Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Monday, November 26th, 2012

Who Wins Wars?

Who wins wars?

More importantly – can a war, today, really be won?

In the “old days,” war was simple…populations were smaller, weapons were less effective for mass killing…so you fought and killed and then took over the population that remained.  Rape and pillage were, of course, part of the deal.

In some instances, the subsuming of the population was a given – champions fought each other and winner took all…

But lest you think that ancient societies were utopian…in War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, says that “approximately 90–95% of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional warfare, and many fought constantly.”

And cruelty was a part of life long before gunpowder, modern warfare and fear of nuclear devastation, as has been evidenced by many archeological findings.

Yet, it seems to me that the biggest difference is the outcome – as I said…in the “old days,” we fought: I won, you lost, and for the most part you went away – integrated forcibly or otherwise into the winning society. Not exactly “quietly into the night,” more like kicking and screaming, but nevertheless – your tribe, territory, civilization ceased to exist as it was and most often re-emerged in parts of the conqueror’s society…and then as they got conquered – on and on and on – till today, when so much of who we are – anywhere – is an amalgam of diverse and often far-afield parts.

In fact – one view of the etymology of the word “war” – from the Old Saxon, Old German, Old Frankish (kind of makes the point) is to confuse; to perplex – maybe as in regard to what comes out the far end….

In either case – think about war in the last century – and think about the outcomes – Europe is now the EU (OK…maybe for a little while longer); Germany is a major economic power in the world and a key ally of the US; Japan is the largest (as of last week) holder of US debt and China and Russia are major trade partners of just about everyone. Hmmmmmmm.

Not a lot of empire subsuming here – is there? In fact – as many people as were killed, as much devastation as there was, the equation of destroy and take over is no longer an option – unless, of course, one doesn’t care at all and goes nuclear…and there are some who seem that crazy….

But at the end of the day – if you look at the conflicts that still rage – they are for the most part civil warlike – that is, between people in the same territory, fighting – each believe – for the same thing: religious – I speak to God and you don’t; ethnic – you are below me; or the simply old-fashioned – I’m running my country into the ground so I will take my population’s eye off of me and use one of the above to divert their attention while I divert all the money….

Neil Gaiman, in American Gods, had it right… “There’s never been a true war that wasn’t fought between two sets of people who were certain they were in the right. The really dangerous people believe they are doing whatever they are doing solely and only because it is without question the right thing to do. And that is what makes them dangerous.”

However, no matter how you look at it – there are no winners anymore – look at Vietnam.  The sheer loss of life – on all sides, from the French days on – the money that could have been spent on human needs – the hatred and civil anguish – all wasted, all down the toilet for nothing – all the fears and predictions came to naught – and today Vietnam is a proud country with a growing future – and a great office for me….

Hard to reconcile that with the days of protest and burning draft cards…my own included.

But so it goes…and while it’s not clear who wins – even losing isn’t clear – or maybe it is – as depicted years ago by this famous satire – “The Mouse That Roared.”

So yes – before the knee-jerkers jerk…people have to defend themselves, people have to protect themselves – and clearly some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others…but as Carl Sandburg said, “Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”  Would it were so….

Bottom line – listen:

“War does not determine who is right – only who is left.” Bertrand Russell

And, if you have been watching some of the postapocalyptic movies of the past decade, who is left is not necessarily who you want as a neighbor.

Which leads me to one of the greatest minds of all – Ben Franklin, who said: “There never was a good war, or a bad peace.”

So – no answers – at least I don’t have any – although sadly I see and read so many who do….all I have are questions – and maybe questions are the best and only place to start….

What’s your view?

 

 

 

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFRM4oJwLdc
  • Dear David, thanks so much for your deep and useful posts. They always give food for thinking.. when reconsidering and thinking over a vital topic you can define your own opinion and attitude to this. Agree with you - more questions than answers are here, and questions are really a good standpoint to start think over. I just want to stop ...
  • I ran into a related point in a story about driverless cars and ethics. The story goes beyond cars and touches on robotic warfare - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/google-driverless-car-morality.html "The thought that haunts me the most is that that human ethics themselves are only a work-in-progress. We still confront situations for which we don’t have well-developed codes (e.g., in the case of assisted suicide) ...
Monday, October 15th, 2012

We Live in Uncertain Times

We live in uncertain times….

No joke…

In fact we live in the Age of Beta – we never know what’s going to work or not…but we take the plunge and update our Apps as they come – and by Apps I mean even our “Lifeapps”…that is, relationships, philosophies, ideas.

So why do we accept the uncertainty of the latest iPhone, Microsoft or Angry Birds release and yet many obsess at work or in relationships because of a perceived lack of clarity? We limit our ability to perform, innovate or transform because of fear of failure – again linked to uncertainty and absence of clarity.

(More on The Uncertainty Principle here)

Now – none of us would want to live in a feudal society (unless you were King…), but there was little uncertainty – chances were you could starve to death or be killed on some whim – but you knew your place and knew it was where you belonged. And in highly structured hierarchical societies and companies it’s much the same…it’s good to be King – and, yes, you know your place and there is clarity – for sure – but BORING…LIMITING…and probably little or no innovation and – by the way – they ultimately fail.

So how do we as a society break out? How do we – even in the absence of full clarity – give people the opportunity to excel through experimentation and innovation – how do we limit the fear and maximize the Beta?

Esther Dyson (thank you, Esther!!!) gave me the clue last week when she shared the following thought with me: A good leader absorbs uncertainty…whereas a manager simply distributes it.

Think about it – absorbing uncertainty to me means being accountable – letting others know that there is no blame, no finger pointing, no deflection of failure. That to me is true leadership.

Distributing uncertainty means that you look to hedge the bet on failure. You are looking for others to be lined up along the blame wall – that is not leadership.

Why do we accept beta releases – imperfect forms – from some? Because they have the credibility of accountability. We know Apple and Microsoft will make it right; we know that they will stand behind their product.

The Graveyards of Failed Enterprises are filled with the remains of those who didn’t absorb the uncertainty but rather ignored or shared it. The ground is littered with the detritus of relationships where uncertainty ruled. Lack of leadership leads to rampant uncertainty, and rampant uncertainty leads to certain failure.

Listen:

“The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers.” Erich Fromm

Think on this – because I think it takes the idea to another dimension. A true leader absorbs uncertainty – meaning that they don’t necessarily create clarity. To the contrary, they make uncertainty OK – they make it a condition of positive development; they unleash the full opportunity inherent in uncertainty – ergo, allowing us all to develop our true power.

So if you are in a company or in a relationship or are contemplating the why of it all – if you really want meaning – be a leader – absorb the fear of the unknown – accept the full accountability for the journey and my sense is that you and your quest will flourish.

And if you can’t…if you are unable to make that leap…link yourself; hitch your wagon to someone who can…don’t get blocked – unfold….

One last thought – also from Fromm – but to me completes the thought.

Listen:

Critical and radical thought will only bear fruit when it is blended with the most precious quality man is endowed with the love of life.”

Think on that – I believe that love of life is what gives us the strength to absorb the unknown…and the more we absorb and the more we discover, the richer the lives we lead…

What do you think?

  • I love this. uncertainty is great especially if people are willing to give it a go. when we think we can minimize the risk, we become paralyzed. I have always heard that since there is no control the only way to feel it is to let it go.
  • Good question -- and not sure of the answer -- I think there is another layer -- which uncertainty? Is there an absolute -- a "truth" if you will about uncertainty? can even uncertainty be spun?
  • What a pleasure these blogs provide! I love the mots justes you unearth and the quotes, and your ability to weave them into a discussion that is both uplifting and challenging. I wonder how people would feel if they applied the Esther principle to the current election campaign: I think Mr Romney practices the rhetoric of certainty whilst distributing ...
Monday, October 8th, 2012

People Still Vote

Is it just me?

Am I getting jaded? Fed up? Bored?

And no, it’s not life that’s getting to me – that’s just fine, thank you – LOL!!!!

It’s the elections in the United States (sorry for being partisan) that I find tiring. But truthfully, as one who loves to follow these things globally, I sense the same in most democratic countries (not to mention the comic book proceedings in the non).

To be clear, it’s not the democratic process that I find exhausting – on the contrary, the democracy part – when and where it works – is still the best there is.

What I find draining is what we have made of it – and worse, what we have allowed our candidates to become. And maybe worst of all is how we have pretended that the digital age has changed it all – and we use democracy as the cover.

I think what brought this all to a head was the recent first debate between the two US presidential candidates.

Did you watch it? Read about it? See key snippets on YouTube or elsewhere?

For all the lead-up hype, for all the commentary and tweeting (most ever to date for a political event – but what isn’t the most ever to date…on Twitter?), for all the punditry and deep analysis – it seems to me to boil down to who was less bad in delivery and who had listened more to their media trainers.

In the US, we seem to feel there was a clear winner – and maybe by the rules of that particular engagement there was – but the way I see it, the winning was around style and not around substance – sort of like the Winter Olympics skating competition where the technical and freestyle are two different events.

And I’m hard-pressed to see what the digital effect was – particularly when the last US election was touted as having been decided by the brilliant use of digital channels by the Obama campaign (and there was some really clever usage for fund-raising and communication – some of which won Titanium at the Cannes Creative Festival). But today that same campaign machine is pouring tens of millions of dollars and more into – shudder – TV (whatever that means) and there is little talk of any millennial or other buzzword power giving anyone a winning edge.

Here is my take – the digital exponential force is always at work today – it’s a given – meaning that whatever we do gets digital power or amplification because it’s what we do. The problem is that somehow we have imbued digital magic – like shamanism – into the process and somehow think that a candidate will emerge from the mire like some great FX fantasy movie.

To me it seems that once again we confuse real life with digital – we mix up what is with what we hype – we lose the true magic because we make it mundane.

Bottom line – may the best candidate win, anywhere in the world – and may they all understand that at the end of the day it’s not the Twitter feed that ultimately decides – it’s the quality – because at the end of the day if the product isn’t good the digital exponential will take it down even faster than it brought it up.

And to continue my beginning cynicism I share the following…listen:

“If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.” Jay Leno

So there you have it – I only point out that we fly because we made great wings – so we can vote – we just have to make great candidates.

What do you think?

  • as do I!!!!!!
  • Alexis de Tocqueville's famous quote, "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve," is both true and a sad commentary on the process in the U.S. The fact that people will make judgements based on stage presence or the fact that one candidate or another has the best "zingers" in a face-to-face encounter on TV does not bode well ...
  • While the TV spend is outrageous, it is limited in geographic area. Living in NY the only time I see any presidential commercials are when I am watching regional stations for sporting events. Most of the TV ad dollars are being spent in a handful of markets. Yet the ads do go digital. They are all posted on YouTube, and ...