Reflections are only that, reflections, nothing more nothing less. Often these reflections are related to books I read, but occasionally also other things. These are often written very late, very fast, using notes from my mobile phone, so the grammar and spelling is horrible.
Latest
An end to poverty?, by Gareth Stedman Jones
/
This is a book that is well worth reading. While the structure and language used is based a little too much of traditional Marxism for my taste (as this tend to polarize history and ideas) the book is written by a person with knowledge and brings up a number of interesting observations.
I found the history around the creation of the social security system was particularly interesting. Fist in terms of bringing up ideas that most people find “utopic” and “unrealistic”, but even more interestingly and something that is seldom discussed/described, how new structures were created. How different groups that did not trust each other had to create a structure in order to deliver on something they did agree on in principle is something that anyone who is interested in transformative change can learn from.
Another very interesting aspect of the book is how different ideas changed as they where picked up by different interest groups before they got such momentum that they could affect actual policy discussions. The interaction between groups, structures and ideas is described in a very interesting way. So is the non linear history where ideas can emerge, become strong and then die/go into hibernation for a long time before re-surfacing again.
Finally it is healthy to reflect on the fact that it was not long ago since people thought that poverty was a natural part of a society. Looking at the world today it is surprisingly many who seem to be willing to reintroduce the idea of poverty as a natural part of society. For those engaged in poverty reduction it might be valuable to not only look at the incremental discussions (level of aid, area of focus, etc), but also see how the underlying discourse is changing.
Maybe someone could set up a webpage that track what individuals and organizations that are talking about poverty as something that society have to live with. In a time where the natural resources are under pressure it is highly likely that some groups/companies would prefer to see poverty as something natural, rather than question their own lifestyle/business models.
On the following link Gareth is discussing some aspects of his book: Link
Freedom ™ by Daniel Suarez
/
I thought I would not review this book as it is great, but just a sequel to “the Deamon”. I have already said that anyone interested in technology and the future should read "the Deamon", and if you do that you will also read “Freedom ™”.
But when insurance.aes256 was circulated on the web (and I like many others stored it on a few different places) and when Wired had Sergey’s search for a cure on the cover it felt like I wanted to remind people to not miss this book.
A more practical implication from reading the book: I felt a future with a one dimensional rating of people was both simplistic and not a very good idea (also from experience from the 21st Century Office application), so I decided to include more than one parameter for the rating of solutions in the new application that will be out any day… www.transformative-solutions.net…
I guess it is time for Daniel to write a follow-up…
Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think. Differently, by Gregory Berns
/
One thing that might be important to know is that the title is wrong. Gregory Berns is not writing about “how to think differently”, instead the book is 90% general reflections of a less structured kind. Why must people that know an area (like neuroscience) write about so many things they don’t know about? Is it to be published that people with knowledge have to write in a simplistic way. I don’t know if it is true, but it feels like an increasing number of books are moving towards a tabloid format (short sentences and emotional outbursts).
I think Gregory is an intelligent person and I hope he get’s to write a proper book someday. When he does this it would be interesting if he put an structural and ethical filter on the idea of an “iconoclast”. To say that it is about 1. Perception 2. Fear response and 3. Social intelligence does not help very much. The ability to create something coherent would be good to add (if not any mad person is the same as a person that develop a new theory/art), to ask why the person is doing it (money, fame, fear, vision, religious conviction, etc) is also interesting to understand, etc.
Where it becomes more then just general reflections on an interesting subject is when Gregory writes about his area, neuroscience. As part of his interesting writing he (surprisingly) attaches an appendix where he spends a lot of time writing about drugs and what they can help us, or not help us with. Maybe it is too narrow for a mainstream book, but I really hope that Gregory gets an opportunity to develop his thinking on what drugs can or can not do with our brains. In such a book it will probably be healthy if he took a closer look on the pharmaceutical industry and what they are trying to do as well and what kind of people they are “creating” with the drugs they are trying to get doctors to sell.
Thinking in Systems, by Donella Meadows
/
I’m note sure who Donella wanted to read this book. The first chapters are like a basic introduction to logic thinking. Maybe her frustration with many of the economists resulted in an attempt to explain obvious things in a simple way? For most people I think the first chapters can be ignored (these chapters also have some strange over simplifications that make me wonder how much practical work Donella did and how much she spent in the academic world).
What Donella does very well is putting focus on the right thing, she explains that we “can learn how to look for leverage points for change”, and not any change but transformative change. Her list with 12 levels of change is a great inspiration and should be used more often than it is. It is also available on wiki here.
So much of today discussion is about “Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)” and very little is about the “Goal of the system” and even less about the “Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises out of”.
What is most rewarding with the book is the honesty and wisdom in the last chapters. The self-reflection and understanding that everything can not be calculated and planned, that what we need to “dance with the system” and that there is a need for those who dare to speak out even if they don’t always have numbers to put on their feelings. Few books have this kind of balance between being humble and still a strong call for action when it comes to the great challenges of our time.
I end with a long quote from the end of the book:
“If something is ugly, say so. If it is tacky, inappropriate, out of proportion, unsustainable, morally degrading , ecological impoverishing, or humanly demeaning, don’t let it pass. Don’t be stopped by the ‘if you can’t define it and measure it, I don’t have to pay attention to it’ ploy. No one can define justice, democracy, security, freedom, truth, or love. No one can define or measure any value. But if no one speaks up for them, if systems aren’t designed to produce them, if we don’t speak about them and point toward their presence or absence, they will cease to exist”.