A zen perspective on how we think about the future
I meet more and more people interested in self-publishing their first book. As an 8-time book self-publisher, I tend to be generous with ideas, affirmation, and feedback. Is it possible for self-publishers to collaborate more to support emerging newbies to this space?
A Cleveland artist-entrepreneur I know, Nicole McGee, continues to champion innovations in materials reuse. The sky is the limit in this space. If you want a taste of the possibilities, walk around your living spaces and imagine what you could do with any materials disassembled from anything you have in these spaces.
Once again this year in (American) baseball's "World Series" (that invites no other countries), we see highest paid teams brought to their knees by much lower paid teams, again questioning the wage-skill mythology. I think we should spend less time questioning how much players are being paid and more time questioning how much a ticket should be. Should there be locally defined caps on teams? Should season ticket holders as investors have a voice at the ticket pricing table?
When it comes to political appeals, we have cultural and intellectual influence approaches. The cultural speaks to metaphors and social memes, beliefs deeply held. The intellectual speaks more to data and fact. How do we create compelling stories of the future that speak to both? And while we're at it, how do we tell stories that question stories that are blatantly zero sum?
Someone the other day argued that "rational markets" needed to be considered in any kind of economic and moral policy reform. It's an argument that goes back to at least the Puritans who help found the US ethos on sets of very simple and naive principles. Fact is that from dot-com to housing bubbles, greed can make people dummer, read: irrational, together. If we accept the fallacy of rational markets in favor of a view that they are actually self-organizing ecosystems of human beings, how would our individual...
Communities daily welcome seniors leaving their live spaces and neighborhoods to congregate, and segregate, in hours of bingo and bus rides. What might be possible if we reverse this and instead engaged them more deeply in the community's life and endeavors? What could they do if instead of being daily segregated consumers, they became integrated contributors to schools, work places, hospitals, jails, shelters, gardens, workshops, museums, restaurants, galleries, and shops?
I am not even going to go on a rant about this, perhaps another day. I just want to raise a few questions. As people in the US become more identified with their socioeconomic regions, do federal mandates and agendas have relevance they once did? If innovation is more likely at a local level than national, do national committees and initiatives have value when it comes to innovation in significant domains like education, work, health care, and rights?
It's becoming apparent to me, having been a shameless advocate for car-free lifestyles, that it is not practical for most people at least here in America. It is at least inconvenient, to the point where even the Amish must rely on ride shares to available work. How can communities even have the conversation on how to create more infrastructures and social structures to support less dependency on people driving solo and widely all over the planet? Who could be the conveners for these conversations?
It continues to amaze me that there are more and more people who adamantly hold the posture that all online content should be free. They all love the free access to content, and some, actually create and offer quality free content. They tend to be more consumers than creators in this realm. I'm delighted to have free content, not much of a socialist in this, perhaps more (social/capital) pragmatist, understanding and appreciating revenue models for people with bills. I like the Wikipedia open source model of very...