0 Replies Latest reply: Oct 26, 2014 10:18 AM by chris macrae RSS

    2.1 version of -how, who-what can we empower millennials of 2030now?

    C4D Connoisseur
    Visibility: Open to anyone

      Keynes 2025Now    companion chat how, who, what empowers millennials collab now

      whenever the Keynsian optimist in leads me to hoping that a conversation may have particular worldwide value to exchange the future with the present,

      I like to start this kind of parralel 2.1 (back from future) version first

       

      -notably because of what einstein said : innovating a higher order system than the one that is currently ruling has never yet been achieved by our human race, and will be the critical issue of the first generation that technoogy makes borderless

       

      what little I know uniquely about from spending my first 22 years studying maths and statistics is that dialogues between a world leading mathematician (case Einstein) and world leading socially concerned soul (in this case Gandhi) need a lot of iterative questioning -

       

      ideally so that every goodwill culture can recursrively enjoy have an impact - this is of course a wholly opposite mediation process of 20th C mass mass tv media's soundbiting (let alone mobile tabloid stuff 1 2  3 4  5 ) between bipolar political parties on the nightly news.

      .

      FUTURE HISTORY BRILLIANT ARC

      My editorial friends and I have no idea whether the Quakers values are fit for the 21st C peacemaking/youth summits though without the Quaker roundtable in london of the 1920s gandhi and montessori would never have found each other as partnering souls and the village schooling systems that liberated bangladesh would never have been conceived - but I do like the innovation circle they started to practice in the middle ages.  The King would said his lord to go and tell the people what was what. The quakers would set a deeply communal trap with their question time circle. Firstly the dynamics of a 360 degree circle instead of a podium can be quite a mind-opener to someone who is used to lording over a conversation. But the most priceless innovation of the quaker circle is: you only get one question, but everyone has that right. That actually makes someone who questions first at a disadvantage unless they are voicing the most collaborative idea - conversely have you ever been to a policy meeting in  Washington DC where there's time for only a few questions and it seems that PR people always jump in first (not so much with an open question as noisy closure -anyway the quakers thereby banish both PR lobbyists and lords from civil society discourse. Quakers impute neither time nor value who to anybody who has come not to learn from the theatre)

       

      Trying to achieve something similar with this linear a screen let alone one viewed through a mobile handset isnt very practical

      Still as far s my grey cells recall,  the other bits of maths that might be relevant to forming open spaces for open society include:

       

      Turing - he who prove that humans will always be smarter than computers if and only if they value recursion in every (tele)communications design as well as real meetup

       

      GO MICRO: Einstein again who proved that when man's conventional science says there is no more room to innovate, there always is. But the trick is modelling at a more micro level of dynamic interaction. Economists who model at nation state level instead of 7 billion livelihoods level are probably missing something hugely human?

       

      Well if the last sentence was controversial - reread von neumann (father of modern day computing without whom you definitely would not be doing what you are doing now!). Really exciting stuff on how to map multi-win models as 10 times more value multiplying exchanges than zero sum addition. Von Neumann also had an elegant solution for ridding the world of the least innovative type of however. Flourishing net generations will decide almost all patents have a maximum of 3 months span. Because if you are purposefully innovating for humanity having a 3 month lead in choosing who to partner next will be quiet enough competitive advantage to multiply/network trust around your gravitational core. Anything more will make a leaders quarter incapable of valuing collaboration as the defining advantage of social networked economies - let alone of human and planetwide sustainability.

       

      So ideas like the above are worth cataloguing. And once we have here a catalogue, parallel conversations which are anchored in what do we (3Es BRAC) effectively and efficiently and expandably understand next DO NOWS  can be re-edited from the veiwpoint of what decision would they have made then if only they had trusted that by 2030, then milennials willhave suceeded in spreading microfranchise solutions to all and any of the most critical goals our human race can imagine