indy on boundaryless
indy on boundaryless:
[#podcasts] #Tuesdaypodcast is @indy_johar on Redrawing the Human Development Thesis for the 21st Century
Listen here https://t.co/eiV5n45NMX
#Boundarylessconversations #NewFoundations #PlatformDesign @DarkMatter_Labs https://t.co/9anBqi5nHj
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/Boundaryless_/status/1262665380071432192
75 min podcast:
3 min – i: not just an info transition.. transition from way we org bureaucracy..
5 min – i: what info age has done is change cost of b to zero.. and now our interdependencies are starting to feed that
what we need is b to zero.. beyond cost of b to zero
7 min – i: infinite to small world.. interdependency becomes key.. goes all way thru to corps and everything else
i: interdependency was preserved for high kings and queens and now to more people and even most people
has to be all or it won’t work
8 min – s: on john robb’s consensus and dissent..
9 min – i: i think the interdependence does reverse.. forces us to recognized situationally realities in new ways.. both local and global..
10 min – i: what makes pandemic unique: scale, speed, and scope.. has to do w living in an interdependent age
11 min – i: centralized models don’t work .. what we need are diff ways of looking at it
talking about stocks.. governing on 72% stocks.. et al
wow.. totally loosing opp of ie: scale, speed, and scope.. sucking energy by talking f & b
15 min – i: i think what the real problem is.. to transform institutions.. we also have to transform our capacity and mechs of thinking.. and that really isn’t happening yet
perhaps via mechs to listen deeper.. to self/others/nature.. as it could be..
17 min – i: on risk management and capital allocation.. needing to be connected
18 min – i: on property rights.. enslave land to your needs.. ownership is a thesis of enslavement..t.. have said.. ownership makes you look after things.. but in reality .. that’s not true.. ie: in order to make day to day living you have to destroy land.. we have to think deeper than that ownership relates to stewardship.. we also know that ownership only optimizes your interests.. not ie: bees, trees..
property ness et al
20 min – i: narratives from land of kings.. single utility et al.. destroys value ..
22 min – s: what kind of space.. brings to me idea of commons like michel has been working on
i: yes, though i resist the thesis, of the local. i think i prefer commoning to commons. And this is, I think, really critical.
common\ing et al
2\ if we create a way to ground the chaos of 8b free people
i think a lot of our thesis on the commons is based on bounded thinking.. sort of like the individual is a bounded act. the commons is a bounded act of ‘that forest over there, that water pool over there’, which has us as key stakeholders. so in act of creating a commons you created in-group and an out-group..t
i think that’s a very industrial idea.. an idea that belongs to the 19th cent, rightly so, it was a counter thesis to the market. but what it creates is same.. same intellectual framework.. as bounded/siloed model of thinking of industrial age. . reality is: the commons failures that we’re seeing are global commons w/o bounded systems.
and that I think is requiring a different thesis.. ie: when we pollute the air..not only 3 people that sit next to me..also whole world that’s polluted.
so it is an unbounded and interconnected commons that i think we have to deal with..t
huge.. it’s not commoning .. if it’s bounded
and we keep missing it.. (even with title being boundaryless.. no?.. what does that mean?)
i think this is a philosophically important point.. much of localism convers we see end up being about saying how does local deal w these problems and how to create new bounded models of ownership or thesis or (?)
..what I prefer about the commons is.. and this is where a lot of the work that you’re doing.. trajectory that we’re on of..distributed ledgers and various other techs, they’re opening up a frame of allowing for local global accountability in a radically transparent way, in an unbounded way, exploring how we relate to the commons.
accountability itself is part of the bounding..
why i prefer the thesis of a commoning econ as opposed to the commons.. one thesis that I would really put onto the table.
24 min – i: i do think we’re going to see the shortening of supply chains.. shortening of material goods transfers, because of actually efficiency conversations. i do think we’re going to see diff forms of relationships..but long-term. short term, i think we’re going to see rise of nationalism and other things that has to do w complexity, has to deal w vulnerability and in vulnerability, people return to defensive positions. but long term, if we’re.. as a human civilization we’re going to survive.. i think what we have to talk about is a new global interdependence…t
25 min – i: non-competitive econ, or .. class of value in world only unlocked if post-competitive. i would say commons is post-competitive infra.. as is data, as is probably machine learning. we’ve got a whole section of DLTs..post-competitive econ. so whole new infra built for post-competitive econ, which i think is going to be vital to that transition. i’m not saying everything has to be post-competitive. i’m saying we’re building a whole new tranche of the country, to me, that is not organized on a competitive economic thesis. and that foundation creates that possibility. i would say there’s something else coming. i don’t know what the languages, i would say it’s a new commoning econ, and it’s probably global in that infra play.
has to be global or it’s not commoning..
commoning econ: bachelard oikos law et al
26 min – s: any ideas on how this is playing out.. chaordic.. institutions at all.. how..?
i: i don’t claim to be a futurologist.. but what i’m seeing.. i think first .. covid is a 1\ trigger and a 2\ probe to our fragility.. a new form of interoperability.. richer form of civilization growth.. multiple models of future co existing.. not just age of pandemics but of risks.. too often we try to design future in simplistic way.. but need to do at institutional level to be anti fragile
centralization of institutions themselves are fragile..
other way man.. ie: 8b daily curiosities
to (virus) leap et al
32 min – i: challenge we face .. job losses.. speed of job losses are unprecedented.. some losses result of fragile industries at end of life style.. i thinking psychologically what we will be buying/consuming will be diff in next age.. ie: buy less and less .. buy things that add value to lives
i hope we won’t be buying in next age
graeber job/less law et al
34 min – i: transitions we see are transitions between power of govern/market/household/society.. rebalances to care econ
35 min – i: i’m not advocating any model.. both individual and collective are bounded models.. need interdependent models..t
37 min – i: procedural/process being automated.. algo’d.. will increase .. so people contribution has to be diff
38 min – i: i think about to enter a new era of human development
39 min – thesis no longer is around procedural work ie: getting kids to turn up at 9-3. not about procedural capabilities of children, but actually on our new psych capabilities of children. psychological development..at a societal scale, not individual scale..is actually premise of future, in my view. and that psychological development is actually about how we perceive ourselves, ourselves, our relationship with other people, our relationship with the cosmos..
begs means to augment our interconnectedness
i think that has to be at the *anchor stone of that thesis.. giving us capabilities: to deal w risk; be creative; be emotionally intelligent; be collab; to learn.. so most corps out there at exec level..going to be building psychological development infra for that group of people.
story about people grokking
41 min – s: on creating space for human development.. and capabilities you are talking about.. to build new space.. where human can develop self.. need tools.. psych tools.. what are skills.. psych techs..
42 min – i: i’m always conflicted by this questions 1\ have to build infra/conditions at same time have to 2\ build new things and new ways of looking at world.. i think there will be multiple realities..
infra and detox
43 min – i: i think our cities are designed.. not for psychological development.. i think our cities are designed for human transaction and optimization.. t
redesigning cities/space: cure ios city
city sketchup ness
43 min – i: book called slow down.. our thesis of human development has been focusing on transactioning activities.. so what we’ve been doing is building cities based on (that)
i: why i think that’s critical is that a thesis of human development has been firmly up to the state, focussed on transactional efficiencies. so been building cities focused on greater physical density of habitable rooms, you know, ease of buying things. so making sure we can have a shop get access to services, school, other things.. what we’ve tried to do is create the efficiency of transactions through density. but what none of that does is talk about how you build the capacity for human development in a diff format..t
ie: schizo twice as likely in urban environs than rural; sleep next to busy road..get huge amounts persistent levels of stress..manifests in bloodstream as cortisone .. reduces your length of life and other things. so talking about quiet zones, super quiet zones.. also know that density doesn’t build better relationships ie:offices.. kept saying ‘co working is great’.. builds communities and relationships. actually co-working was probably reducing communications. .. what people need is greater reflective space.. when was the last time you walked into a city and walk to middle of city and sit in an empty square, and have capacity to reflect?
3 and 30 min as infra
we’ve optimized ourselves for transactions, not for deep complex thought..t
our innovation/econ thesis has been entirely focused on efficiencies of transaction, not deep/complex innovations, nor kind of complex rich situations possible in high performance human societies.. i think one of key foundations and certainly one thing we’re very deeply interested in is a structural transition in our city..t
ie: cure ios city
same applies to all food groups.. food systems designed to give a calorific content at best, or psychological goods at worst, and psychological drugs at worst: sugar, all these sort of things. what they’re not there to do is provide us nutritions.. so structural decline in nutritional quality.
46 min – i: food systems, they’re designed for calorific optimization and for psych dependencies: sugar, carbohydrates, and short-hand carbohydrates.. not designed for our cognitive emotional capabilities. . we are consuming things that are not even good for us.. not even good for the society around us.
and why is it that we’re consuming those things? ..the nature of the work we do requires us to be dependent on psych goods, to fix holes that work that we do gives us.. so if work is not psych fulfilling..buy goods which fill those psych holes.. so most of our consumer econ is actually based on filling those holes..t
almaas holes law et al
48 min – i: not actually filling. ..how re-engineered and re-optimized for new world
s: also this idea that the current institutions need to be solid, need to build a new institution that is dealing with creating the conditions in the process stems, like you said before: the conditions for these new things to emerge. i see that as a crazy hard political challenge, because this sounds like a political project. .. how do you see these political projects emerge?
50 min – i: i actually think most of deficits are bureaucratic..a bureaucratic problem.. but I think you’re right to say there is a foundational problem that our politics is not able to handle. so let’s talk about that.. if look back at the moment now i think we would look back w disgust at what we thought was good.. everyday micro violence ..we don’t account for this micro violence because it’s not a knife, but it’s a persistent micro violence does that, or everyday noise levels which do that, or everyday disturbances, or at night — as a result of light pollution.
structural violence et al
scientifically backed, yet we do nothing, right..we have gap between science and policy landscape..now a significant gap.
52 min – i: i think consensus is a function of certain things and dissent is a function of other things.. theory is that most of our arguments are not no longer based on fact ..but they’re based on emotive responses. and emotive responses are a function of preconditions of our reality.. when people are precarious and you ask their opinions, they will create their emotional responses to their current emotional state.. t
data based on whales in sea world
hari rat park law et al
so one of the big problems is our macroecon & labor market has engineered us to create more precarious and thereby see dissent as an operating tool into that reality. ..societies which can actually reduce the precariousness and build a capacity for actually divergent thought, which can be deliberatively conceived, sort of integrated to create almost like a multitude of convers a multitude of consensuses which are dynamic and evolving.. t .. that society will be able to evolve and adapt to this transition.
8b daily curiosities ..beyond multitude.. approaching infinity
57 min – i: the foundational problem is not the logic problem ‘if this, then that, and that’.. the foundational problem is: do we agree? and what are the incentives to agree?
what we need is to listen deeper to what is already (itching) in each person.. everyday.. and then use that data to connect us
so in a sense.. connecting people who’s hearts were already in ‘agreeance’ when they woke up that morning.. (not in agreeance because of outside influence and finite set of choices to agree with et al)
and the trust/legit infra required to make that actually a shared truth.. i think that the problem is that we keep saying over and over again ‘scientific truths’.. but reality is that that was constructed in a world where we had a huge amount of governance architecture, which created some of those realities.
so i think the reality is that we haven’t built the mechanisms to create agreeability..t
agree: 1\ have the same opinion about something; concur. 2\ consent to do something that has been suggested by another person.
need mechs to undo hierarchical listening..
let go of finite set of choices guiding us to agree .. or whales will stay in sea world and the science/data will remain non legit
..but you also then have to create the institutional landscape to allow for those agreements to be formed. deliberatively. so how do we do that?
1:00 i: the idea that science has been universal, and everyone’s agreed with it instantly, is not true. so how do we start to think about this? how do we create the new scientific institutions..how we create sense making mechanisms, and how do we create sense making a societal scale?.. t
listen to and facil 8b facil daily curiosities
ie: cure ios city
this is a full stack problem that needs to be understood in both ..how we make knowledge and also how we distribute/communicate it and also how we create the incentive structures in those models.
not the main focus.. ie: not the rock
and again.. thinking we need incentives is a red flag we’re doing it wrong
biggest problem is that our incentive systems are deeply corrupted for a complex emergent world.. need to do is de-corrupt capital incentive systems in order to realign those mechs if gonna construct mechs that allow us for distributed, decentralized models of sense making intelligence, multitudes of convers and new models of consent, emergent consent to be constructed.
rather.. incentives/consent are part of the corruption
1:03 – s: you said need to create conditions for agreeability.. what is the equiv of the internet, for the sense making age? internet for info age.. printing press for institutional age.. what kind of institution do we need to build to transition into the sense making age?
ie: cure ios city
sense making? or wonder allowing
ie: salvatore iaconesi speaks about the data poesis. ..poetic process ..how do we visualize/internalize what’s happening to an extent that we can all together be part of a sense-making a sense-making process.
1:04 – stina: interesting to hear how you concretely are trying to work w own org model in way that could somehow be an experiment to move forward with this.
1:05 – i: this is exactly what we’re working on…long-term alliance..recognizing that democracies don’t have the capacity to think and operate through long term cycles. ..that really goes back to this agreeability.. have to be able to construct new modes of agreeabilities. so doing a lot of work around how we understand civic goods.
1:06 – i: we’re doing is rebuilding the institutional infra both at a county level, but also at the level of contracting level of the environ services and building a new model of looking at that balance of trees, both carbon capture, same about urban drainage, also in terms of human relationships. so not only just fin econs, but human/gift econs..how’d you build the institutional infrastructure for that?
1:07 – i: doing a lot of work around property rights.. how do you reimagine property rights for 21st cent which isn’t about enslaving the reality but it is not about cohabitation? ..doing a lot of work around transformation of cities..how do we start to drive that deep transition of our cities to a new psychological cognitive capability ..work focused on these sort of missions: longtermism, silos, the human psychological development, transition of cities, civic capital, various missions.
1:08 – i: the way we’re organized .. nearly 30 people, which is pretty extraordinary all the way from friends in dubai, to s korea to montreal..to london, to malmo ‘we’re going to make an org which isn’t going to be about you leaving if you have to move on’ ..make an org which is radically distributed.
1:09 – i: also changed our pay infra.. we reward people is based on a proxy, and it’s a proxy, not a reality: how old you are plus an x factorial, and the x factorial increases, but increases for everyone uniformly.. meant to stop you having to worry about money..don’t use it as a reward mech.. use it as a mech to stop people worrying.
w/ubi as temp placebo.. needs met w/o money..people forget about measuring
1:12 – i: we’re building a kind of infra for like common capability in a 21st cent way.
1:13 – i: to be honest, one of the reasons why i did call was i knew we could really get into some of these issues in a deep sense.
Just spent our morning talking with @snowded about how we can reshape our posture to organising in such a dramatic nexus as the one we’re living now through the pandemic, climate change, and systemic disruptions.
Key reflections (thread)
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/meedabyte/status/1320717953864765441
@meedabyte: First, when it comes to organizing at today, we don’t just need an “epistemic” reframing but an “ontological one” (restrain defining what that success looks like in advance)
ie: cure ios city
redefining success ness.. maybe even refrain from defining success
@meedabyte: Second, software and organizations need to start from the small and grow upwards, from the team, the job to be done, the individual context and not from the big picture
even smaller.. from the itch-in-8b-souls every day
imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch in 8b souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to connect/coord us.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..
@meedabyte: Third: despite coherence being one of the most important challenges of organising we need to learn how to live with incoherence as incoherence will be a defining characteristic of the decades to come, as top-down control systems depart and the emergent, local, indigenous emerges
if we get to a deeper coherence (org/infra around essence of human being) – incoherence is natural (meaning.. no need to learn how to live with it if we’re still not yet scrambled) .. the entropic swimming ness of anti fragility..