When your leadership role decines, and this seems inevitable, what do you do? Try to postpone the inevitable; try to prevent it through eliminating the competition; accept the decline and manage it to your own benefit or are there other options?
Some could argue the USA faces this option in the next 20-30 years. As sure as people cannot live forever, empires cannot live forever and the USA will need to sacrifice its individual dominance of the World at some point -maybe to China, maybe to China and India combined, or maybe it will just have to share its dominance with either of those (or Europe etc)?
Previous empires have tended to implode through over-stretching or because the competition beat them (often in a group) or because someone else just developed to be better.
Let me introduce: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. Now this seems to imply that the USA will not give up its leadership position.
Fair enough -let PNAC research this (and who knows how much support it actually has from the 'powers that be'. But what would be better for the USA is to also have another think-tank entitled: Project for the Non-American Century which could explore what the future might look like under a different country (or group of countries)'s leadership. It could explore what the US could do to ensure it still benefits from this decline, how to deal with the psychological implications, how to prevent a nuclear attack on the (overtaking) competition and so on.
Even more interesting it could explore peaceful means of how the US could retain its leadership role in a way that is good for itself and others; in partnership with others. Unfortunately political international partnerships (e.g UN) rarely work due to the inherent fundamental need to preserve one's self-interest over all else... simple game theory does not adequately explain irrationality based on human kind's selfishness; or if it does (I am not an expert) then why has no one put forward suggestions to make partnerships like the UN Security Council or WTO work better?
The Leadership of the US needs to be responsible to itself and to others by creating several scenarios of the future and explore each one in detail. Instead of just presuming there is only 1 possible scenario (continued dominance) and exploring how to best ensure that scenario happens. As we are slowly, slowly realising we are an interconnected species on a small planet (witness climate change) and we have to put the 'whole' ahead of ourselves. Other species seem to be able to do this. Are human beings up to the task?
I would hate to see yet another cold war of some king... one that might end up warming up just a little too much..
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
bbc
I'm a big supporter of the role of 'the market' to allocate resources effectively and balance long-term with short-term consequences. It is not perfect by any means and despite the interesting use of the stock market to counter for long-term impacts (e.g. futures), the time lag between our reaction to certain problems and our decision to do something about it is still too great.
There is though, always other problems, such as out lack of ability of how to do something about a problem (once we eventually realise it is a problem).There are also some things where a 'market concept' has not developed -and maybe cannot develop. One example is politics; which should be the model 'market' but is often not; another is the Media. For several years I have held a great interest in the role of the media, its power, its use, its ownership, its impartiality and so on. What strikes me as interesting is to consider the 'marketisation' of the media, into monopoly ownership (is it a bad thing? if so, won't bad things naturally fail to be replaced with better things?), onto the internet (how many of us would love to spend all out time viewing all that media up there -too much!) and how it impacts it's content.
I think the UK is in an interesting situation regarding the media. There are some media providers who are purely commercial (though still regualted by the government and forced to show a certain number of 'educational shows', or to limit the amount of advertisements, for example) and then there is the BBC. The BBC is about broadcasting TV and radio (nationally and globally), funding and making content for itselves and others and providing the UK's most popular website (and a top site globally). Although it is sort of a non-profit entity, its existence is entirely dependent on the government to give it its 'license' -i.e. remit on what it can or cannot do. Thus the government controls the BBC -but the funding comes directly from the people (everyone must buy a TV license), though this is not a tax it is barely a 'user fee' since usage of the BBC is so loosely related to how much is paid (compared to a normal market commodity).
As much as the BBC loves to hate the government it has to rely on the individuals within the government who are willing to support something that might be bad for the government (its controllers). Indeed what makes the BBC so interesting is this weird balance of control and ownership.. because it impacts what the BBC is able to do, and crucially, what the content is.Thus the media is a unique issue to discuss in the context of responsible leadership.
Many argue (at a macro level) about the crucial role the media has to play in informing the public, in playing an active role in supporting democracy, freedoms (of speech etc). Others can argue (at a micro level) about whether the media should promote domestic talent (since it is paid for by domestic money) or whether it is stifling other competition. It makes the mind boggle to consider how complex a responsibility the BBC has -given its international role, its influence across so many types of media and its remarkably high level of trust that almost everyone holds in it (in a world where no-one trusts any thing nowadays!).
My take is that there is a responsibility to stimulate a healthy democracy and debate, there is a responsibility to inform people about issues that they need to be educated about (climate change, poverty or whatever), there is a need to provide fantastic documentaries even if so few people watch them, there is a need to provide a platfor for new talent and new ideas and there is also a need to show shows that people actually want (e.g.soap operas).
Getting the balance right is not easy; it seems the BBC is doing ok with this balance at the moment, and the government is doing a fair job of both controlling and not controlling the BBC in a way that is best for the 'public good' (who can decide what THAT is?). I hope that it continues in it unique and weird form to continue to be a fantastic organisation.
There is though, always other problems, such as out lack of ability of how to do something about a problem (once we eventually realise it is a problem).There are also some things where a 'market concept' has not developed -and maybe cannot develop. One example is politics; which should be the model 'market' but is often not; another is the Media. For several years I have held a great interest in the role of the media, its power, its use, its ownership, its impartiality and so on. What strikes me as interesting is to consider the 'marketisation' of the media, into monopoly ownership (is it a bad thing? if so, won't bad things naturally fail to be replaced with better things?), onto the internet (how many of us would love to spend all out time viewing all that media up there -too much!) and how it impacts it's content.
I think the UK is in an interesting situation regarding the media. There are some media providers who are purely commercial (though still regualted by the government and forced to show a certain number of 'educational shows', or to limit the amount of advertisements, for example) and then there is the BBC. The BBC is about broadcasting TV and radio (nationally and globally), funding and making content for itselves and others and providing the UK's most popular website (and a top site globally). Although it is sort of a non-profit entity, its existence is entirely dependent on the government to give it its 'license' -i.e. remit on what it can or cannot do. Thus the government controls the BBC -but the funding comes directly from the people (everyone must buy a TV license), though this is not a tax it is barely a 'user fee' since usage of the BBC is so loosely related to how much is paid (compared to a normal market commodity).
As much as the BBC loves to hate the government it has to rely on the individuals within the government who are willing to support something that might be bad for the government (its controllers). Indeed what makes the BBC so interesting is this weird balance of control and ownership.. because it impacts what the BBC is able to do, and crucially, what the content is.Thus the media is a unique issue to discuss in the context of responsible leadership.
Many argue (at a macro level) about the crucial role the media has to play in informing the public, in playing an active role in supporting democracy, freedoms (of speech etc). Others can argue (at a micro level) about whether the media should promote domestic talent (since it is paid for by domestic money) or whether it is stifling other competition. It makes the mind boggle to consider how complex a responsibility the BBC has -given its international role, its influence across so many types of media and its remarkably high level of trust that almost everyone holds in it (in a world where no-one trusts any thing nowadays!).
My take is that there is a responsibility to stimulate a healthy democracy and debate, there is a responsibility to inform people about issues that they need to be educated about (climate change, poverty or whatever), there is a need to provide fantastic documentaries even if so few people watch them, there is a need to provide a platfor for new talent and new ideas and there is also a need to show shows that people actually want (e.g.soap operas).
Getting the balance right is not easy; it seems the BBC is doing ok with this balance at the moment, and the government is doing a fair job of both controlling and not controlling the BBC in a way that is best for the 'public good' (who can decide what THAT is?). I hope that it continues in it unique and weird form to continue to be a fantastic organisation.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Pandas
The 5 other animals that are in the same species as the Panda (debated as to what exact species the Panda is) have all disappeared -most of them hundreds of thousands of years ago, and not because of mankind. Now the Panda has started disappearing, partly from human activity and partly from other animals or natural changes.
To some extent, yes, it is because of humans that the Panda is now facing extinction -but at the same time, it is also simple evolution that the panda has failed to react adequately to climate changes; failed to change its eating habits; failed to escape from or attack predators; failed to mate quick enough etc.
Much is made of manking altering nature for our own good, well should we be artificially protecting the panda; which currently only survives in zoos or protected reserves. I believe only 1 panda has been returned to the wild (ever); no matter how much we can increase the population of pandas, what is the point if they cannot survive alone in the wild, unsupported?
Do we have an obligation to protect species from going extinct? Should we continue to keep them alive in order to study them, their breeding habits and so on, so we can increase our knowledge of nature, animals and history? Are we only protecting the panda because it is cute (and other animals that are not cure, are disappearing)? and so on....
What should we do, what is the responsible thing to do? I can definitely see value in protecting the panda in order to study it and learn from it; but then i think that what we should do is have these kinds of discussions about the panda, about extinctions and about mankind's place in this world. Instead of information in zoos about how we should support the panda, donate money to WWF and environmental conservation, we should be telling children the panda's story and discussing with them these and other philosophical questions.
Rarely does anyone learn about philosophy at school, unless they take it at 16, 18 or older as some academic option, but at a time when the debates are growing into the general public demain about the role of business in society, about the role of humans on our planet, about the role of the person flying on holiday (is there a right to travel?), then i think that a great philosophy class could tie all of this together in a fun and interesting way (the panda is a great example). This helps the future generations learn about the past, explore the present and challenge the current preconceptions. Right now the most responsible thing we can do is explore new ways of living; of surviving -we cannnot go on as we are.
To some extent, yes, it is because of humans that the Panda is now facing extinction -but at the same time, it is also simple evolution that the panda has failed to react adequately to climate changes; failed to change its eating habits; failed to escape from or attack predators; failed to mate quick enough etc.
Much is made of manking altering nature for our own good, well should we be artificially protecting the panda; which currently only survives in zoos or protected reserves. I believe only 1 panda has been returned to the wild (ever); no matter how much we can increase the population of pandas, what is the point if they cannot survive alone in the wild, unsupported?
Do we have an obligation to protect species from going extinct? Should we continue to keep them alive in order to study them, their breeding habits and so on, so we can increase our knowledge of nature, animals and history? Are we only protecting the panda because it is cute (and other animals that are not cure, are disappearing)? and so on....
What should we do, what is the responsible thing to do? I can definitely see value in protecting the panda in order to study it and learn from it; but then i think that what we should do is have these kinds of discussions about the panda, about extinctions and about mankind's place in this world. Instead of information in zoos about how we should support the panda, donate money to WWF and environmental conservation, we should be telling children the panda's story and discussing with them these and other philosophical questions.
Rarely does anyone learn about philosophy at school, unless they take it at 16, 18 or older as some academic option, but at a time when the debates are growing into the general public demain about the role of business in society, about the role of humans on our planet, about the role of the person flying on holiday (is there a right to travel?), then i think that a great philosophy class could tie all of this together in a fun and interesting way (the panda is a great example). This helps the future generations learn about the past, explore the present and challenge the current preconceptions. Right now the most responsible thing we can do is explore new ways of living; of surviving -we cannnot go on as we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)