So when you’re taught to Micro 101 and you’re taught you know things around the production function and marginal productivity and marginal utility, you’re not told “this is one particular theory of value and then we’ll learn other ones”. It’s just taught as Micro 101.

[22:37] So, when it’s not contested, it becomes much harder to do things which, in the past, were done like debating: well, what’s the difference between profits and rents? What is the difference between value extraction and value creation ? What happens when we reward value extraction over value creation?

[22:54] Do we get value destruction? But even just really simply, what is the difference between profits and rents?

[23:01] And I thought it was very interesting — and going back into the literature, it’s also to be reminded that Plato himself — smart guy — kind of often said in different ways, that story tellers ruled the world.

[23:11] And what I want to argue is that many of those four problems, that I talked about in the beginning, have in some ways been — how do you say — nurtured by the fact that the stories that are being told about where wealth creation comes from and where value creation comes from has been — if you want, captured — because it is not again in the active discourse of how we think about the economy

Source: Mariana Mazzucato | “The value of everything: rediscovering purpose in the economy” | January 31, 2019 |Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCLSvojyJoI

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2016/11/07 David Gelenter, “Consciousness, Computers, and the Tides of Mind”, Econtalk (MP3 audio)

The most destructive analogy in the last 100 years, says @DavidGelernter with @econtalker : “Post-Turing thinkers decided that brains were organic computers, that computation was a perfect model of what minds do, that minds can be built out of software, and that mind relates to brain as software relates to computer”. Interview states position that consciousness won’t be found in a computer.

The cited source is visible on a page on Google Books:

In his famous 1950 paper about artificial intelligence, Alan Turing mentions consciousness, in passing, as a phenomenon associated with minds, in some ways mysterious. But he treats it as irrelevant. If you define the purpose of mind as rational thought, then consciousness certainly seems irrelevant. And for Turing, rational thought was indeed the purpose of mind.

Turing’s favorite word in this connection is “intelligence”: he saw the goal of technology not as an artificial mind (with all its unnecessary emotions, reminiscences, fascinating sensations, and upsetting nightmares), but as artificial intelligence, which is why the field has the name it does.

In no sense did this focus reflect narrowness or lack of imagination on Turing’s part. Few more imaginative men have ever lived. But he needed digital computers for practical purposes. Post-Turing thinkers decided that brains were organic computers, that computation was a perfect model of what minds do, that minds can be built out of software, and that mind relates to brain as software relates to computer—the most important, most influential and (intellectually) most destructive analogy in the last hundred years (the last hundred at least). [emphasis added]

Turing writes in his 1950 paper that, with time and thought, one might well be able to build a digital computer that could “enjoy” strawberries and cream. But, he adds, don’t hold your breadth. Such a project would be “idiotic’—so why should science bother? In practical terms, he has a point.

To understand the mind, we must go over the ground beyond logic as carefully as we study logic and reasoning. That’s not to say that rational thought does not underlie man’s greatest intellectual achievements. Cynthia Ozick reminds us, furthermore, of a rational person’s surprise at “how feeling could be so improbably distant from knowing” (Foreign Bodies). It’s much easier to feel something is right than to prove it. And when you do try to prove it, you might easily discover that despite your perfectly decided, rock-solid feeling of certainty, your feelings are total nonsense.

We have taken this particular walk, from the front door to the far end of Rationality Park, every day for the last two thousand years. Why not go a little farther this time, and venture beyond the merely rational?

David Gelernter, The Tides of Mind (2016), Chapter 5

The idea is further explored in the interview.

42:44 Russ Roberts:  [….] So, you are a skeptic about the ability of artificial intelligence to eventually mimic or emulate a brain. So, talk about why. And then why you feel that that analogy is so destructive: because it is extremely popular and accepted by many, many people. Not by me, but by many people, smarter than I am, actually. So, what’s wrong with that analogy, and why is it destructive?

David Gelernter: Well, I think you have to be careful in saying what exactly the analogy is.

On the one hand, I think AI (Artificial Intelligence) has enormous potential in terms of imitating or faking it, when it comes to intelligence. I think we’ll be able to build software that certainly gives you the impression of solving problems in a human-like or in an intelligent way. I think there’s a tremendous amount to be done that we haven’t done yet.

On the other hand, if by emulating the mind you mean achieving consciousness–having feelings, awareness–I think as a matter of fact that computers will never achieve that.

Any program, any software that you deal with, any robot that you deal with will always be a zombie in the sense that–in the Hollywood and philosophers’ sense of zombie–zombie a very powerful word in philosophy. In the sense that it’s behavior might be very impressive–I mean, you might give it a typical mathematics problem to solve or read it something from a newspaper and ask it to comment or give it all sorts of tests you think of, and it might pass with flying colors. You might walk away saying, ‘This guy is smarter than my best friend,’ and, you know, ‘I look forward to chatting with him again.’ But when you open up the robot’s head, there’s nothing in there. There’s nothing inside. There’s no consciousness.

Source

“David Gelernter on Consciousness, Computers, and the Tides of Mind” | Russ Roberts | Nov. 7, 2016 | Econtalk at http://www.econtalk.org/david-gelernter-on-consciousness-computers-and-the-tides-of-mind , MP3 audio downloadable at http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2016/Gelernterconsciousness.mp3

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Talk Audio Download

2018/04/23 Kishore Mahbubani, “Has the West Lost It? Can Asia Save It?”

Before judging democratic systems over authoritarian, examine the functioning of governments through its diplomats, where plutocracy has an alternative in meritocracy, says @mahbubani_k @longnow @asiasocietysfx.

Singaporean diplomat and scholar Kishore Mahbubani 

[1:19:30] … when people compare the American government with the Chinese government, they say: “This is a comparison between a democratic system and an authoritarian system”. And a democratic system is, of course, better than an authoritarian system. And I agree. A democratic system is better than an authoritarian system.

[1:29:55] But if you go … if you dig one level down, and you look at the functioning of the government, and how it makes its decisions and you analyze it, you may see that the democratic system may be performing as a plutocratic system serving the interests of the people of the tiny elite and leaving the … creating a situation where I think half of your [American] population hasn’t seen an increase in its median income for forty years. That’s what plutocracy is.

[1:20:30] The Chinese system is a meritocracy. The Chinese Communist Party, by the way, has got one of the most amazing meritocratic selection systems. [….] When I had a research assistant in Columbia University a few weeks ago she told me — and she was obviously one of the brightest students — she said she was very disappointed when she left high school, because you say when you graduate from high school in China, the top student — one student — is selected to join the Communist Party. And you want to be that one student selected to join the Communist Party. And then, in the first year in university, she says, five students are selected to join the Communist Party. Again, the top students. So, can you imagine the system which tries to select the best brains to run the country

[1:21:35] Now, the Chinese Communist Party is not perfect. It has a lot of flaws. It is making a lot of mistakes. But in terms of harvesting the brain power of China, it has done an amazing job. And I tell the story — and I was in diplomacy for thirty three years.

[1:21:55] When I started my career in 1971, if you had asked me: “Do you want to talk to an American diplomat or Chinese diplomat?”, I would say of course I’ll talk to the American diplomat. This graduate of Princeton, Yale, Harvard. Brilliant. Reads the New Yorker every week. Knows what’s going on the world. A Chinese diplomat 1971 would walk around with the Mao’s Little Red Book in his pocket. And when I talk to him, he’ll produce Mao’s Red Book and read to me Mao’s Read Book. Why should I waste my time. That’s Chinese 1971.

[1:22:30] You fast-forward to 2018, and you asked me to fly to a capital somewhere, and you say: “You want to talk to the American ambassador or the Chinese ambassador?” The likelihood is: that the Chinese ambassador would speak the language of the country; would have been posted there several times; would have a very nuanced and sophisticated view of the country. And the American ambassador would be one was demoralized, knowing that his budget is being cut; knowing his chances of becoming an ambassador in the top capital is practically zero, because they are political appointees. So you have a demoralized deployed American diplomatic service and an incredibly dynamic Chinese foreign service. That’s what the big change that has happened since 1971, and that’s a result of a meritocracy. And I can tell you, you’ll be quite amazed how good some of these Chinese diplomats are today.

Kishore Mahbubani, “Has the West Lost It? Can Asia Save It?”, Longnow Foundation and the Asian Society Northern California, April 23, 2018, MP3 audio at http://podcast.longnow.org/salt/redirect/salt-020180423-mahbubani-podcast.mp3

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Talk Audio Download

2008/12/15 Simon Winchester, “The Man Who Loved China” (web video)

The story of #JosephNeedham by @simonwwriter, about the scholar behind the 27-volume Science and Civilisation in China starting in 1954 and continuing after his death in 1995. Arriving in China in 1942, Needham discovered gunpowder, printing and the magnetic compass had been invented in China centuries before the West. In this presentation, some audience questions were taken, and Simon Winchester provided more colour commentary.

Simon Winchester, “The Man Who Loved China”, Talks at Google, Dec. 15, 2008 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqvi7AxqfcM

Simon Winchester: "The Man Who Loved China" | Talks at Google
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2019/04/09 Larysa Essex, “Linux Unhatched Learning Circles at Toronto Public Library” (web video)

Talk at @gtalug on Let’s Learn Tech Online @torontolibrary with @p2pu @CiscoNetAcad@TorontoESS. Linux Unhatched online course conducted in groups of 8 to 12, meetings twice per week in person. Non-technical facilitator encourages peers to work out understanding together. Found 80% of attendees didn’t otherwise have tools for technical learning, computers are provided through the public library.

Larysa Essex, “Linux Unhatched Learning Circles at Toronto Public Library”, Greater Toronto Area Linux Users Group, April 19, 2019 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvZ3gCzrXak

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2018/03/13 Tara Vancil, “Imagine This: A Web Without Servers” (web video)

Sharing content on the web, as shown by @taravancil, can be easier not having to deal with a server.  @BeakerBrowser is a read-write Bittorrent-inspired peer-to-peer technology where complexity of blockchain isn’t required.

Imagine This: A Web Without Servers – Tara Vancil – JSConf EU 2018

Beaker Browser is compatible not only with the DAT protocol, but also the HTTP with which we’ve become accustomed on the World Wide Web.

Source:  Tara Vancil, “Imagine This: A Web Without Servers“, March 13, 2018, JSConf EU at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ_WvfF3FN8

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2013/07/27 Beau Lebens “Taking WordPress to the Front End with O2” (web video)

The WordPress O2 plugin with P2-Breathe theme results in a Facebook-like or Twitter-like streaming interface.  The idea was first presented in 2013, evolving from the P2 theme in 2009 (originally launched as Prologue in 2008) when hosted on wordpress.com.

“Beau Lebens: Taking WordPress to the Front End with O2” | Wordcamp San Francisco 2013 at https://wordpress.tv/2013/08/08/beau-lebens-taking-wordpress-to-the-front-end-with-o2/ .

In 2015, o2 became available as a open source plugin installable on self-hosted WordPress blogs.  See “o2 is Now Available on Github | Sarah Gooding | June 15, 2015 | WP Tavern at https://wptavern.com/o2-is-now-available-on-github .

O2 is a refinement of a communications tool used internally by Automattic.  See “How P2 Changed Automattic” | Matt Mullenweg | May 5, 2009 at https://ma.tt/2009/05/how-p2-changed-automattic/ .

The central site for O2 is at https://geto2.com/ .

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized

2016/09/10 Tim Ingold, “The Sustainability of Everything” (web video)

Talk at the Centre for Human Ecology, Glasgow, announced at http://www.che.ac.uk/tim-ingold-talks-about-the-sustainability-of-everything-10th-sept-2016/

Video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncLv9Gk7XrI and https://vimeo.com/182572764

This digest was created by editing the text transcript generated by Youtube. View the video yourself for a more authentic reproduction. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship, posted by David Ing.

[00m39s] This talk actually began life as the conversation I had a few months ago with Claudia Zeiske, who’s the director of Deveron Arts which is a us a local arts based organization in the town of Huntly in Aberdeenshiare, and she was planning an event to celebrate the planting of new woodland, and whe wanted me to talk about the principles of sustainability as they bear on friendship and peace, on grassroots democracy, on art, ecology, and culture.

[01m15s] “You mean you want me to talk about the sustainability of everything”, I said.  Well, it seemed to be a pretty impossible thing to do but the more I thought about it the more it seemed to me that sustainability is either of everything, or it is nothing.  Because it can’t be of some things and not others.  It can’t be a sustainability that has boundaries of inclusion and exclusion.  So that we will say we’ll sustained some things but it doesn’t matter if we throw away the others.

[01m46s]  So the questions it it left me with are three-fold.

[01m53s] First is in what kind of a world has a place for us and for everything else hboth now and for future generations?

[02m05s] Then secondly what does it mean for such a world to carry on, because I think that’s what sustainability is about carrying on?

[02m12s] And thirdly of course how can we make it happen?

[02m16s] And to answer these questions I think we have to take a closer look at the meanings of our two keywords, that is, sustainability and everything,  And I’m afraid being an academic and I’m obsessed with the meanings of words — all academics are — but I happen to think, actually, the words a terribly important.  Then it is important to be clear about their meanings because we can’t have sensible debate about things like sustainability unless we have some clarity on what we’re talking about.  [….]

[02m56s]  I want to start with everything.  This is one of those words we use all the time but often don’t think about very much what it means.

[….]

<< A huge section is omitted here, as the content is rather consistent with earlier Tim Ingold talks and publications >>

[31m17s] So much for everything.  We’ve got an idea about what everything is.

[31m21s] It’s a movement.  It’s uncountable.  It’s made up of folds.  And it is carrying on through time.

[31m40s] But then the question is, if if you agree that everything is a correspondence of parts, in that sense, then what’s the meaning of sustainability?  What does it mean to talk about sustainability?

[31m46s] If we imagine a world like that — that the trouble at the moment is that — most of the rhetoric about sustainability is numerical.  It’s done in terms of data accounting and statistics, and this numerical calculation calculus of sustainability tends to treat entire tracks of the earth’s surface and the resources they harbor as standing reserves for the continuing benefit of a globally distributed humanity, much as one might administer a trust fund for future generations.

[32m32s] So to protect the Earth — in a way within the numerical rhetoric of the sustainability — is to protect the Earth in rather the same way that the company protects its profits, and that’s not a question of personal care based on familiarity and experience, but of bookkeeping and rational management that is balancing recruitment and loss in renewables, as one might balance monetary income and expenditure.

[33m04s]  Of people thinking — about well — you know the way we hold the earth as a trust fund for future generations, and therefore we’ve got to make sure that we don’t take out faster than we put back, or that we don’t take stuff out faster than it’s capable of renewing itself.

[33m23s] So thinking in terms is of these quantitative terms of management.

[33m26s]  But it seems to me that, if we say that the world is something that is fundamentally Lucretian, if we say the world is fundamentally given in movement, then sustainability is actually about carrying on.

[33m42s] It’s about keeping things going, not about maintaining some sort of numerical steady state, or making sure that you’ve got a balance of accounts in your books.

[33m52s]  It’s about about allowing the movement that generates things, that is life, to carry on.

[34m02s]  So, it’s somehow about lasting, about making things last.

[34m10s] But again, when we talk about making things last, this is not in the sense of a preservation of form, as we tend to do in the museum.

[34m18s]  In the museum you might be a museum curator, and you’ve got these objects to look after, and the thing you’re most concerned about is it they should maintain their form for as long as  possible.  They shouldn’t change.  They shouldn’t decay,  They shouldn’t decompose.

[34m35s] But that’s not what lasting means, here.   We need to think of lasting in terms  perhaps, in the sense of the life cycle.

[34m44s]  So, if you ask for example, “how long does a person last?”, you wouldn’t say well how long did they seem to stay exactly the same and will have they changed.  You would say, for example, well, how long have they live?  When were they born?  Whether they die.  Okay, they lived for 80 years, 90 years, 55 years, whatever it is.  That’s how long they lasted, and we’re thinking of lasting there in terms of the life cycle of a person, not in terms of the preservation of their particular form.

[35m17s] We don’t put people in museums in the way we put objects in museums.

[35m20s]  So, if sustainability is really about carrying on, then there’s no real — not really — any opposition between preservation and change.

[35m35s] I may may give you another example which I like very much.  It comes from a study by an anthropologist called John Knight, who worked with foresters in a mountainous region of Japan, and was looking at their traditional practices of forestry and then what had happened to them in in recent decades.

[35m55s] The traditional practice was this — that the forester would plant, and grow,  and look after the trees for generations.  Something like 30 years went from the conifers, so you planted the tree, you attended, you looked after it to make sure things well with it.  And once a suitable period had elapsed you would cut it down.  And then having cut it down, you would use those trees to make timbers for your house.  And then, so, during the first 30 years of the growth of the tree, you’re looking after the tree.  In the next 30 years the tree has become a house timber and it’s looking after you.  You and your family living inside the house.  And they call this the second life of trees.

[36m41s]  So, the first life is when the tree is growing in the ground, and when and you’re looking after it.

[36m47s]  The second life is when the tree is in your house and it’s looking after you.

[36m52s]  That also lasts about 30 years during which time you’ve planted a new set of trees.  They’ll be harvested and they’ll replace the old timbers as they begin to go rotten.

[37m01s]  Perhaps, by that stage — and so that way — you gotta a perfect interlocking of tree lasting and human lasting — that is, tree life cycles, and human life cycles — that are kind of in phase with one another,  and carrying on indefinitely through time.

[37m17s] That was all fine, until the conservationists came along and said you can’t cut those trees!  These trees are part of nature!  We need to preserve nature! So they denied the trees the possibility of their second life.  They just stood there getting older and older in the ground, until they eventually drew out, as conifers do, sort of died down.  They died on their legs, and died in their roots, and became dead trees standing in the ground.

[37m47s]  And the foresters didn’t have the raw materials to build and restore their houses.  So what happens now is we have ancient trees and concrete houses, in the name of preservation, and thinking of sustainability in terms of the preservation of form, rather than the continuation of life cycles.

[38m12s]  So, that’s what I mean, in terms of, that if we compare a way of thinking of the world, which the Japanese foresters had.   Something that is in movement, that is continually evolving over time, or whether we think of the world as some sort of steady state.

[38m30s]  So, what that example reveals, I think, is a difference in ways of thinking about the future.  And, of course, that’s precisely what sustainability is about.  How do we how do we think of the future?  And one way which — in this case one would associate with the conservationists — is in terms of projection; and the other way is in terms of anticipation.

[39m01s]  One way to think about the future is, as in many of climate change scenarios, what will the world — we try to think — what will the world be like in 2050 or 2102?  Trying to project the future.  Project what we do want.  What we don’t want and try and take steps that will produce the kind of future we want.  That is thinking about the future in terms of projection.

[39m25s] Thinking about the future in terms of anticipation — as again John Ruskin put it — is not about predicting the future, but about knowing the ways things are going.  Being able to be sensitive enough to one surroundings to see.  To have a sense of the ways in which things are going, and then perhaps enter into those ways and modify them.   Bend them this way and that, to suit your purposes but not to project or impose an anticipated or — sorry — a projected future state imagined in the present

[40m01s]  And so, again, I would want to say — it would have to be sustainability of everything — sustainability has to be about anticipation, not about projection, in terms of that distinction.

[40m152] Now, I just wanted to finish with a few words about what the implications of this notion of the sustainability of everything would be, on:  firstly for science and art; secondly for democracy and citizenship;  and thirdly for peace and friendship.

[40m35s] And, so far as science being a big issues that I can only just touch on, then ….  But so far as science and art is concerned — and it’s a  personal thing for me, because I started off very much — I actually started off as a natural scientist — and before moving into anthropology — and so I started off in a primary science-based approach.  And now find myself talking mostly to artists and in many ways feeling deeply uneasy about the present state of of the scientific project

[41m08s]  And what strikes me is that … in many ways in science — and particularly the science of ecology — has lost its original sense of environmental sustainability — environmental responsibility — and that art — environmental art in particular — has taken on that responsibility that science is lost.  In other words, that is,  if you think who it was — that who are the people — who are really arguing for some form of environmental sustainability, it’s not the scientists but the artists.

[41m53s]  And this is something that’s happened, I think, over the last two or three decades.  And I’ve been rather curious as to understand, what exactly has happened to science?

[42m09s] And I do feel — worry — that, been particularly fueled by the digital revolution — sciences –well, it’s very hard to generalize about science, it’s a big thing and so messy and full of so many different approaches, but — mainstream science is, anyway that — the mainstream science that has the big funding, seems to have turned into some immense data processing exercise, in which living beings, including us human beings, have more or less disappeared.

[42m46s] That it often seems that the global science, in collusion with the multinational corporations that it more and more serves, treats the rest of the world — and in including the vast majority of its increasing the impoverished and apparently disposable human population as standing reserves of data to feed the insatiable demands of the knowledge economy.

[43m10s] So, I feel in many ways, that  science has reneged on its original environmental sensibility, and has left art in some senses to pick up the pieces.

[43m33s] The implications for democracy and citizenship are, I think, that we do have to find a different way of thinking about what these are.  That we have we have to realize that sustainable citizenship is not some sort of a priority entitlement, as though you’re a citizen of your country or the world, simply by virtue of the fact that you were born in a particular place and then just got it along with your passport and birth certificate and everything else.  But it’s something that you actually have to work at.  And that this work involves a process of what I want to call commoning.

[44m13s]  And, by commoning, I don’t mean working back to find, or what is it that all human beings have in common?  Or what was this human nature?  Maybe we can use what we all have in common as a baseline on which to build a democracy.

[44m27s]  It is rather to suppose that, actually, we’re all different and that each of us speaks with our own particular voice, and we are different because we are part of this life process because it’s that process that the generates difference.

[44m46s] But, at the same time, we are committed to getting along together.  And getting along together means not looking back to see what we have in common, but looking forward to see how, through a stretch of imagination, I can begin to see how my experience can join with and respond to yours, so that we can, so to speak, get along together,

[45m10s] And, that’s a different sense of democracy.  It’s not thinking of democracy in terms of the identity of interests. It’s thinking of democracy in terms of the the differentiation and commoning of life trajectories.

[45m26s]  So, I think, what we need then, is a politics of difference rather than the politics of identity.  Not trying to gang together on the basis of common interests but to recognize difference, celebrate it, and show how, because we are different, we can actually work together.

[45m52s] Because in the end, similarity divides us like beans in a sack, but difference is what brings us together.

[46m00s] And the implications for peace and friendship, well, we have to go back to the etymology of the word harmony.   I mentioned earlier that for Greeks — for the ancient Greeks who developed the term harmony — one of the epitome of harmony was the rope with its twist in opposite directions which hold it together.  And recognize that harmony includes tension and agonism,  as well as resolution and — sorry — as well as and resolution and conviviality.

[46m35s]  But it’s the tension of differentiation, as for example, the knots of the tree that hold things together.  So we actually need tension.  We need agonism.  We need, what we might sometimes called conflict, in order to create a world in which we can carry on together.  The top-down enforcing of common interests, or the trying to pretend that we’re all the same,  is not going to produce a coherent, and form, of sustainability.

[47m12s]  That’s what I have to say.  Thank you very much

<< long commentary from audience member >>

[50m47s] I think, well, this is a question about hope and … a question what we can do. Because it won’t help anybody to be fatalistic, and it won’t help anybody to lose hope.  So,  the risks of of a global catastrophe, whatever form it takes, whether it’s a nuclear holocaust or or a climatic and total disaster, or the extermination of the bee population and the food crisis — whatever it is.  We have to recognize that —  I suppose that these possibilities are there and another thing could happen.  There could be a ….  Yellowstone might blow up. There could be a cold era, which has got nothing whatever to do with us, but could nevertheless render the earth uninhabitable,  and that could happen anytime.

[52m00s]  What we do in those circumstances?  In a way, it’s not a question of just shutting our minds out and saying, we don’t want to think about it.  It doesn’t help.  I think we’ve got to — how to put it  — we’ve got to be hopeful, and we’ve got to be hopeful for ….  Because otherwise, it’s not fair on our children.  It’s not fair on our children to tell them, every day, actually the world that were passing on to you is going to blow up and you’re going to be dead or going to have a miserable life.

[52m50s]  Surely it’s our responsibility to to our next generations to invest as much hope in them as we can.

<< response from audience member >>

[54m03s] The thing is, you see, that there are parts of the world — we don’t often realize this but — some of the most polluted, and now, because of pollution, uninhabitable parts of the planet, are in the far north.  I think the most polluted part of the planet is the Kola Peninsula, which used to be inhabited by by Saami people and some others.   Most of it is now uninhabitable, because of the extraction of heavy metals and nuclear weapons testing, mostly during the 1950s.  And, it’s going to take thousands of years before that environment — which looks like an unspoiled wilderness actually, it’s impossible to live there — it is going to take the thousands of years before that is inhabitable again.

[55m05s]  So, for that people who … for whom that was their homeland, this catastrophe that you’re worrying about has already happened.  And in a sense they’re living in the aftermath of it.  And across the world, a lot of people are living in in those sorts of circumstances.  Think of Bhopal.   Think of some of these industrial disasters that have already killed large numbers of people, quite apart from Nagasaki and Hiroshima which was with throughout conflict.

[55m44s] So in a way …. What what strikes me is that the really intractable problem is:  how one can deal with those parts of the earth which have already been rendered, and uninhabitable, for a very large, very long periods of time.  After all,  there’s a records of weapons testing in the Pacific Islands in the1950s, when nobody really understood just how harmful radiation was.

<< audience responses off mic >>

[57m30s]  Yes, because that way, you’ve got a system that can, in principle carry on as long as you like.

<< audience responses off mic about sustainability>>

[58m40s]  It actually depends on how you do it, …

[58m45s]  The way it is mostly done is by — for example in clear felling — you clear fell an area and plow it up and then plant not a lot.  And the results are usually disastrous because for the trees to thrive, they’re usually different species of the growing together, and they depend on one another. So …
[59m08s] So, if you destroy all that, and mono crop with a particular variety of trees, it’s not going to work.   But what these Japanese foresters are doing traditionally was much less drastic.   Individual trees, here and there, they would know the ones that are ready, they would cut those in a mixed forest and and replant.  You’re not destroying.  You’re not plowing anything up.   They’re not destroying the fungal vegetation.  You’re not destroying the species diversity.  In that situation,  you can replant and it’s okay.   It’s not by clear felling and mono cropping and at a pace that doesn’t work.  So, it depends how you do it.

<< audience off mic concern on sustainability, going back to original >>

[61m01s]  What you said is right, and a lot of the problem is lighting other engineering type systems thinking, where the systems are supposed to be somehow closed, and tight, and therefore predictable, when when actually they’re not.

[61m15s]  But, take the case of — I know a bit about it  — climate change in the north, where we know that they’re there are huge changes taking place, for example, in Greenland.  The ice is melting.  New areas of land being exposed, and so on,  and and this is forcing people who live there to make, or fairly radical,  adjustments to their livelihoods of fishing and hunting and and so on.

[61m44s] But, so far as they’re concerned, they’re not particularly concerned about the whole climate change thing, because their view is that there never has been such a thing as a stable climate.

[61m54s]  If they look back through their own oral traditions and so on, there have been periods of warming,  periods of cooling, there was a little ice age, there was one here after the little ice age.

[62m02s]  And the critical thing was that people had the flexibility, and the experience and knowledge, to be able to respond to whatever was happening with their environment.  And they would do that simply by using a good deal of common sense and knowing knowing the place well.

[62m26s]  But they never supposed that there was some sort of steady initial state, from which things had diverged.  So the notion of change climate doesn’t make sense, if you’d never thought that it was stable to begin with.  But the key thing is this ability to respond and to have that ability to respond.  Then people have to know … not only do people have to know their environment well, but they also have to be allowed to use that knowledge rather than being told that all that’s just their folk wisdom and what you really need to bring in is the scientific experts who will tell you what to do.  That’s the problem, or that they’ll send the experts who will say to the local people “you can’t hunt there” when people know that you can.

[63m11s] So, it’s that ability to care for and respond to one’s own environment that you know really well, that we have to respect.  And that’s why I just get so fed up with big science because …. and this cult of expertise.

[63m36s]  There’s nothing wrong with experts, so long as they don’t reckon or suppose that there’s some kind of global experts have come in and tell everybody else what to do.  And, they usually get it wrong.

<< audience off mic on threads and knots, we’re good at making them, moderate them >>

[65m51s] There’s some truth in that.   But the catch in what you’re saying is the we, as the who actually we are.   Because …. And that’s where the politics comes.   Because knots that some of us are creating are then making life impossible for other people.  So … actually causing other people to be excluded.

[66m29s] The classic example of that is in wildlife conservation, in so many areas of the world, where people have been pushed off their land, which they used to live on, in order to make way for conservation of gorillas or elephants or whatever it might be.

[66m51s]  And so, you might think that the conservationists are creating knots of their own, yes.  But those are knots that are also creating boundaries and the  that the distinction want to make there.   A knot itself doesn’t have boundaries.  If you think of a knot as this tangle of threads, and they’re going off this way and that way, it’s not wrapped up in itself.

[67m25s]  The problem comes when one person’s line is another person’s cut. So, when in Namibia, the military, the South African military constructed roads to take its military hardware from A to B through the Kalahari Desert they cut through the parts of local hunter gatherers.  And if they came out onto the road, they were in danger of getting shot at.  So, that one very powerful actor’s highway is another’s less powerful barrier that is very dangerous to cross.

[68m12s]  And I think that’s actually where the problem comes.  Maybe not in the knotting itself, but in the way in which one person’s line, can be another person’s line of life, can be another person’s wall of death.  I mean literally sometimes.

<< audience off mic, inaudible >>

[68m40s]  Andm even if we did, who would be able to who could get up, and tell the rest of the world this is what you’re supposed to do?   This is a real problem.

<< audience off mic, our paths, culture, relating the world, how to benefit the whole world? >>

[69m55s]  Well, I think that we we need to learn from others.  My own sort of little local protest — and because I work in the university and I’m an academic and an academic anthropologist — I get annoyed by the way in which even in my own discipline, which has a fairly good record on the whole, but still wants to collect material on other people in order ultimately to analyze them and to turn them into objects of knowledge.

[70m39s]  Whereas the important thing, I think — although maybe that’s all right up to a point — what we need to do is to actually learn from what people are telling us, and and see how what we can learn from them might help to form our thinking.

[70m57s]  That’s in … in this world, basically we need all the help we can get  And, therefore we need to be prepared to listen to and learn from anybody.   It doesn’t mean we have to agree with them, and in fact, they might be awful people and have terrible ideas, but but at least we need to engage with — as much as possible — to get some sort of sense about where to go next.

[71m22s]  And to do that I think we need a different attitude within the academy itself.  So this is actually in some sense of a problem for the university.  There’s something that’s exercising, quite at the moment, because where we are.

[71m39s] But the thing is that we have had universities, and they’re at the moment … I think … have reached a crisis point because across the world universities are being taken over by corporations as basically research institutes for generating profit.  And that is manifestly unsustainable.

[72m00s]  Universities will either disappear — or at least disappear in any sense that we recognize them —  and therefore we have to have another ….  We have to be clear about what the alternative is, what a university should be.

[72m13]  And, I think in in a world where we can no longer claim,  as the academy used to claim, that as academics and scientists researchers we can deliver a superior account, or an authoritative account, of the way the world works.   Like we know and we can tell everybody else.

[72m33s]  In the post-colonial, world that’s no longer the case.  But it seems to me that the university is a place where ideas matter and where people with different ideas can meet and talk in safety and in an ecumenical spirit.   And we need to we need institutions where that can happen.  And for me the university is that institution.

[72m57s] So, part of the answer to your question, I think, is how we reform the universities, or, if we can’t reform them how do we build an alternative university system in its place.

<< audience off mic, religions with nations, natural philosophy, Tao, physics >>

[74m10s] I hope there is hope in science, and what you say is true.  I have no problem with individual scientists.  Any … most any of the scientists I know, they’re wonderful people, and thoughtful people, and considerate and caring people.  The problem is almost entirely with the institutionalization of science.  It’s almost as though …  There’s the scientists i talk to, and say “of course I agree with everything you say but how am I going to get my papers published, and how am I going to get my job, unless i do what is expected?   Published in this kind of way.  Collect my data in that kind of way.  Do this experiment.  I know it’s wrong.  I know it’s unethical.  I know it know that it’s all fabrication”.  But that’s where they find themselves.

[75m07s] I mean, actually the reason why I jumped ship from science, was because I found the whole institutionalized, institutional machine so constricting, and so rigid, and so opposed, actually, to real thinking, that I thought this is not the place for me to work in.

[75m28s] So, there is perhaps an increasing disjunction between between institutionalized mainstream science and what many scientists themselves are doing and thinking.  And, I find that scientists I talk to are themselves deeply concerned about that — they at least they find it a source of a very considerable frustration and and often talk to me is that they’re envious.  They say, if only we could have the freedom that you have in anthropology to think in ways that are different from required patterns.

[76m18s]  And in … just a case in point of that, in biology, there is this tradition of Gothean science that goes back to the ideas of Goethe and how one should study plants.  I really getting to know them very deeply, and the way in which that is treated by mainstream science is is is utterly appalling.

[76m46s] I mean that it blows apart the myth that science is an open system of knowledge.  And there have been other traditions where in mainstream science has virtually come to book burning, and saying we won’t allow any of this nonsense.  So, we have is curious situation in which science, in principle is a very open-ended enterprise, but where because of the way it’s been taken up —  perhaps because of the way it’s been tied to the ambitions of the state — it’s become very rigid in its structures, I think.  But there’s hope.  Yeah, there’s always hope.

<< audience last question, coming from the art world, shifting this conversation into the mainstream >>

[78m33s]  I don’t know, but, perhaps,  strategically we shouldn’t even be trying to get into the mainstream. I sometimes wonder so I think about my own discipline of anthropology, which is sort of, by most accounts, a bit marginal and/or regarded as a bit way out compared with the mainstream subject.  And people sometimes say you know if only anthropology had the clout, the power, the numbers, the funding, the popular appeal of some discipline like psychology ….  I believe there are more psychologist in psychology than there are practitioners of any other disciplines.  Enormous.

[79m15s]  And then you think, would you really want anthropology to become like that?  What would you actually want this subject to become mainstream?  And I think,  probably not,  because it would become normalized. It would lose its critical edge.   So, maybe I just don’t know how to answer it, but maybe that’s the wrong ambition, to say “I want to be mainstream”, and that the right ambition is to think “I want to change the world” and leave it at that, and not worry about whether you’re on the margins or on the mainstream.   And then see, once the world’s changed, where it’s landed up.

[80m06s]  But, I appreciate the difficulty and and and know that people are compromised on both sides of the art/science fence.  That I am struck by the extent to which this really, some really good, challenging interrogating work that’s going on in the environmental arts,  however you want to categorize them.  Much more now than 30 years ago.

[80m36s] And I’m struck, at the same time, by how the sort of ecology that was really strong in the 1950s, 60s, 70s,  which was field ecology mostly, with people working very closely with certain landscapes, environments, animals ….  how that has become sidelined in current bioscience.  That the two things seem to be somehow … Well, they’ve happened at the same time and they seem to be somehow connected.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2016/09/07 “One World Anthropology | Tim Ingold | AIBR

Plenary presentation by Tim Ingold, at the 2nd @AIBR_ International Conference of Anthropology.
Plenaria Tim Ingold 1, AIBR Antropólogos Iberoamericanos en Red

The 2nd AIBR International Conference of Anthropology brings together anthropologists from different parts of the world under the theme “Identity: Bridges, Thresholds, and Barriers.”

[….]

[6:58] So what is the relation between the life of the soul and soul life, or to put it in more general terms, between the particular life and life itself. Is it a relation of part to whole? Now, I have nothing against the idea of life as a whole, so long as we do not think of this whole as a totality. Holism is one thing. Totalization is quite another, and it is vital to acknowledge the distinction. Totality to my ear at least implies addition and completion, but life itself is never complete, nor, as I have tried to show, can we approach it by any process of summation, whether addititive, additive or multiplicative. It is not a completion but the continual origination. Life as one elder from among the women she Cree of northern Canada told the ethnographer Colin Scott life is continuous birth. It is the generative potential of a world in becoming a world that is forever worlding.

[8:20] So is the particular life a part of life as a whole. Is the life of the soul apart of soul life? And, again. I have nothing against the idea of lives as parts but then we should think of these parts too, as ways of carrying on like the voices of a composition. And the analogy I have in mind is that of polyphonic music in which every voice, for every instrument, carries on along its own melodic line. In music the relation between parts and whole is not summative, it is neither additive nor multiplicative, but contrapuntal. Think of the tenor part in the chorus or the cello part in the symphony and I want to think of the life of every particular soul.

[9:19] Likewise, as a line of counterpoint, that even as it issues forth, is continually attentive and responsive to each and every other. Souls as we might say are answerable to one another, a condition that carries entailment of both responsiveness and responsibility. Precisely because souls go along together and because their continual regeneration is nourished and impelled by the memory of their association the composition formed by their contrapuntal movement cannot be decomposed without causing grief if not destruction to the lives of its parts.

[….]

[….]

[29:02] And I think it is to the oneworldness of this whole that anthropology must remain committed.

[29:11] As I stated at the outset the world is a conversation, it is not the object of our conversation. In this conversation lies ontogenesis, the becoming of being. And it is high time to restore ontogenesis to life. We will then see that every particular life is both an open-ended exploration of the possibilities of being that are one world affords, and a contribution to it its ongoing formation, that is to its worlding.

[29:49] It is in a sense a never-ending quest for an answer to the problem of what being human, or what living in this world actually means. But every answer is a response, and not a solution. Responding to the question, we respond to one another, that is, we correspond. And in this we do not so much look out from a position as long for one that is forever beyond our grasp

[30:22] Life is a question to which there is no answer but in this one world of ours we are all tasked with looking for it, and it is in the search that all life is lived. And it is just as well that there is no final solution for that indeed would put an end to us all.


Plenaria Tim Ingold 1 | September 2016 | AIBR Antropólogos Iberoamericanos en Red at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TbG2Lo_9fk

Plenaria Tim Ingold 2 | September 2016 | AIBR Antropólogos Iberoamericanos en Red at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn9DfiAteFQ

2nd AIBR International Conference on Anthropology program is at http://2016.aibr.org/en/programaen/search .

Tagged with:
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

Service Platforms, Living Labs, The Future of Open Innovation | Henry Chesbrough | Sept. 2016 | Berkeley Exec Ed (web video)

Responses @HenryChesbrough on service platforms, living labs, and the future of open innovation.  Since 2003, he has provided a precise definition, as the godfather of open innovation.

InFocus Podcast with Dr. Henry Chesbrough. Dr. Chesbrough is the Program Director for the UC Berkeley Executive Education program, Corporate Business Model Innovation.

[12:34] >>Interviewer: When you talk about service platforms and you need a good service platform to succeed, is that what you’re talking about, or can you explain to us what a successful platform is?

>>Dr. Chesbrough: The service platform resolves a fundamental tension in this idea of adding services to be more intimate with your customers to escape the commodity trap.
Basically to make things affordable, you want to standardize them so you can share and reuse as much as possible. The problem is we don’t all want the same thing. The best way to give us what we want is to have everything be fully customized, get exactly what you want, which may be different than what I want.

The tension between standardization and customization is where the service platform comes in. You embed in the platform the things that can be shared and reuse widely, and then you extend off of the platform to deliver the customized things that individuals want.

A quick example of this would be all the apps on our smart phones. The smart phones themselves and the app store that deliver them are the platforms, but none of us have the exact same suite of applications on our smart phones nor do we have to. We get the things that we want but we get them in a way that makes it very affordable for us as well.

So that’s the idea of a service platform.

[13:54] >>Interviewer: I’d love it if you could explain, too … I know you’ve been quoted talking about living labs. Obviously it must apply to open innovation. Can you give us a little background on what that is?

>Dr. Chesbrough: Living labs is something that’s really emerged out of Europe.

I had the great pleasure of spending nine months last year in Barcelona, which if you have to leave Berkeley, Barcelona’s a great place to spend some time.

One of the challenges in Europe, they’re very envious of us here in the US especially in Silicon Valley for the magic we have of turning all these great ideas and research into new ventures, new products, new businesses. In Europe they complain about what they call a innovation gap. They’ve got great science and great technology, but they don’t have the same vibrant startup environment, the same new culture toward entrepreneurship that we have in the US.

So living labs is a response to try to close the innovation gap.

When these research and technology projects are concluded in the university setting, can we find a place to put them to nurture them further and bring them to life? So it’s not a traditional academic research lab. It’s a much more practical place to work more on these technologies to really get them ready for use in industry.

One area where we’re seeing these living labs is in smart cities where municipalities like Barcelona or Amsterdam or London or Paris are trying to put technology to work to really reshape the urban environment in which these people live in ways that make citizens’ lives better, bring new sources of revenue to the city, and often save money or improve safety of these kinds of things using technology and experimenting through these labs.

[….]

[24:56]>>Interviewer: How about the future for open innovation? If you had a crystal ball, if you were looking down the road 10, 15, 20 years from now, where do you see it going?

Dr. Chesbrough: Let me give you a short-term and a long-term answer.

In the short-term, open innovation is moving from collaborating between individual firms or organizations to collaboration throughout an entire ecosystem of companies, developers, third parties, users, suppliers, a very rich, multifaceted thing. This is actually been labeled open innovation 2.0 by the European Commission which has really gotten behind this as part as their policy going forward. In the short-term, it’s easy to say because it’s already starting to happen. This is where open innovation is going.

In the longer-term, I think open innovation might follow a path like that of the quality revolution.

In the 1980s, the US companies woke up to the gap with Japan and how much more reliable many Japanese products were relative to US products, and so US companies really embraced quality as a strategic imperative. They had quality departments, quality organizations, and they embedded in the companies a real need to do this well from the very beginning of the design, not just inspecting at the end of the process.

Today, most of those quality organizations are gone. The thinking is there, but it’s now embedded in how the company does business so you no longer need the quality department overseeing all this. That’s a possible long-term future for open innovation. Openness is not going to go away, but it may become part of the fabric of the company. Instead of today having open innovation departments and people with titles of manager of open innovation, director of open innovation, and my personal favorite, vice president of open innovation, in 30 years those titles may be gone, those organizations may be gone, and this may just be part of how companies do business.

“InFocus Podcast with Dr. Henry Chesbrough | September 2016 | UC Berkeley Executive Education at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxhrg_ndz9M

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming

2016/05/11 “Apache Open Tech is fueling tomorrow’s game changing innovations” | Todd Moore | ApacheCon North American 2016 (web video)

History of open source at IBM from 1998 @tmmoore_1 @ApacheCon NA 2016, and current IBM Open Cloud Architecture.

Todd Moore, VP of Open Technology at IBM will share a retrospective of IBMs deep roots ASF and then follow with some crystal ball gazing on some key projects that are poised to become engines of new innovation both within and in conjunction with ASF projects.

[00m30s] [slide: IBM has a long view of open source]

[00m57s] There are 62,000 IBMers who are trained up in open source contribution and participation. There’s about 400,000 of us in total. I run that program across IBM. Many of our open source committers, main contributors to the project, are part of my organization. [….]

[01m40s] About ’98, we started looking into Linux …

[02m35s] … at the time, Robert LeBlanc was in charge of software strategy. Robert, in his quote, basically as part of that press release, said we expect this to foster skills, to build communities, and to build markets. And that is exactly what that has done. [….]

[03m18s] These were bets. We didn’t know if open source would grow. We knew that there would be roadblocks and things that we would have to overcome along the way, but we thought that it would have promise and would be the way of the future. It was a strategic move.

[03m38s] [slide: Apache’s steady growth]

[04m26s] We started to build the fences around open source. We then also showed clients and customers, and all of the rest who might come out and develop in it, that it was a safe place to do that. By the fact that we were in these organizations, and the other businesses were in there with us, we were making a commitment that this was a safe place to go and work. And I think that’s what really turned the corner. Because, now, with that backing, people could come in, evaluate, play with, see the quality of the code that was being done — great code, done and being out in the open — and feel comfortable about it. That’s been part of the engineer of growth that has fuelled our success at Apache.

[05m13s] [slide: Community plus strong believers and supporters] Just doing some surfing using e-mail addresses to figure out where contributions are coming to, and who some of the backers really are. This is looking over the last year, it’s not any kind of completeness. Just to hit some of the key folks who are in here, contributing into these projects being part of it. Obviously IBM, about a third of the work in relative investment of company size, Google, HP, Microsoft, others, Twitter, Red Hat, etc., making large contributions into the community. [….]

[05:50] The companies are behind it. We’ve got really deep support in here.

[06:00] [slide: The next bets … in the Cognitive, Cloud Era]
[dw Open projects, now incubating at Apache]
[- SystemML]
[- Toree (Spark Kernel)]
[- Quarks]
[Existing Apache projects]
[- Mesos]
[- Spark]
[- Kafka]
[- CouchDB]

IBM has 936 projects, I looked out on Github this morning. Kinda hard to figure out what’s really important, what’s not important. We started an effort last year to cull that down to make something that is understandable. It’s a work we call developerWorks Open.

[07m20s] Two-thirds of our activity in Apache right now is SystemML.

[10m50s] [slide: IBM’s Open Cloud Architecture]
[IoT: MQTT, Node-RED, Quarks]
[Web and Mobile: jQuery, HTML5, Apache Cordova, Loopback, Activity Streams, JSON]
[Runtimes: node.js, Java, Swift, Go]
[Data and Analytics: Spark, CouchDB, Redis, TinkerPop, Titan, Hadoop, MongoDB, data.gov]
[Security: OAuth2, OpenID]
[Operating Environment: Cloud Foundry, Docker, OpenStack, Cloud Native Computing Foundation, Open Container Project, OpenPower, Mesos, Linux, OpenVSwitch]
[DevOps: Ansible, Git, … Jenkins, Chef]

“Apache Open Tech is fueling tomorrow’s game changing innovations” | Todd Moore | May 11, 2016 | ApacheCon North American 2016 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG2iZBLz9g8&index=2&list=PLGeM09tlguZTvqV5g7KwFhxDlWi4njK6n

ApacheCon schedule archive at https://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/Past_Conference_Resources#ApacheCon_North_America_2016.2C_Vancouver.2C_BC.2C_Canada

Via “IBM’s Wager on Open Source Is Still Paying Off” | Ian Murphy | August 2, 2016 | Linux Foundation News at https://www.linux.com/news/ibms-wager-open-source-still-paying

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Talk Video Streaming
Translate
Beyond this media queue
This content is syndicated to Twitter. For professional perspectives, look to Coevolving Innovations; for a photoblog, look to Reflections, Distractions.
  • Redesigning Our Theories of Theories of Change, Peter H Jones + Ryan J A Murphy (ST-ON 2020/11/19)
    While the term “theory of change” is often used by funders expecting an outcome of systems change for their investment, is there really a theory there? The November 2020 Systems Thinking Ontario session was an opportunity for Peter H. Jones (OCADU) and Ryan J. A. Murphy (Memorial U. of Newfoundland) to extend talks that they had given over a few days for the […]
  • Learning With Humility: Systems Thinking and Reordering Priorities (Global Change Days, 2020/10/22)
    For the third of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, Kelly Okamura, Dan Eng and Joanne Dong led a Beacon Event for Global Change Days. This session was one in a series for global changemakers.  Our expectation was that they would be hands-on practitioners, with relatively low familiarity with systems thinking methods and t […]
  • Theoretical Grounds, Pragmatic Grounds: Methods for Reordering our Priorities through Systems Changes Learning (ST-ON 2020/10/19)
    For the second of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, we convened a session for the monthly Systems Thinking Ontario meeting.  The focus of this workshop was a review of progress to date on methods by the scholarly team, informed by the adoption and use by the field team. The framing of this presentation centered on develo […]
  • Reordering Our Priorities Through Systems Changes Learning (RSD9, 2020/10/14)
    For the first of three workshops by the Systems Changes Learning Circle in October 2020, Zaid Khan led a session for the Relating Systems Thinking and Design RSD9 Symposium.  Our team had developed a set of reference slides for the three workshops, from which content that would most resonate with the audience could be selected.  RSD attracts designers across […]
  • Strategic Communications + The Brand Stack, Zaid Khan + David Akermanis (ST-ON 2020/09/14)
    Two Major Research Projects (MRPs) — they might be called master’s theses elsewhere — by Zaid Khan and David Akermanis reflect the Systemic Design agenda within the OCADU program on Strategic Foresight and Innovation (SFI).    To graduate, all SFI students complete an MRP.  With many subjects and techniques covered during SFI studies, only a few exercise Sys […]
  • Beyond the Tavistock and S-cubed legacy
    While it’s important to appreciate the systems thinking foundations laid down by the Tavistock Institute and U. Pennsylvania Social Systems Science (S3, called S-cubed) program, practically all of the original researchers are no longer with us.  Luminaries who have passed include Eric L. Trist (-1993), Fred E. Emery (-1997), and Russell L. Ackoff (-2009).  T […]
Contact
I welcome your e-mail. If you don't have my address, here's a contact page.