Outlook 2020
2020: it may go either way. Exclusion as a societal trend?
We are facing interesting times. But how will things develop? Between 1995 and 2000 I developed a series of predictions about the world in 2010. A great many of these have now been proven to be correct, and even my final prediction, that of deflation, seems now to be becoming a reality. The vast range of new technologies now available is causing such a jump in productivity that deflation, alongside permanent high unemployment, will be one of the consequences.
Precisely what will happen and why? Unfortunately, a shrugged “who knows?” is probably the most reasonable answer to this. Personally, I believe the major themes will be a rise of intelligent machines and the development of a society where the middle class and the local economy will partially disappear. On the first point, IBM’s Watson, for example, is able to deliver within 10 seconds some of the most accurate diagnoses to complicated medical problems, something that would take our top MDs several months. Recent research from the University of Oxford shows that 47% of the jobs in the USA will no longer exist in 20 years.
For us, this means we’ll have to get used to much larger socio-economic differences within our society. In the USA the richest 1% currently own 50% of the capital; in the Netherlands, the figure is around 23%.
Of course there will be counter movements to this. You can even see them happening now: some people ban Facebook from their lives, for instance. But the Zalandos out there are often too seductive and attractive to avoid them completely, and the fact that they are destroying a large part of the local economy, with all sorts of consequences for our local city centres, is too abstract for most people to take into account. There is a lot of money behind Zalando. Don’t underestimate its impact.
If the middle class is reduced dramatically, one of the pillars of democracy is too and, although we’re don’t yet realise it, by the time we begin to grasp what is happening it will be a very long road back.
Why does it work like this?
How do these disparities come about? I think it has to do with the fact that in the digitally networked world, a whole chain can be as strong as its strongest link. This is the opposite of the analog world, where the chain can only be as strong as its weakest link. In the digital world you only need to know one person in another network to have added a whole new network to your own. A tweet from President Obama about you or me and you are ‘inside’ – or ‘outside’, because it works both ways.
In the material world things work differently. There the weakest link is the determinant, just like a bicycle chain, as the traditional maxim goes.
Because the strongest link is the deciding factor in influence, the development of society accelerates towards the ‘hub-spoke’ model network. As this happens, the hubs become more ‘hubbish’ and the spokes more ‘spokish’. It is in everyone’s self-interest to be near a hub person, in order to keep your societal relevance. Your seminar will only be successful if a famous person attends it, lending it credibility. Reputation is even more important than substance, even when compared to 20 years ago. Thus the wealthy become wealthier, the famous more famous and larger socio-economic disparities become more prevalent. Nowadays poverty is once again highly visible in large cities.
This process is is in full flow, even in the Netherlands. In my neighbourhood, classed as ‘wealthy’ by any measure, the soup kitchen (voedselbank) has to provide food for more than 100 families. Societal and economic exclusion accompany each other.
It seems we’re each being forced into either the role of groupie or impresario. Either you’re ensuring the stars/hubs are getting more attention, the function of an impresario, or you’re making sure that a part of their attention is given to you, the role of ‘groupie’. Those who are not seen are lost. You must come from a good background and be ‘living with the right connections’ to convince the world to pay any attention to you whatsoever.
Exclusion as a new societal trend
Without an exchange between you and a hub-person, you are socially smart but irrelevant: Dancing with the Stars. Your connection with the ‘star’ determines your effectiveness. What this means is that in the next few years the avoidance of exclusion, rather than the formation of connections alone, will be the main societal theme. Those who have nothing to offer will have no place in a society of successful citizens. At the moment it seems like this social practise of exclusion is focussed upon senior citizens and (immigrant) youth without work. What does exclusion feel like? Ask those well-educated youngsters who have written hundreds of job applications without result, or go and look around in Greece. Why do we see more and more modern ‘tribes’ coming into existence: closed clubs, where members look after each other’s interests, sharing their reputation and experiences with other members alone, strategically ignoring the rest of the world? This is all rather reminiscent of Wallerstein’s theory of “‘core’ en de ‘periphery’” in the modern age.
I expect that these issues will become more prevalent, more pronounced and more urgent over the next few years. And – guess what? – exclusion will also become a feature of the political world. Take a look around you. Being excluded is insulting, creates rancor and eventually, like the allegorical cornered mouse, the industriousness of the impotent. Too much inequality is a dangerous thing!
How about another few practical examples of exclusion? While profiling based on big data can lead to inclusion, it may also lead to exclusion of those who do not fit the model. Likewise, while smartphones allow people to be connected anytime, anyplace, 80% of us use them to stay within our own social bubbles, rejecting any connection with those around us. As always: marketing is framing.
2020 is undefined
So, what next? From my point of view 2020 is undefined. The medieval “grimness of daily life” and “rough reality”, to use Huizinga’s terminology, seem to be returning. One of the things that the current situation in Ukraine exemplifies for me, for example, is that a group including fewer than 0.5% of the population can manipulate the remaining 99.5%. Wealth is a thin veneer, as history has shown us time and time again. Be careful with it.
This means that the future can take us anywhere, and we should hope that our societal spokesmen, our hubs, will be people with wisdom and a sense of responsibility. “With great power comes great responsibility”, after all. This holds true providing these hubs are indeed people and not algorithms and machines. This, of course, is also a possibility, and one which causes many to have little faith in science and technology.
Future scenarios 2020
I imagine four possible scenarios around this transition, which I summarize in the following table:
Table 1: Four possible scenarios for 2020 and their consequences
| Where are we going in 2020 | ‘Fressen’:
Being selfish Exclusion |
‘Moral’:
The greater common good Connection |
| Decentralised, local solutions | Scratch card behaviour | New civilianship |
| Central solutions | Political corporates | Enlightened management |
These four scenarios are determined by two choices: i) Do we chose decentralized solutions, or should we go for centralised ones? ii) Will we opt for selfish behaviour or pursue the greater common good?
Examples of decentralized solutions might be solar power, by placing solar panels on your own roof, or perhaps, in the future, fuel cells that can be kept in the garage. The centralised counterpoint would be the power plant using old-fashioned coal or gas to produce electricity. Banks are also an example of centralised solutions. Crowdfunding – lending money to each other, or proving security for each other, e.g. by raising money in the church (so-called ‘peer2peer’ systems) – are decentralised. In the Netherlands, Jan Rotmans said some sensible things about this development in particular, the tensions that are linked to it and the enormous shifts in power that will accompany it.
Examples of enlightened solutions can be found in the persons of Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama or Desmond Tutu. In the words of the Woodstock veteran Carlos Santana: “they replace the love of power with the power of love”. Of course, the Roman Catholic church is very centralised in its management style, but pope Francis is widely recognised as humble, honest and connected, and that on its own brings about a very different atmosphere.
If someone approaches you during after work drinks because you present a social opportunity for that person and (s)he proceeds to “rip you apart” as soon as a better opportunity appears, I would call that scratch card behaviour.
I see sustainability as a way of taking responsibility and thus as a form of integrity. In the terms of table 1 above, sustainability is ‘Moral’. Sustainability as a theme is gaining ground, and has centralised and localized and distributed varieties. The first solar power plants in the Netherlands have begun to make an appearance. Throughout Die Energiewende, Germany has shown a preference for wind and solar power, moving away from nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Sustainability is deeply ingrained in modern society. Not a single company is able to escape it and, from my point of view, this is a step towards integrity.
Similarly, transparency for me is linked to responsibility and personal integrity. Whether the transparency of society is being increased by the use of social media and the internet, with small movements quickly leading to mass revolts, only time will tell. On the other hand, as the NSA has shown us, transparency has two sides.
Of course, I hope that the ‘new citizenship’ scenario slowly but surely gains ground. Regrettably, realism forces me to suggest that it is more likely that the representatives of this movement will be tolerated rather than embraced by the corporate world. This world still focusses on making money in the short term and obtaining as much power as possible. As long as citizen initiatives only work in isolation and as long as most are (formally and informally) excluded from society, the underlying society will not change. SInce these initiatives are too small, there are too few ‘hubs’ within them to bring about real change.
How 2.0 are we really?
How 2.0 are we? In my view, we have an urgent need to mobilise talent 2.0. It is crucial that we uncover the true societal challenges, communicate this agenda clearly and formulate concrete contributions as an ode to the new world with its many opportunities!
He who has the power should use it with integrity.
Flexibility rests in stability
Speaking in terms of table 1, I believe movements towards the right (towards integrity and the search for connection) are more important than movements upward towards greater flexibility. One of the reasons for this is that I believe flexibility ultimately requires stability. It is impossible for everything to be flexible! In the end, stable rules will always have their place: for example, the rule that traffic should always drive on the right-hand side, or the principle that records of real estate ownership should be maintained. There is so much movement taking place at the moment that stability is arguably one of the most important goals. The balancing act between stability and flexibility is one of the great challenges of our time.
In this respect, we may have something to learn from the Chinese leadership, who understand the concept of stability very well. Too much movement in such a large population would lead immediately to chaos. An example from our side of the world? Even new customers of Snappcar.nl or Airbnb need to show their (stable) proof of identity. In countries where that is more difficult, where identity cards are not always correct and where such stability is not always possible, flexible businesses like Snappcar will simply fail to emerge. To find examples of places like this, you really don’t need to travel very far.
A final word
What is new about all this is the (until now unobserved) connection between these well-established elements. You can discover something new by connecting many parts that previously had nothing to do with each other (De Bono). Sometimes we need to change our mental model (which includes everything we’ve learned), and this seems to be one of those times. Maybe we should listen to others every once in a while.
I also believe we will soon see the end of the importance of trendwatching. The way I see it, it has become impossible to see a clear projection of the future, only possible scenarios. As for my own predictions for the day: “exclusion”, “it can go many ways” and the loss of jobs. It will be a hell of a job to be guided by understanding rather than ideology. Once again: it could, up to 2020, go many ways.
Even in the 20th century we’ve seen many cases of exclusion. Let’s not go there again!
————————————————–
reference:
This paper has been published in:
http://www.fransvanderreep.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SS38_magazine_Desert-Issue_pdf.pdf
———————————————————————————————–
a second version
2020: it may go either way. Exclusion as a societal trend?
We’re facing interesting times, yes. But how will things develop? In 1995-2000 I had a clear vision of 2010. Even my last prediction from then, seems to be becoming a reality: deflation. Just the combination of all the new technologies that are currently out and about will cause such a jump in productivity that deflation, and the accompanying permanent high unemployment, will be one of the consequences.
What will happen and why? Who knows is a reasonable answer. Do you have an idea? I think the big themes will be working with intelligent machines and adaptation to a society where the middle class and the local shops will partially disappear. IBM’s Watson, for example, is able to deliver within 10 seconds some of the most complicated but correct diagnoses, something that would take our top-MDs several months. Recent research from the University of Oxford shows that 47% of the jobs in the USA will no longer exist in 20 years.
For us, this means we’ll have to get used to much larger socio-economic differences within our society. In the USA the richest 1% own 50% of the capital, in the Netherlands 23%.
Of course there will be counter movements, you see them happening now: people who ban Facebook from their lives. But e.g. the Zalandos are too seductive and attractive to not use them, and the fact that they are destroying a large part of the local shops, which has all sorts of consequences for our local city centres, is too abstract for most people to take into account. There is a lot of money behind Zalando. Don’t underestimate its impact.
If the middle class is reduced dramatically, one of the pillars of democracy is too and, although we’re don’t yet realize it, by the time we do start to grasp this concept it will be a very long road back.
Why does it work like this?
How do these disparities come about? I think it has to do with the fact that the chain in the end is just as strong as its strongest link, at least in the digital networked world. This is the opposite of the analog world, where the chain is as strong as its weakest link. In the digital world you only need to know one person in the other network and you have added a whole new network to your own. A tweet from President Obama about you or me and you are ‘inside’– or ‘outside’, because it works both ways.
In the material world things work different. There the weakest link is the determinant just like a bicycle chain. Because the strongest link becomes the deciding factor in influence, the development of society accelerates towards the (network) hub-spoke model. And the hubs become more “hubbish” and the spokes more “spokish”. It is in everyone’s self-interest to be near a hub person, in order to keep your societal relevance. Your seminar will only be successful if a famous person attends it, in order to gain credibility. Reputation is even more important than substance, compared to 20 years ago. And thus, the wealthy become wealthier, the famous more famous and larger socio-economic disparities become more prevalent. Nowadays poverty is once again visible in the big cities.
This process is is in full flow – even in the Netherlands. In my neighbourhood, classed as “wealthy” by any measure, the soup kitchen (voedselbank) has to provide food for more than 100 families. Societal and economic exclusion accompany each other.
It seems we’re pushed into either the role of groupie or impresario. Either you’re ensuring the stars/hubs are getting more attention, the function of an impresario, or you’re making sure that a part of their attention is given to you. Who isn’t seen is lost, and you have to come from a good background and ‘to be living with the right connections’ to convince people to pay attention to you – let alone wait.
Exclusion as a new societal trend
Without an exchange between you and a hub-person, you are socially smart but irrelevant: Dancing with the Stars. Your connection with the star determines your effectiveness. That means that in the next few years not the connection, but more the prevention of exclusion will be the societal theme. For those who don’t have anything to offer there will be no place in our society of successful citizens. At the moment it seems like we are practicing this social scenario of exclusion on senior citizens and (immigrant) youth without work. What does exclusion feel like? Ask those well-educated youngsters who have written hundreds of job applications without result. Or go and look around in Greece. Why do we see more and more tribes coming into existence: closed clubs, whose members are looking after each other’s interests very well as they promote their reputation, share their experiences solely amongst the members and not with those who do not belong and strategically ignore the rest of the world? Like Wallersteins theory over “core” en de “periphery” in the world.
I expect that exclusion as a social theme will become worse, more urgent and more important in the next few years. And guess what, exclusion will get a political translation. Take a look around you,. Being excluded is insulting, creates rancor and eventually the creativity of the impotence. Too much inequality is dangerous!
Another few practical, visible forms of exclusion? Profiling based on big data leads to inclusion, but because of that mostly to exclusion. And whilst smartphones are marketed as “being connected anytime, anyplace” 80% of us use the mobile phone to stay within their own social bubble and not to connect with the people around them. As always: marketing is framing.
2020 is undefined
So, what will happen next? From my point of view 2020 is undefined. The medieval “grimness of daily life” and “rough reality” to use Huizinga’s terminology, seem to be returning. One of the things that the current situation in The Ukraine exemplifies for me is that less than 0.5% of the population can manipulate the other 99.5%. Wealth is a thin veneer, as history has shown us over and over again. Let’s be careful with it. This means that the future can take us anywhere and we should hope that our societal spoke-men, the hubs, will be people with wisdom and a big sense of responsibility. With power and influence comes great responsibility. As long as these are people and not machines, because that’s also a scenario, which leads to many having little faith in science and technology
Future scenarios 2020
I imagine four possible scenarios around this transition, which I summarize in the following table:
Table 1: Four possible scenarios for 2020 and their consequences
| Where are we going in 2020 | ‘Fressen’:
Being selfish Exclusion |
‘Moral’:
The greater common good Connection |
| Decentralised, local solutions | Scratch card behaviour | New civilianship |
| Central solutions | Political corporates | Enlightened management |
The four scenarios are determined by two choices: Do we chose for decentralized solutions, or do we prefer centralized ones? And will we opt for selfish behaviour or chose for the greater common good?
Examples of decentralized solutions are solar power, by placing solar panels on your own roof. Or maybe in the future a fuel cell in your garage. The central solution would be the power plant using old-fashioned coal or gas to produce electricity. Banks are also an example of centralised solutions. Crowdfunding, lending money to each other, or proving security for each other, e.g. by raising money in the church – so-called, peer2peer systems, are decentralised. In the Netherlands Jan Rotmans said some sensible things about this development, the tensions that are linked to it and the enormous power-slides that will accompany it.
Examples of enlightened could be found in the persons of Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu. In the words of the Woodstock veteran Carlos Santana: “these people alone could stop wars. They replace the love for power by the power of love”. Of course, the Roman Catholic church is very centralised in its management style, but pope Francis is widely recognised as humble, honest and connected, and that, on its own, brings about a very different atmosphere.
If someone approaches you during the drinks-after-work because you present a possible societal chance for that person and (s)he proceeds to “rip you apart”, because behind you there appears to be a larger societal chance, I would call that scratch card behaviour.
The choice for sustainability I see as a form of taking responsibility and thus as a form of integrity. In the terms of table 1, sustainability serves ‘Moral’. Sustainability as a theme, which is gaining terrain, has both centralised and localized and distributed varieties. The first solar power plants in the Netherlands start making their appearance. Germany chooses Die Energiewende to wind and solar power, away from nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Sustainability is ingrained in modern society. Not a single company is able to escape it, and from my point of view, it’s a step towards more integrity.
Similarly the choice for transparency links for me back to taking responsibility and personal integrity. Whether this transparency of society is increasing by the use of social media and the internet, and they are ensuring that small movements in no-time lead to mass revolts, only time will tell. As the NSA has shown us, also transparency has two sides.
Of course I hope that the “new citizenship” scenario slowly but surely gains ground. But realism forces me to say that the representatives of this movement are much more likely to be tolerated rather than embraced by the corporate world. This world still focusses on making money in the short term and obtaining as much power as possible. As long as all citizen initiatives only work in isolation and many in fact (formally and informally) are excluded from society, the society won’t change. Because these initiatives are too small, there are too few ‘hubs’ to make a real change.
How 2.0 are we really?
How 2.0 are we? From my point of view, mobilising of the talent 2.0 is urgent. I think it is of the utmost importance to name the true societal challenges, to communicate this agenda clearly and to formulate concrete contributions as an ode to the new world with its many opportunities!
He, who has the power should use it with integrity.
Flexibility rests in stability
Speaking in terms of table 1 I find the movements towards the right (more integrity and the search to connection in the personal actions) more important than the upward movement towards more flexibility. One of the reasons is that I think that flexibility ultimately needs (societal) stability. Not everything can be flexible! In the end you will need stable rules, like for example ‘driving on the right side in traffic’, or records showing estate properties. There is so much movement currently that stability is perhaps more important at this moment as an (European) societal agenda. The balancing act between stability and movement is a massive assignment.
In this aspect we could learn something from the Chinese leadership. They understand the concept of stability very well. Too much movement in that enormous population would lead immediately to chaos. An example from this side of the world? Even new customers of Snappcar.nl or Airbnb need to show their (stable) proof of identity. In countries where that is more difficult and identity cards are not always correct, and therefore don’t have this legal stability, flexible businesses like Snappcar won’t start up. And for places like that you really don’t need to travel very far.
A final word
Something new is the connection between these known elements that we had not observed before. You can discover something new by connecting many parts that previously had nothing to do with each other (De Bono). Sometimes we need to change our mental model (everything we’ve learned) and that seems to be the case here. Maybe we should listen to others every once in a while.
I think we will also soon see the end of the importance of trendwatching. The way I see it, it has become impossible to see a clear projection of the future, only possible scenarios. My prediction: “exclusion”, “it can go many ways” and the loss of jobs. It will be a hell of a job to be guided by understanding instead of ideology.
Once again: It could, up to 2020, go many ways. In the 20th century we’ve seen many cases of exclusion. Let’s not go there again.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
3rd version
It may go either way
We’re facing interesting times, yes. In 1995-2000 I had a clear vision of 2010. Even my last
prediction back then seems to be becoming a reality: deflation. The combination of all the
new technologies that are currently out and about will cause such a jump in productivity that deflation, and the accompanying permanent high unemployment, will be one of the consequences. What will happen and why? Do you have an idea? Who really asks questions about societal impact of new technology? Perhaps “who knows?” is a reasonable answer. I think the big changes will come from working with intelligent machines and adapting to a society where the middle class and the local shops will partially disappear. IBM’s Watson, for example, is able to deliver within 10 seconds some of the most complicated but correct medical diagnoses, something that would take our top-MDs several months. Recent research from the University of Oxford shows that 47% of the current jobs in the USA will no longer exist in twenty years.
This means we’ll have to get used to much larger socio-economic differences within our society. In the USA the richest 1% own 50% of the capital, in the Netherlands that’s 23%. Of course there will be counter movements. You see them happening now: people banning Facebook from their lives. But companies like the Zalandos are too seductive and attractive not to use them, and the fact that they are destroying a large number of local shops and the jobs they provide, with all sorts of consequences for our city centres, is too abstract for most people to take into account. There is a lot of money behind Zalando. Don’t underestimate its impact.
If the middle class is reduced dramatically, one of the pillars of democracy will be too and, although we’re don’t yet realize it, by the time we do start to grasp this concept, it will be a very long road back.
WHY DOES IT WORK LIKE THIS?
How do these disparities come about? I think it has to do with the fact that a chain, in the end, is only as strong as its strongest link, at least in the digital networked world. This is the opposite of the analog world, where the chain is as strong as its weakest link. In the digital world you only need to know one person in another network, and you have added a whole new network to your own. A tweet from President Obama about you or me and we are “inside” or “outside”, because it works both ways.
In the material world, things work differently. Just like a bicycle chain, the weakest link is the
determinant. Because the strongest link becomes the deciding factor in influence, the development of society accelerates towards the (network) hub-spoke model. And the hubs become more “hubbish” and the spokes more “spokish”. It is in everyone’s self-interest to be near a hub person, in order to keep their societal relevance. Your seminar will only be successful if a famous person attends it and gives it credibility. Compared to twenty years ago, reputation is even more important than substance.
And thus the wealthy become wealthier, the famous more famous, and larger socio-economic disparities become more prevalent. Poverty is now, once again, visible in big cities. This process is is in full flow – even in the Netherlands. In my neighbourhood, classed as “wealthy” by any measure, the soup kitchen (‘voedselbank’) has to provide food for more than 100 families. Societal and economic exclusion accompany each other. It seems we’re pushed into either the role of groupie or of impresario. Either you’re ensuring the stars/hubs are getting more attention, the function of an impresario, or you’re making sure that a part of their attention is given to you. Who isn’t seen is lost, and you have to come from a good background and “to be living with the right connections” to convince people to pay attention to you.
DANCING WITH THE STARS
Without an exchange between you and a hub-person, you are socially smart but irrelevant: Dancing with the stars. Your connection with the star determines your effectiveness. That means that, in the next few years, not the connection but, even more, the prevention of exclusion will be the societal concern. For those who don’t have anything to offer there will be no place in a society of successful citizens. At the moment, it seems as if we are practicing this social scenario of exclusion on senior citizens and (immigrant) youth without work.
What does exclusion feel like? Ask those well-educated youngsters who have written hundreds of job applications without result. Or go and look around in Greece. Why do we see more and more “tribes” coming into existence: closed clubs whose members are looking after each other’s interests very well as they promote their reputation, share their experiences solely among the members and not with those who don’t belong, and strategically ignore the rest of the world? It suggests Wallerstein’s theory about “core” and “periphery” in the world.
Another few practical, visible forms of exclusion? Profiling based on big data leads to inclusion and, inevitably, to exclusion. And while smartphones are marketed as “being connected anytime, anyplace”, 80% of us use a mobile phone to stay within our own social bubble and not to connect with the people around us. As always: marketing is framing.
I expect that exclusion as a social problem will become worse, more urgent and more important in the next few years. And guess what, exclusion will get a political translation as well. Take a look around you. Being excluded is insulting, it creates rancor. Too much inequality is dangerous!
2020 IS YET UNDEFINED
So what will happen next? From my point of view 2020 is still undefined. The medieval “grimness of daily life” and “rough reality”, to use Huizinga’s terminology, seem to be returning[1]. One of the things that the current situation in The Ukraine exemplifies for me is that less than 0.5% of the population can manipulate the other 99.5%. Wealth is a thin veneer, as history has shown us over and over again. Let’s be careful with it. The future can take us anywhere, and we should hope that our societal “spoke-men”, the hubs, will be people with wisdom and a big sense of responsibility. With power and influence comes great responsibility. Let’s hope too that those hubs are people and not machines, because that’s also a possible scenario.
I imagine four possible societal scenarios around this transition. The four scenarios are determined by two choices: Do we chose decentralized solutions, or do we prefer centralized ones? And will we opt for selfish behaviour or chose to work for the greater common good?
Four societal scenarios:
|
2020? |
‘Fressen’: Being selfish; Exclusion |
‘Moral’: The greater common good; Connection |
|
Decentralised, Local Solutions |
New Civilianship
|
|
|
Central Solutions |
‘Political’ Corporates |
Enlightened Management
|
An example of a decentralized solution is power from solar panels on your own roof or a fuel cell in your garage. The central solution would be the power plant using old-fashioned coal or gas to produce electricity. Banks are also an example of centralised solutions. Crowdfunding, lending money to each other, or providing security for each other, e.g. by raising money in the church – so-called peer2peer systems – are decentralised. In the Netherlands, Jan Rotmans said some sensible things about this development, the tensions that are linked to it and the enormous power-slides that will accompany it.
If someone approaches you during drinks-after-work because you present a possible societal
chance for that person, and (s)he proceeds to “rip you apart”, because behind you there appears to be a larger societal chance, I would call that scratch card behaviour. Examples of enlightened behaviour can be found in the persons of Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu. In the words of the Woodstock veteran Carlos Santana: “These people alone could stop wars. They replace the love for power by the power of love”. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church is completely centralised in its management style, but Pope Francis is widely recognised as humble, honest and connected, and that, on its own, brings about a very different atmosphere.
INTEGRITY
The choice for sustainability I see as a way of taking responsibility and thus as a form of integrity. Sustainability serves ‘moral’. Sustainability as a theme which is gaining terrain has both centralised and localized and distributed varieties. The first solar power plants in the Netherlands start making their appearance. Germany chooses Die Energiewende to wind and solar power and away from nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Sustainability is ingrained in modern society. Not a single company is able to escape it and, from my point of view, it’s a step towards more integrity.
Similarly, the choice for transparency is linked to taking responsibility and to personal integrity. Whether society becomes more transparent by the use of social media and the internet, or whether they ensure that small movements in no-time lead to mass revolts, only time will tell. As the NSA has shown us, transparency has two sides.
Of course I hope that the “new citizenship” scenario slowly but surely gains ground. But realism forces me to say that the representatives of this movement are much more likely to be tolerated than embraced by the corporate world. That world still focusses on making money in the short term and obtaining as much power as possible. As long as all citizen initiatives can only work in isolation and many, in fact, (formally and informally) are excluded from society, society won’t change. Those initiatives are too small, an there are too few ‘hubs’ to make a real change. How 2.0 are we? From my point of view, mobilizing talent 2.0 is urgent. I think it is of the utmost importance to name the true societal challenges, to communicate this agenda clearly, and to formulate concrete contributions as an ode to the new world with its many opportunities! He who has the power should use it with integrity.
STABILITY
I find movements towards “connection” (more integrity and the search for connection in our
personal actions) more important than upward movement towards more flexibility. One reason is
that flexibility ultimately needs (societal) stability. Not everything can be flexible! In the end, you need stable rules like “driving on the right side in traffic”, or records showing estate properties. There is so much movement currently that stability is perhaps more important at this moment as a (European) societal agenda. The balancing act between stability and movement is a massive political assignment. In this respect, we could learn something from Chinese leadership. They understand the concept of stability very well. Too much movement in that enormous population would lead immediately to chaos.
An example from this side of the world? Even new customers of Snappcar.nl or Airbnb and Über need to show a (stable) proof of identity. In countries where that is more difficult, where identity cards are not always correct and therefore don’t have this legal stability, flexible businesses like Snappcar won’t start up. And for places like that, you really don’t need to travel very far.
MANY WAYS
Something new is the connection between these known elements that we haven’t observed before. You can discover something new by connecting many parts that previously had nothing to do
with each other (De Bono). Sometimes we need to change our mental model (everything we’ve learned) and that seems to be the case here. Maybe we should listen to other people once in a while.
A HELL OF A JOB
My prediction: “exclusion” and the loss of jobs. It will be a hell of a job to be guided by
understanding instead of ideology. Once again: it could, from now to 2020, go many ways. In the 20th century we saw too many cases of exclusion.
Let’s not go there again!
Reference:
[1] F vd Reep, The Middle Ages in the Internet Era, (in) 2015 and Beyond, Beyond Beyond, Secondsight, Amsterdam 2015 p 84-91, isbn 978-94-91131-00-4