So across Western Europe, there are debates about whether women should be wearing the full face veil, there was a court case in Northern England regarding a woman wanting to wear the veil whenever she was in the presence of a male teacher.
There is massive debate about whether Europe should let Turkey join the European Union. This debate has two sides to it. The first side is simply that Turkey is a secular country, that is broadly supporting the West and we don’t want to push them to Islamic extremism. I find this argument slightly childish and naive….
Turkey is a relatively rich country with a long history, because it won’t be allowed into the European Union it will suddenly become an extreme country seems to be slightly simplistic. The British Muslims have lived and worked inside a western European country for many years; they first started arriving in the 1950s, yet on the streets of northern cities with large Pakistani populations the impression can be they are more radicalised than they were 20 years ago.
There is also a danger when the intellectual elite move too far away from what the people on the street think, the door is left open for extremist to enter. So should Turkey be allowed into the European Union, in short I do not know, but the debate about the EU has to be far wider, more inclusive, more honest with arguments that appeal to more than we have to support Turkey, because they are our only friend in the Middle East. We also have to look at the social problems that may occur if large numbers of Turkish immigrants begin to arrive in European cities, many of which are seeing a resurgence of rather distasteful political parties. We have to look at whether an EU can function as it continues to increase in size, without reforming.
We should also treat Turkey fairly openly and trasparently. Discuss our worries not operate a two value system, what we say to our populations internally and what we say to the Turks, this is surely the worst thing.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Weeks Press
The British New Scientist had a few wonderful articles this week.
One about a not so famous Polymath.
I have always loved people that are curious about the world. A close friend of mine is very keen on the arts, and likes to talk about its cultivating, moderating aspects. Its importance in society. What will be left without the arts?
I always respond that culture for me is much wider. It is the interest in intellectual pursuits in the world around us. Maths is culture and interesting, language is, science, art... we are so fortunate to have so many interesting intellectual pursuits that we can pursue... so i say lets glory in the polymaths that epitomise this... an interest in the world.
The Business has changed its format and become a magazine.
The business should be read for one element which is its thought provoking editorial, which can also can be read on line at:
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/
Y0u may often disagree with what they say but you will nevertheless be stimulated by a direct and brave editorial style.
Sadly this week's first editorial was a little poorer than normal.
The New Scientist also had an article about Bio technology and how it could be used negatively. I haven't quite got round to reading that it looked a little depressing. If human's disappeared tomorrow was my favorite. A sobering thought as after a million years or so there would be very little trace of us. The Earth they said would very quickly forget us.
I didn't bother with the Economist this week, as time for a change of reading material occasionally. Nothing caught my attention when reading the contents either.
The Prospoect should also be occaionally read as it writes in an essay format about such a wide variety of topics.... I also love the whats on lecture page:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/landing_page.php
The papers well I got the Sunday Times as ever but nothing really hit in that.
The Ecologist is interesting for a change but didn't fancy that either......
http://www.theecologist.org/
One about a not so famous Polymath.
I have always loved people that are curious about the world. A close friend of mine is very keen on the arts, and likes to talk about its cultivating, moderating aspects. Its importance in society. What will be left without the arts?
I always respond that culture for me is much wider. It is the interest in intellectual pursuits in the world around us. Maths is culture and interesting, language is, science, art... we are so fortunate to have so many interesting intellectual pursuits that we can pursue... so i say lets glory in the polymaths that epitomise this... an interest in the world.
The Business has changed its format and become a magazine.
The business should be read for one element which is its thought provoking editorial, which can also can be read on line at:
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/
Y0u may often disagree with what they say but you will nevertheless be stimulated by a direct and brave editorial style.
Sadly this week's first editorial was a little poorer than normal.
The New Scientist also had an article about Bio technology and how it could be used negatively. I haven't quite got round to reading that it looked a little depressing. If human's disappeared tomorrow was my favorite. A sobering thought as after a million years or so there would be very little trace of us. The Earth they said would very quickly forget us.
I didn't bother with the Economist this week, as time for a change of reading material occasionally. Nothing caught my attention when reading the contents either.
The Prospoect should also be occaionally read as it writes in an essay format about such a wide variety of topics.... I also love the whats on lecture page:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/landing_page.php
The papers well I got the Sunday Times as ever but nothing really hit in that.
The Ecologist is interesting for a change but didn't fancy that either......
http://www.theecologist.org/
Definition of Age
I went to the theatre the other night and I sat next to an incredibly knowledgeable gentlemen. He was telling me about the different performances of Faustus he had seen, and the great show that he saw in the sixties when there was a German actor playing the role.
He had seen Jude Law playing it at the young Vic as well.
He also mentioned the acclaimed Kevin Spacey in O'Neill's A Moon for the Misbegotten. This is the third time he has been in an O'Neill play, one of the other times opposite Jack Lemmon, who was in the role he is now playing.
It made me feel sad as it must become quite lonely when you have seen so much more than everyone else, when your friends are slowly dying away, or losing their minds and there are so few people that you can share these thoughts with; so few people that are your equal.
You must know you are getting old when you have seen so much more than anybody else, remember facts that nobody else cares about, and feel lonely as there are so few people to share them with, instead of just relating the stories.
He had seen Jude Law playing it at the young Vic as well.
He also mentioned the acclaimed Kevin Spacey in O'Neill's A Moon for the Misbegotten. This is the third time he has been in an O'Neill play, one of the other times opposite Jack Lemmon, who was in the role he is now playing.
It made me feel sad as it must become quite lonely when you have seen so much more than everyone else, when your friends are slowly dying away, or losing their minds and there are so few people that you can share these thoughts with; so few people that are your equal.
You must know you are getting old when you have seen so much more than anybody else, remember facts that nobody else cares about, and feel lonely as there are so few people to share them with, instead of just relating the stories.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The Elephant in the Room
Francis Fukuyama's famous phrase the end of history, was one of those comments which was almost correct.... He should have said rupture with history, and used it discuss a far greater problem. OK he wrote it an answer to the Marxist view of history but in a way that just made it even worse. He was simply answering a lot of those left wing academics that he had met during his career. That debate misses the point though. If we step back from our current lives and look around us we live in, perhaps, sorry definitely the most remarkable period in human history...... when did this rupture with history begin? When did we suddenly begin to break away from the past to start living by different rules and what does it mean? Now any student of history will know that there have been periods when developments have flowed more quickly, when amazing things have been constructed, however, we admire them because they managed to complete these buildings and structures when they didn't have our technology. Sometimes we feel we can even learn from some of the things that they had been able to accomplish. For instance the Japanese have studied how Machu Picchu was built and its resilience to earth quakes. The fact remains though that if we were to bring the greatest inventors and scientists from the past and put them into the modern world they would be staggered. Now rupture with history, what does that mean? It means that millions of people around the world have a far higher standard of living than ever before.. It means we can travel, use instruments that people in the past could scarcely imagine.... all wonderful.. all incredible... but it also means there is an elephant in the room which we are all ignoring. Our cultures, our ideas, our opinions evolved over millions of years, and this has also changed but not quickly enough given the present state of the world. The emancipation of women, fewer children in the developed world etc, yet so much of our debate about the world is framed in ideas that have little relevance in the modern world. We talk about a clash of civilisations betweens East and West, whether women should or shouldn't wear the veil, whether abortion should be legal or not, whether condoms should be encouraged...... These issues don't deal with the elephant in the room. These issues are framed by our cultures, by our views which are unable to deal with the elephant..... What is the elephant in the room, the one thing that people struggle to discuss.... The West consumes too much, and the developing world has too many children..... Now you might say that these issues are discussed now, we hear about global warming, we hear about population, but are they discussed? Jared Diamond's excellent books shed more light on this subject than anything else I have ever read, however, even he doesn't want to touch the elephant in the room. The problem is the most productive economic system ever created is based on more, always more... more consumption, greater growth increasing share prices more inventions etc..... In solving the problem, always higher population and consumption, we could undermine everything in our civilisation and what our forefathers struggled for. Waste creates jobs; we are all part of this system, we eat from McDonalds, we watch television, we consume and we want to consume, we all take pensions, and we want to have a good retirement... Can a capitalist democratic system deal with these problems, when it is based on more? Can our companies survive when they are based on more? Can our countries survive? I don't know but the world has to stand up and face it... We consume too much and you guys, I guess I should say ladies are having too many kids. It is naive of ecologists to think that simply by changing our habits by being more aware, by cutting down on our green house gases we can begin to solve the question... Mr. Goldsmith/Mr. Branson to solve global warming we have to commit to having less. We have to tell our children they will have less. We will be poorer, you will be poorer and life will be tougher.... We have to have fewer kids, we have to have less leisure, we have to eat less of what we want... we have to have smaller cars, less cars, we have to take fewer glamorous holidays...the list just goes on... As you relax in your expensive homes, turn on your TV and discuss these ideas with the intelligentsia stop for one second and think what it really means, as your children get excited about the latest IPOD, just stop and think what is really required to make the change..... It is truly scary.. I am scared... I love my life and I love my standard of living... Yet however, we criticise, those that have broken into the modern wealthy world love it. This is the greatest period in history to be alive; we are the fortunate ones... yet... yet... yet..... The elephant is there asking us whether we can or will make the choices..... will I.... do I want to... I don't know but at least I can see it there questioning me when I take another flight, when I wastefully buy some more junk food, when I get into my car.. when I go to a party and look at the waste, when I turn on the TV.... Do you want to change, does society want to that and will we face it honestly and really look at what it means? It means and lets not beat around the bush, that you voter are gong to be poorer and have less. It means that you voter in the developing world are going to have fewer children, and you are not going to ever, all live like the films you watch... ever.... That is truly scary for all of us..... time to turn on the TV, listen to my IPOD, read a newspaper and eat a McDonalds... no one else is really considering this so why should I? I didn't answer when this began.. that will be my next topic.
Economist Talent Survey
The Economists recent survey on talent was a wonderfully argued and written piece it, however, failed to acknowledge several fundamental realities. The first of those realities is that talent, brain power, imagination probably only explain 25% of success in the modern world. There are a number of other factors, which are at least as important.
Manners….(Which means those born at the bottom of the social spectrum are likely to have more problems)
Dedication (Modern companies don’t just want you 9-5 they want incredible dedication and commitment.)
Right Education (Even discussing a world where everyone successful is more talented than those unsuccessful is ridiculous when state schools across the developed world are failing so atrociously.)
Company politics/networking (Often those that are the most successful are simply those that play the game better)
Specialisation (The modern world forces an enormous amount of specialization, so that if a talented person chooses the wrong profession, it is difficult to change and redirect his brain power )
HR people are never brave, their priority it to ensure that if mistakes are made then they cannot be blamed. Many of the most talented people live unusual lives, however, HR departments are chained by a PC correct world, and by fear of failure, they rarely take major risks in selecting candidates.
The experience conundrum. Many CEOs simply aren’t good enough, the quality has risen over the years, but there is no open transparent way of becoming a CEO. It is an old boys club, meaning those that crack it have often simply played the game well. They may be competent but often not particularly talented. Once they acquire experience it allows them to move between senior management positions. Some of them will pick up this experience and simply not damage a successful company, they can then move on to another and do nothing in particular. More talented creative individuals simply will not get the opportunity if they haven’t played the game properly. The skills required to progress through a company are often not the same as those required to run a company. Those that are more equipped for senoir management may be less well equipped to progress through the company.
Finally and most importantly, the ROI on going to university in some countries in the developed world is now debatable. The cost is increasing and there will often be greater returns by learning a trade. Those who are most talented at the trades may rise to the top, however, trades probably don’t distinguish talent in quite the same way as some of the jobs discussed in the survey.
Finally lady luck, whether it being the last man standing, the one that has stayed the longest, or simply having built a good relationship with an important manager, or having the right face at the right time…. LUCK we make some of it but not all of it.
Manners….(Which means those born at the bottom of the social spectrum are likely to have more problems)
Dedication (Modern companies don’t just want you 9-5 they want incredible dedication and commitment.)
Right Education (Even discussing a world where everyone successful is more talented than those unsuccessful is ridiculous when state schools across the developed world are failing so atrociously.)
Company politics/networking (Often those that are the most successful are simply those that play the game better)
Specialisation (The modern world forces an enormous amount of specialization, so that if a talented person chooses the wrong profession, it is difficult to change and redirect his brain power )
HR people are never brave, their priority it to ensure that if mistakes are made then they cannot be blamed. Many of the most talented people live unusual lives, however, HR departments are chained by a PC correct world, and by fear of failure, they rarely take major risks in selecting candidates.
The experience conundrum. Many CEOs simply aren’t good enough, the quality has risen over the years, but there is no open transparent way of becoming a CEO. It is an old boys club, meaning those that crack it have often simply played the game well. They may be competent but often not particularly talented. Once they acquire experience it allows them to move between senior management positions. Some of them will pick up this experience and simply not damage a successful company, they can then move on to another and do nothing in particular. More talented creative individuals simply will not get the opportunity if they haven’t played the game properly. The skills required to progress through a company are often not the same as those required to run a company. Those that are more equipped for senoir management may be less well equipped to progress through the company.
Finally and most importantly, the ROI on going to university in some countries in the developed world is now debatable. The cost is increasing and there will often be greater returns by learning a trade. Those who are most talented at the trades may rise to the top, however, trades probably don’t distinguish talent in quite the same way as some of the jobs discussed in the survey.
Finally lady luck, whether it being the last man standing, the one that has stayed the longest, or simply having built a good relationship with an important manager, or having the right face at the right time…. LUCK we make some of it but not all of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)