We're Living Through a Rare Economic Transformation

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
, ,
21

ao,
The point is as you suggested is that all men have something to teach is true.  But we cannot descend into the unifromity of nihilism either. Our culture has taken a certain path that has lead to certain kinds relationships that are very unhealthy (not all of them of course). There are cultures that have preserved those particular relationships in a healthier fashion (and not others). As one man can learn from another, so to can one culture learn from another. I was not implying that either culture to be better than another.

We have developed great material power, but at a terrible cost.  There are cultures that have preserved that part of ourselves that we must now recover and reintegrate in order to move to a better place. That is the part of our world that has died and needs to come back to life.  As we all have a role to play, I believe native peoples have that role to play in our lives.

They are of course not the only souce of the part of wisdom that we have neglected and let wither, but they are a reminder of values that we all have within ourselves that need to be awakened again.

22

One thing is for certain we are coming to the end of a "dirty" era, and are moving into a "clean" era, and i think that should underly choices for the future.
I think knowledge will give way to adaptability, so the most important skills will be problem solving and critical thinking, and not just profit from being in the right place at the right time with the right skillset.

i firmly believe that people will have no choice but to take at least some responsibility for manufacturing their own food, food storage, electricity generation, and do all this in a earth friendly manner.

perhaps we are at or beyond peak "prosperity", but we are not even close to peak "wisdom", and lets face it, we all get the chance to learn from our mistakes.  

23

Agreed for the most part but again, labelling statements made as nihilism slides towards fundamental attribution error.

24

I think what the above article is referring to as knowledge products can be things like software, or high-tech/low energy knowledge products (maker bots, high tech ceramics, solar leaves that mimic photosynthesis on a nanoscale…) I have no hope that technology will stave off either a  crash or a slo-mo, stairstep long emergency. We are headed into into a lower-energy future; however, it will be one that still has technology.Technology will to some extent persist into our low energy future.  Godbye, petroluem/fossil fuels. Hello hybrid old plus new.
 We are not headed into "the old ways" of "living in harmony with nature" like some on this thread have suggested. Will it be a future where we are closer to nature and have learned from the distant past?  I don't see any way to avoid that, so hopefully post crash (after the mass die off projected) humanity will live a way of life less able to damage the environmnent through pollution, etc. But we will still have technology. We are not headed for the past, but rather a mix of past and what we've learned since then. Whatever it will be can only be, to some extent, new. And I thtink it's pure hubris to try and guess what that mix of old and new will be.

25
CHS - Organizations require management, and in the knowledge economy, that means managing change and helping the organization learn how to innovate.  Innovation can no longer be left to chance; it must be organized as a systematic process.

Without a systematic process of constant innovation, organizations will become obsolete.

Treebeard, I was struck by this statement as well. Galbraith says the same thing when describing the technostructure of the corporation. Management was/is central to neocapitalism, I'm not sure it has to be essential in a more decentralized society, but the past can't be ignored, so systemization will most likely be inevitable. Seeing nature as an eco(system), again, inherently separates us from it, although "system theory" views us as a part of the larger global system (the earth being one big self-regulating organism). I struggle with this contradiction...if our perception of system separates us from nature how can we reconcile our being a part of the larger system? At first it seems as if it's perfectly logical, but when I think deeply about it I go around in circles. I feel like I'm stuck in a strange-loop pressing up against Godel's theorem of incompleteness.

I'm also not sure if the last sentence "Without a systematic process of constant innovation, organizations will become obsolete" is an absolute. Constant innovation? I have to give that more thought.

26

Hi FreeNL,In addition to your thoughts that problem solving and critical thinking will be the most important skills, I would add to that change management skills, as gillbilly touched upon. This is a crucial skill needed now, not just in a scarce energy future. The ability to adapt to change is one of the deciding factors in survival, whether as corporations, communities or individuals. It goes to reason then that those who have the strongest change management skills, which is a "knowledge skill", will do the best.
I am wondering about your statement below about being at or beyond peak prosperity.

perhaps we are at or beyond peak "prosperity", but we are not even close to peak "isdom", and lets face it, we all get the chance to learn from our mistakes. 
If one were to measure "prosperity" on the basis of the current financial and consumerist paradigms then perhaps your statement makes sense. But prosperity means different things to differerent people, and many of us do not equate prosperity with monetary wealth. This ties in with the discussion re the natives and what we here in Canada call First Nations people. Many view their historic way of living as primitive, yet it is entirely possible that they thought of themselves as prosperous on the basis of their seemingly infinite access to land, water, and food. I have to say if I had that kind of freedom right now I would feel like the richest woman in the world, far, far more prosperous than anyone living in a gazillion dollar house. Prosperity is a state of mind, therefore I do not think we can have "peak prosperity", and the same goes for wisdom or knowledge. Those are intangibles that cannot be measured. People never stop learning, so there will never be "peak wisdom". There is, however, a peak to those finite resources that many erroneously view as key to their particular brand of prosperity. This is where we err in our so called wisdom, and perhaps what Drucker was trying to get at in his theory. We most certainly do get the chance to learn from our mistakes. The problem is, it is not an inherent trait, and it is not diligently applied on a regular basis, largely because humans seem to have this knack of being unable to admit they have made a mistake. The ongoing financial mess is a classic example of humans not learning from history. If we were more astute at learning from our mistakes and actually taking action to change behaviours accordingly, I would like to think that the cumulative problems we as a species are facing would not be nearly so dire. Our "problem" is getting TPTB and the decision makers to admit they have made mistakes, and to put in place corrective action before it is too late. We are almost at "too late". Will they wise up with time enough to change? Somehow I doubt it, if their track record is anything to go by. That is why there are ever increasing movements to resiliency and self-sufficiency. In the absence of leadership, we will make our own prosperity. Jan
27

Thanks to everyone who took the time to post.
The various topics here reminded me that part of what we're discussing is appropriate technology and knolwedge, as opposed to technology/knowledge that "makes sense" because of subsidies, tax breaks, financialization, etc.  We can presume these artificial incentives will likely have less staying power compared to market forces over the long run.

If Gregor is correct about coal in N.America being a primary energy source for quite some time, it seems the 2% of electricity production we spend on operating the Internet will continue to be an affordable leverage point to distribute innovation and knowledge.

Innovation is always unwelcome to those whose lives are disrupted, and to vested interests in the old way of doing things. We ultimately prosper by cooperation, and perhaps the social innovations the Internet enables will be more powerful than technological innovation per se.

 

28

A catholic knowledge base is too huge for any modern person to master. It has to be left to the machines.
How many of you have blacksmithing skills, let alone being able to refine iron ore? Both of these essential methods were mastered a long time ago. By specialists.

Specialists must be supported by a surplus in what ever economy emerges, therefore if it is a given that if we are uncompromising in our demand to remain Human (or even better, Post Human) we have to produce a surplus.

The way foward is not backwards.

This crisis is an opportunity to overhaul our arrangements. Money must serve humans, Corporations must serve Humans, Machines and knowledge must be thrown into our service.

Are we going to press the Up button or the Down button on the elevator?

29

Economics as if people mattered.  This discussion makes me want to reread EF Schmachers classic book that I read some 20 years ago, but if it didn't fall apart first, I must have given it to somebody a long time ago.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” 
― E.F. Schumacher
Gillbilly, I see Eco(systems) as living conscious "systems" that interact creatively and dynamically because there is no division or fragmentation between the "parts" as we would label them.  We have had a more difficult time navigating the apparent contradiction between individuation and the whole.  The description is not the thing desribed, our rational projections onto natural systems do not alter the nature of their reality.  I did not follow what your sense of contradiction was.

We currently seem to accept only one mode of knowing, that of the "rational mind" whose only mode of operations is fragmentation.  It is not capable of any other activity. This activity by itself necessarily creates contradictions when applied in isolation. When the division between the "object" preceived and preceptor is eliminated actions become unique and "inovative" necessarily by their nature. We shift into the elusive creative mode of the "artist". As intensely as we claw at this problem with the wrong mind, the problem remains unsolvalbe.  The systems approach will just create more divisions, confusion and fragmentation.

Everyone has experienced the clarity and insight that comes from the creative mind, where insight comes in a flash, where things become suddenly clear and the apparent contradictions melt away.  The understanding of this mind exists in the esoteric side of all religious traditions and in some cultures as a matter of course in their world view. If we need any kind of "system", lets learn to cultivate that side of ourselves that "systems" think tends to destroy.  We could start by bringing the arts back into our educational "systems".

30

"knowledge" is cheap, virtually cost free and comes from the internet, not from some special brain possessing "knowledge worker"The conclusion : "In a knowledge economy, the primary asset – knowledge – is “owned” by the worker and cannot be taken from him/her.  Knowledge is a form of mobile human capital." is COMPLETELY WRONG 

31

Look, Motts, all I have is annecdotal evidence, but bear with me. I am not saying we will have an exclusively knowledge-based economy, but we may end up where the majority of good-paying jobs are in that sector.  I am not saying other types of work will no longer exist, but they may become less common. Just as we still have farms only now they are 3% of our economy (at the height of the pertoleum-fueled agrarrian revolution. Note: I hope to see the concept of mass-customization hit farming like it's hitting manufacturing with Makerbots.) We will still have manufacturing, although much fewer jobs in mfg. And we will see the rise of the knowledge worker, especially as regards to tech.
It's not just my brother the Solutions Architect with no degree and all of his Microsoft certificates that he earned online. It's not just me with a laptop and engineering knowledge, conducting a business via the internet and making money at home writing custom safety programs. My girlfriend Bonnie writes smartphone apps for a living. No specialized training in college; she learned this off the net all by herself.

KNowledge work is on the rise. The biggest TV network is actually Machinima, a gamer network that puts the numbers of traditional broadcasting to shame. People are making it as musicians and artists online, doing YouTube work for a living. Writers are sef-publishing and cutting out the industrial publishers - and making between 5 and 7 times more. Musicians are cutting out record labels, putting their music and liner notes out on the intenet, and making their money on live tours.

I am not saying this is for everyone, but when traditional jobs dissapear people will make their own opportunities, and many of those jobs will be knowledge workers.

 

32

Mots is moving in the right direction, we are in a knowledge revolution, but it is not the commodifcation and ownership of knowledge by a "worker" or any entity that the economic "rational" mind perceives. It is the universal availability of knowledge that the creative mind is producing through such things as the open software project.

"knowledge" is cheap, virtually cost free and comes from the internet
Cheap is misused in this context IMHO, because it is an economic term. The knowledge availabe was and is being paid for by a lot of hard work and dedication of a lot of people who have transcended small minded rational economic capitalist tit for tat thinking.

The rational mind engenders fear through division and fragmentation and tries to create ownership and job security to allay the fear it creates. The creative mind thinks big picture, transcends fears, and makes knowledge universally available.  The ability of any individual to access information and change their lives is the revolution that is transforming the world beneath all the doom and gloom that we hear.

Lets stop putting new wine in old skins.  We must be made new through and through if we are going to transcend these dark times.

 
33

Thank you Treebeard, you solved my contradiction/problem:

We currently seem to accept only one mode of knowing, that of the "rational mind" whose only mode of operations is fragmentation.  It is not capable of any other activity. This activity by itself necessarily creates contradictions when applied in isolation. When the division between the "object" preceived and preceptor is eliminated actions become unique and "inovative" necessarily by their nature. We shift into the elusive creative mode of the "artist". As intensely as we claw at this problem with the wrong mind, the problem remains unsolvalbe.  The systems approach will just create more divisions, confusion and fragmentation.
As a jazz musician, I can relate to this statement. Improvisation is experiential and in the moment, and I'm all too aware when I perform that I slip into a transcendent state when I'm "in the zone." Trying to wrap my mind around the problem was the problem, it creates the contradiction.  I am in a state of complete fulfillment when I'm in the zone. It's probably the reason I left finance so long ago to pursue the arts. The rational mind too often denies or completely rejects the power of the symbolic.
The rational mind engenders fear through division and fragmentation and tries to create ownership and job security to allay the fear it creates. The creative mind thinks big picture, transcends fears, and makes knowledge universally available.  The ability of any individual to access information and change their lives is the revolution that is transforming the world beneath all the doom and gloom that we hear.
Beautifully stated! Both fulfill a role, and as Arthur likes to point out we need make the collective shift back to right brain.

I would like to recommend again Jaron Lanier's book "You Are Not A Gadget," which gives a critique of open-source/web 2.0. He thinks we shouldn't become too enamored with it. When he was involved in creating it, his wish was for the internet to become more individualistic in its appearance and expression, and just the opposite has happened. Most websites look alike or fall into predictable templates, and those who are making the most of internet commerce are those organizations that control the infrastructure. He believes the Google/Wiki paradigm is something that leaves a lot to be desired…good for some things, awful for others.

Wendy, thank you for your post! You always have such valuable things to add. I would disagree a little with what you say though. You wrote about musicians bypassing the record company and making money off youtube and tours, but the reality is that the number of musicians who can actually make a living off these revenue streams is extremely small.  Open source, at least in the short run, has devastated the music industry (I'm not shedding tears for the larger labels) and most musicians' livelihood (I am sympathetic). In the long run it may be what is needed to shake off the exploitive nature of the big labels, so I remain open minded that this may be the beginning of something more fruitful for the arts in general. One of the contradictions I see is that the arts are the ultimate expression of culture, but much of our cultural expression throughout the world is being homogonized through the open source medium, leaving a monoculture. In addition to music, writers, visual artists, film-makers, are all facing the same dilemma. Mashups are becoming the norm which leaves authorship nebulous. Have you experienced any of this in your own business, and how do you navigate around it?

 We could start by bringing the arts back into our educational "systems".
Amen, I've spent the past 20 years fighting this fight. A more holistic approach is needed in education. Students of all ages are starved for "meaning." I believe this is born out of their experience with adults starving for the same thing. The push for more math and science above all else puts this into context. The push for these subjects ultimately comes out of fear. Fear we won't be able to compete, fear we'll be left behind. My question is always... left behind what? Facts and truths are very different things, but too often they are looked upon as the same. Students are too often looking at their grades as a reflection of who they are. GREs, LSATs, SATs, factual cognitive recall is all that matters. The arts, humanities, religion, culture, all these are put in the "leisure section" of our lives, something to ponder on Sunday...like I'm doing right now.

 

34

[quote=Mots]"knowledge" is cheap, virtually cost free and comes from the internet, not from some special brain possessing "knowledge worker"
The conclusion : "In a knowledge economy, the primary asset – knowledge – is “owned” by the worker and cannot be taken from him/her.  Knowledge is a form of mobile human capital." is COMPLETELY WRONG 
[/quote]
Sorry but I have to strongly disagree with your statement about knowledge coming from the Internet.  "Information" comes from the Internet.  Knowledge involves knowing what information is valid, what information is invalid, what information may be questionable, how important some information is relative to other information or how information should be comparatively weighted, how to coordinate and integrate information, how to apply information, how to be discerning about information, having the experience and wisdom to know how to most effectively utilize information, etc., etc.  Every day I work with folks who get information off the Internet and are misdirected or run into trouble because of a lack of knowledge and wisdom about what they've learned.  Also, I'm an autodidact but I still often rely on a "knowledge worker" to fill in gaps or otherwise complete, refine, enhance, modify, or correct what I've learned.  AI is improving day by day but bouncing ideas off another highly knowledgeable human is still one of the best ways that I know of acquiring accurate and comprehensive knowledge on a particular subject or issue.    

35

gillbilly,Your quote below, reminds me of a great article I read many years ago re conducting and participating in job interviews. The title and author escape me, but what resonated and stayed with me was his methodology to overcome that which you are speaking about. To get around the endless parade of canned answers and responses, he would simply ask the interviewee "who are you?" He went on to say that this constantly tripped people up, with most being unable to step outside of the traditional "these are my qualifications" box, to actually articulate anything about themselves.

Students are too often looking at their grades as a reflection of who they are. GREs, LSATs, SATs, factual cognitive recall is all that matters.
To me this is reflective of an educational system that does not focus on what is truly important. Educational ideals were long ago highjacked to the point the system became just one more assembly line, pumping out workers whose only focus was joining the materialistic, capitalistic model. It further reflects a culture that does not place any value on deep thinking or self-analysis. My observations are that few people allow themselves to have quiet time to ponder and reflect. Intangibles like introspection are not seen as adding value. Is it any wonder then that many don't even know who they are? Jan
36

perhaps, much of what you term "knowledge" I would call "wisdom" Still, "information" is what comes over the internet, of course.  Yet virtually every problem encountered and solved exists as such information on the internet.  Even asking the problem TO the internet is amplified, boosted, electronically facilitated by algorithms and usually requires surprisingly little thinking.  And understanding how to follow the instructions provided on the internet seem to require much less "thinking."
Virtually all complex tasks such as building something and even much if not most of what used to be termed "legal work" can be done by computer and other machines.  Thus, I really dont agree with your accessment.  The earlier article on this blog about robots and a transformation (profound loss of "knowledge" jobs from robotic revolution) is spot on.

37
To me this is reflective of an educational system that does not focus on what is truly important. Educational ideals were long ago highjacked to the point the system became just one more assembly line, pumping out workers whose only focus was joining the materialistic, capitalistic model. It further reflects a culture that does not place any value on deep thinking or self-analysis. My observations are that few people allow themselves to have quiet time to ponder and reflect. Intangibles like introspection are not seen as adding value. Is it any wonder then that many don't even know who they are?
It is troubling, I'm not sure hijacked is the right word, but I agree with your sentiment. I think the educational system does reflect, and is born out of, a culture that has put constant organization and reorganization above the symbolic/human values that we crave. Administrators have become the dictators and authority of education putting the teacher in a subserviant role, all for the sake of preserving the "organization/institution." It wasn't always like that, but as administrators over time were gradually paid more and more (since they were on 12 mos contracts, with teachers often being 9 mos,) that "more pay" elevated them to the status of "more important." This is born out of our society...in general, we tend to perceive those who make more as more important. Thus the organization became more important than the education.

Teachers are forced into teaching to the test because their jobs depend on it. If they don't teach to the test, test scores drop which threatens the institution's credibility and reputation (survival). Teachers really are just teaching what the society is asking them to teach. Until people stand up and start demanding something different, it will continue.  Parents are often too busy to get involved or find outside ways of provide the "alternative/special" education (think community arts and afterschool programs).

I agree with you that we should be asking students who they are, but too much emphasis is put on test scores and the students know this. I think we should be asking our parents, administrators, and admissions offices is what do these tests tell us about who these students are. How do these test scores reflect the students ability to cooperate, reflect, sympathize, empathize, think deeply about life, live life fully, etc.? Where are these characteristics reflected in these standardized tests? Why have we factored all of those qualities out of tests? When we ask thoses questions, it squarely points the finger at all of us adults.

38

I've always had a problem with the furor over teaching to the test.  I asked a friend, who is an education expert, if a test actually measures what we want the kids to learn, what's wrong with teaching to it?  He agreed with me that there is nothing wrong with testing what we want kids to learn.  He also said that he thinks our state's standardized tests (NY) actually do a pretty job of that.

The obvious problem is that many of the standardized tests don't measure what we care about.  And, the question is, how do we decide what we want the kids to learn beyond the 3 Rs?

Doug

39

I believe kids these days are so enslaved and addicted to "stuff" that we might very well need a global collapse to get them off of it. As far as im concerned their teaching all the wrong stuff in school.
Perhaps it might be prudent to start teaching the following courses for grades 1-4

Cooperation is good 101, 102, 103, 104

Be Good, Not Evil  201, 202, 203, 204

Greed is bad 301, 302, 303, 304

Respect Everything! 401, 402, 403, 404

Lies hurt people  501, 502, 503, 504

Be Creative 601, 602, 603, 604

Everything in Moderation 701, 702, 703, 704

 

4 full years of this from the getgo, and we might be able to turn this thing around. Doesnt seem like anyone is learning this shit nowadays. Perhaps we need to teach wisdom first and knowledge last, rather than it occuring naturally the other way around, over many years.

 

40

Doug,Thanks for your reply. My first question would be what is the criteria that makes an education "expert?"  I don't think tests are bad and I give them all the time to assess students and to assess how I'm doing as a teacher.  But they are one of many types of assessment. How much a student has read and knows on paper about farming does not make them a good farmer.  Standardized tests are a very narrow form of assessment, but too often these tests become the first and sometimes only assessment used to "rank" students. That ranking number then becomes the way the student compares herself/himself with others as being better or worse (and I do mean a better or worse person, just ask a student). Even worse, now college and graduate school admissions offices are relaying the message to high schools and undergrad colleges that if the student grades of the school don't relatively match the scores on these standardized tests then the school needs to review their grading assessment criteria. The absurdity of this is too long of a subject to get into on a thread. If you think I'm exaggerating, go ask an admissions officer about disparity between grades and standardized test scores and see what they say.

Doug wrote: The obvious problem is that many of the standardized tests don't measure what we care about.  And, the question is, how do we decide what we want the kids to learn beyond the 3 Rs?
That is a great question!!... bringing it back to knowledge, what knowledge do we value? To begin to answer that question will help us define what kind of value we are seeking. CHS thinks that a lot of non-essential stuff will disappear with the constraints of energy. This will change the "value creation" in our societies, and we will go back to valuing quality, experience, wisdom, locality, cooperation, and culture. I hope he's right!