Brain Candy

HEADLINE!!!!

EEYORE APPROACH VINDICATED ACCORDING TO BBC

Now that I know that my curmudgeonly ways are not as dysfunctional as most people think, I feel so much better. I also feel less alone. That’s nice.

For a long time I thought I needed some Prozac to help steer my attention away from thoughts about our onrushing descent into a scary future. But its not medication I need, it’s the company. So, more and more I am reminded of the old Tom Paxton lines

Well, I've been around this land, just a-doin' the best I can,

Tryin' to find what I was meant to do,

And the faces that I see look as worried as can be,

And it looks like they are a-wonderin' too.

Yup, lots of folks are wonderin what is coming round. Though, I have to admit amazement at how many of them keep stoking the fires of good ol’ American optimism even as the wheels are coming off their individual lives so quickly. Which brings up an interesting question; when does optimism verge into denial? Is the current wisdom that we will get back to our glowing future as “growth” returns just a cruel lie, maintained by the media and the politicians in order to prevent mass panic? If so, then we need to be talking about real solutions for the future, not the wishfully imagined.

The way I figure it, we have a karmic duty to be mindful of the sufferings of others and do what we can to improve things. The problem is, in this overly complex, interrelated world of ours, how can we know if what we are doing is making things better or making things worse. Like, we are all going to be better if we can just go back to mass consumption and personal aggrandizement. The corollary to this seems to be wrapped up in the belief that we can invent technologies which will make life better and fix our social and environmental problems. After all, technology made our lives better in the past, cant we assume that it will make things better in the future. On the other hand, when I look at the damage that technology has done to our lives and our planet, I am tempted to think that Ned Ludd had a point.

These contradictions were brought home to me last week when I was given a wonderful opportunity to attend the ideas conference Pop Tech!, The location was the Camden Opera House in Camden Maine. My wife, who has been to TED, calls this kind of experience “brain candy”. And like most candy, you can get a major headache from consuming too much. But that’s another story.

Just being around this impressive bunch of brainy people was a major jolt to the neurons. It was especially intriguing because so much of the event was organized with an upbeat theme that new technology and social entrepreneurship would help us re-imagine America.

Admittedly, I had been re-imagining America in a different vein, so I bring forth my curmudgeon nature, and start talking to folks about the Cultural Confederacies idea. I had a bunch who seemed to think this was worth considering but I was brought up short whe some of the really bright people I presumed to engage asked: “Oh really? Have you read Juan Enriquez” book?” I then looked stupid for more than a minute. It turns out that I should have watched Enriquez’ presentation at Pop Tech 2006 before putting the idea out there. I urge you to watch it too.

Enriquez observes in his 06 book, Untied States of America, that divisions of larger countries into smaller countries is really the story of the 20^th century. Go look at how many countries lived under the English flag in 1909. It turns out that when populations within a nation become sufficiently self identifying and un-integrated, splits often occur, but not in the way that might seem most likely.

Part of his thesis is that most secessions are by the more economically viable portion of a state that is tired of supporting the poorer regions. When a population or region becomes convinced that the could be richer by themselves, they secede. (Guess how much of the blue state taxes get funneled to the Red states) Knowledge based economies can be much more efficient and allow these smaller nations easily compete with far larger nations. Shedding regions that don't 'pull their weight' becomes an increasingly attractive option. For more perspective see (Ode Review)

Now Enriquez concludes that we (America) is being driven apart by a minority on each side of the divide and that men of good will should be able to fix things. That sure was the hope of a bunch of us Obama supporters. Now I think our karmic task is to reimagine an America that might be fractured and hostile and dangerous and ask ourselves how we can provide a bridge from this reality to a better future rather than looking for the re-emergence of a prosperous path.

Most of the Pop! Tech participants were of the belief that simple technological systems would fix the problems. There were cheap hydrogen generators that used roof top photo cells. There were inventions like Styrofoam made from mushrooms and there were proofs that regrowing the rain forests to shelter sugar palms would provide all the sugar and energy we need. Really, these were all wonderful ideas. But ol’ Eeyore here just kept wondering how a bankrupt country with a population that expects its privilege to be unchallenged, is going to survive the next few years.

We can either choose some painful changes which might lead to a more humane future or we can fight against them, and accept the verdict of history. I think there are a lot of hints out of history, but the question is how to listen to them.

That was the great thing about being around so many really smart people for a few days. It was good to be reminded of the debt our ideas owe to their sources of knowledge and inspiration. Each of our personal journeys of the mind follows their own paths and comes upon our own references in the most surprising of ways.

Next week I want to explore some of the sources of the Confederacies concept and why such sources provided the context for imagining the good that could come from dis-uniting our states.