People are interested in people
who are interested in them. I have a deep reserve of inner confidence, partly
because my Mother was always fascinated in, and supportive of, anything (and
everything) I found interesting. My curiosity always had an army of motherly
reserves. The South African bubble I grew up in has some resistance similar to
British reserve to faking and overenthusiasm. I didn’t read the book “How to
win friends and influence people” (Dale Carnegie) for years because the title
sounded very “American” and fake. It is, I discovered, a brilliant text with
some very practical observations on reality. One of those realities is we respond
to people who show interest in us. Who are interested *because* we are
interested. We recognise that indicates a deeper level of loyalty and
willingness to put effort in, in order to share our worlds. If you want people
to be genuinely interested in you, be genuinely interested in them. Yes, that
takes effort. It shows.
I really enjoyed the conversation you had with Trevor, very nice format for debate! Seems to be a recurring theme in socio-political debates these days where the one side raises the very real problems of the world, and the other side attempts to defend the status quo, and so it goes.
I would love for you and Trevor to consider an alternative to this where you, Brett, instead suggest the the specific political/economic/legislative changes that you would like to see carried out in South Africa in order to resolve the issues you raised, and then to open the floor up to Trevor for analysis and criticism. It is certainly not difficult to poke holes in the excesses of the capitalist economic model, however I would suggest that it is equally, if not more, difficult to suggest a realistic alternative that ticks all the boxes. Could be an interesting twist on your previous discussion.
What a great question although probably much huger than ten comments but let's jump in at economic. For me creative community ideas such as Common Change which is a collaborative giving group are one exciting way to move forward. People growing their own food in smaller and bigger spaces - like the Ujamaa collective in Khayelitsha for examples [https://www.groundup.org.za/article/meet-khayelitshas-guerilla-gardeners/] feels like it might have a lot of potential both for reducing costs as well as creating some money from the sale of excess. Linked to education it would be great to see some of the wealthier schools partnered with a school in a poor or marginalised area but in significant ways of resource sharing [from staff to money to experiences to peer-learning activities] and mutual development. Instead of the embarrassment of the CEO sleepout which i think is a colossal waste of time and money and energy, to have those CEO's invited to partner in projects with smaller companies and perhaps some entrepreneurial endeavours that will assist the unemployed who are wanting to find meaningful work. We have so much creativity in South Africa [see our advertising industry for example] which i would love to see harnessed more towards coming up with truly transformational changes for the country.
Yes! Sometimes I think we misunderstand the ideological clash of the last century, and create false enemies of people who actually agree. Communism v Capitalism was not Poor v Rich, it was about centrally made decision v pushing decisions down to the front line. I think supporters of both groups wanted, in theory, to empower creativity. I also like what I have heard about Common Change (Valerie and I had a chat about it). It is similar to the project I am working on to build a Community Wealth Fund which funds a Universal Basic Income. Let's touch on Collaborative Giving Groups first, and park the Local Food, and the Business and School partnerships (which I also like) for a second. Derek asks for analysis & criticism. My primary concern is my allergy to hierarchy. Ironically, my challenge to big corporates is the internal decision making processes and lack of internal free markets. Too many committees. Why does Common Change not just collect and distribute the cash? My understanding is that a 'connected need' of someone close to the group is presented, discussed and potentially supported. I like the support, but wonder if there is an additional disempowering step that most privileged people don't have to overcome to meet their needs.
Brett In terms of your 'allergy to hierarchy' [which i will hold alongside my 'people tend towards stupid' philosophy and so having some people considered better to lead to help out there not being the worst thing] that's where Common Change does well i think. Each group decides how they want to gather the money [whether it is a set donation or a percentage of salary or give what you can] and no-one actually knows who gives what beyond that. One of the mindshifts being challenged in a percentage giving group for example is that the person who gives R1000 per month and the person who gives R10 per month have the same vote and therefore the same power and say. So that is one way of dismantling the hierarchy. The group conversation is held from the perspective of 'How best can we meet this need?' which might be the money, but it might also be a skill within the group or a connection someone has and so encourages us to think beyond just rushing to the easy money option. So beyond simply giving in community, the deeper idea behind Common Change groups is wrestling with how we can give more creatively and thinking about the way we relate to money in general.
Trev I like the adjustment of vote because of source of cash. I also have issue with 'Circle of Competence' - just because you are really good at acting, doesn't mean your political views count more; just because you are a world class X doesn't meant your view on Y counts more. Your 'people tend toward stupid' view holds most closely in my mind when we are dealing with other people's problems. As long as the discussion doesn't disempower people, or open them to scrutiny privileged people don't face, then it seems a good way of teaching us to be better at asking and offering help. The 'considered better to lead' worries me. The working together excites me. On the second point - local farming. There are bits I like - simply from a 'it's nice to grow what you eat' point of view. From an economic point of view, I have more concerns. I would rather come at it from a very individualised support of individuals strengths. Not all good ideas are good business ideas.
Maybe it's more a 'some people are considered less good to lead' thing with Donald Trump being a great example of not being a great example. My dad's church model operated on a congregational model which is the kind of everyone is equal, everyone gets to vote vibe, but the problem i found with that is that one person can slow down the whole decision-making process so much that nothing ever gets done. So for me, choose a group of people [i don't like the one person on top model - accountability needs to be huge] who the group recognises as good to lead and then entrust them with decisions while putting things in place to hold them accountable from the bottom as well. Anything less than that feels like anarchy and as much as i like the idea of me being able to do whatever i want to, i don't like that idea so much for anyone else, except maybe Chris Pratt. Chris Pratt should be able to do what he wants to do. In the absence of any kind of tiered leadership approach, what kind of system would you propose in its place?
Trev
The model I propose is... (Trev reaches for his drum)... Universal Basic Income. Having sufficient cash to make our own decisions about our basic needs isn't anarchy in my mind. It is the lowest bar for people being sufficiently able to participate in society. I have no issue with voluntary pools of money above that, with collective decision making. I imagine the groups need to be small enough, with full transparency, so that accountability doesn't become abstract. What I struggle with is the idea that a committee should discuss allocation of resources that strips someone of their own agency. Donald Trump is a fantastic example of the danger of creating positions of power. From now till our dying day, voters should assume when giving ANY person power - what if this same power was given to Trump. That feels far more scary to me than anarchy - which within the confines of Rule of Law, I actually support. Any positions of power should be consensual.
i don't really know a lot about Universal Basic Income but even the name sells it for me. The idea of everyone having the basics and yes if that ever happened i imagine i would be a lot more okay with some having more than others. My issues with the rich generally lie through the lens of viewing them through the absolute nothing that so many of the poor have. If everyone had enough to eat and live and the basic necessities, then some people being able to work harder to make better experiences for themselves would not seem quite so disgusting. Going back to the allocation of resources, it is typically done in the face of a need [new tyres needed for car] and so i don't think agency is lost in terms of the group deciding collectively that money can be given but also realising that Joe's uncle owns a tyre business and can get great tyres for 15% cheaper than you will find elsewhere. The collective input is more to broaden the scope of ideas and opportunities available than to be overly specific on how the money is spent. Do you honestly see any future where Universal Basic Income is a thing and what do you think it would take as the next steps for us to get there. Or do you see it working maybe in smaller groups of people who combine resources and work a Small Group Basic Income in their community as a first baby step?
Trev I love the question, 'Do you honestly see any future where.... is a thing and what do you think it would take as the next step to get it there'. I feel like I have hijacked the conversation, but vehicles like Common Change seem a perfect next step. I do think Policy level change is possible. The Finance Minister in India, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton etc. are all part of the conversation, but I think we are in a 'big change' rut. We are better at creating sides then working together. Bottom up excites me more. Micro-ambition. For me, that starts with paying myself, and one other person one, and setting up a structure for that to grow. I like the 'collective care' aspect of what you mention. Helping get people good deals. As businesses get too big, and too abstract, and lose those relationships - that can fail. Empowering people (UBI) and building relationships helps us to see each other - and opportunities. It is where attacks on 'Capital'ism confuse me, if we can build capital... that capital should *free* labour to do the things related to love. Like Community Farming (cause it is cool... even if it isn't profitable) and Business & School partnerships (because beyond a certain level of wealth - sharing becomes much more rewarding). As Einstein said, 'Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts'.
Brett When people attack capitalism I think they are generally [I know I am] attacking the exploitational links that capitalism tends to have. You see it all over South Africa where a CEO is getting a million rand plus plus payout for being fired for doing a bad job and the employees on the ground are barely able to pay rent and eat with what they get. So if we could sort out those kinds of discrepancies or if there is a capitalism that can exist without those, then I'd be all ears but people tend towards being greedy little buggers and so I don't know that we ever will. I like the idea of 'beyond a certain level of wealth - sharing becomes much more rewarding' but i don't think that is the reality we live with. I think I would definitely go with the Both/And'ness of what you are saying. That for me it will be great if it starts with me plus one and then later let that snowball. While at the same time we are looking to hold the heads of companies and way business is generally done and rewards are handed out to account. Yeah i totally buy into the idea of 'empowering people (UBI) and building relationships helps us to see each other - and opportunities'. But again, greed. Trev
I haven't heard of a system that doesn't have exploitational links. That is the privilege, prejudice, racism and other relational issues you also fight so hard to tear down. That's not the system. That's us! I believe we still have a hangover from the Cold War ideological battle, and the Rich v Poor distraction stops us from understanding which things work, and which don't. Some things work better with markets and monetisation. Some things work better freed from the constraints of scarcity and countability. As soon as we have 'enough' - we can deal with the new rules of abundance. A great starting point for change is where we are. One relationship at a time. We need to build capital - social capital, financial capital, Community Wealth Funds - to ensure everyone has the financial security they need for true freedom to seek fulfilment and meaning.
--- Other chats and discussions with Brett Fish ---
We like the idea of fairness. People shouldn't take advantage of others. Experiments have shown people are actually willing to pay to punish people, even if that leaves them worse off. One of the bits of the Sharing Economy and Gift Economy that I like is they remove the idea of accounting. They reduce concern about fairness. It ceases to be transactional. It isn't quite blind one-sided giving. There is faith that the community you belong to will be something you can participate in, but you aren't giving in order to receive. You are giving with as close to zero expectation as is humanly possible.
Hayek writes about creating a society that focuses on enhancing spontaneous order. When we try plan things, we have no idea what the unintended consequences will be. We can't predict the future. Things seldom work out as planned. Yet we can focus on how people coordinate in intricate and mutually considerate ways. In other words, we can focus on individual relationships.
He uses the example of the price of Rice. The question of what the right price of Rice is, is impossible to answer. There is no correct answer. Things that may seem unrelated may affect the price of Rice. The cost of drilling. New substitutes. Political unrest. Weather. Distribution. Exchange Rates. The Labour costs are only one little part. All this information gets summarised in two people deciding to swap rice for money. If both people feel okay with the trade, if both people feel like they have gained, no more information is needed. Everyone is better off. There is no such thing as the right price, there is such a thing as a good trade.
I often feel overwhelmed with all the big problems facing the world. I have growing conviction that we don't need a plan to solve these issues. We don't need to be able to visualise the world we want to live and, and figure out a plan to get there. Those dreams are fun, but we don't have the understanding or the ability to bend the world to our individual wills. Our individual wills and dreams aren't even the same. What we can focus on is the individual relationships.
Take any two people in the world at random. What are the obstacles to those two people being able to understand each other's worlds? What are the obstacles to those two people communicating? What are the obstacles to those to people engaging in activities where both walking away better off for it? Fairness becomes a much easier thing to understand when it involves two people with names. Two people with stories. Two people with people, places and things that matter to them.
I am against hand-outs, but not for the reason I think many people are. Throwing solutions at problems doesn't work primarily because of the thrower, not the receiver. An alternative to hand-outs of a 'nothing for nothing' philosophy also leaves me feeling uncomfortable. Again, I think the problem doesn't solely lie with the person trying to get out of their hole. The primary problem in my mind is that we don't 'see people'. It is not a relationship. It is an attempt at a 'hand-up' rather than a 'walk with'. Charity has an implicit hierarchy. That the person giving has the answers and that the person receiving aspires to reach their level. Sharing is different. It requires the hard work of community building. It requires learning from each other.
One push back on hand-outs is entitlement. That people will expect things to just be given to them. The best example of entitlement I have seen is privilege. Through travelling, I have been lucky enough to spend time with a number of families in the past two years. Most of these families have been privileged. In privileged families children grow up with parents doting over their needs. Interpreting screams. Working through and around tantrums. Slowly teaching them how to engage with society. Showering with love even when they behave badly. Slowly building up boundaries. In the first few years these kids believe the world is designed for them. Little emperors throw things on the floor. Dismiss food. Insist on going home. The world often bends to their will.
That is not what I experienced in my two week stay in a place outside my bubble. Normally I stay with families for 2 or 3 days. It is enough to relax and see people as they are. Longer than the curtain can be held up. I get to know the children. I get to have awesome chats with my friends. Normally it is long enough for kids to misbehave. For me to see the many varied approaches parents attempt to use. In the two weeks I spent learning isiXhosa with a family that didn't have the privileges I have, the children didn't misbehave. They were incredible. Obviously it is just one example, but in poorer communities there is an inner fight I don't see elsewhere. Resilience busting a gut to shine.
Privilege includes the ability to forget all the handouts we have received. Teachers, family and other mentors that have put up with our nonsense over the years. Lessons in punctuality. Lessons learnt playing team sports. Lessons in confidence and inner-belief - that you are entitled to the fruits of your labour. The big difference is our hand-outs came from people who were making a genuine attempt to see us. To help us carve away the obstacles that were holding us back. Our hand-outs came from our community.
Like Michelangelo, our communities carve out our talents and beauty
A Universal Basic Income isn't a hand-out. In a society with Private Property and an ability to deserve the fruits of your labour, there has to be a functioning community. We don't know how all wealth was created. We have a long history of screwing other people over. Of looking after our own. Of taking things, land and power that we want at the expense of others. The most powerful tool I have come across of redressing this, is directly. Put cash in the hands of everyone. Enough to survive. Enough to look up from living hand to mouth, and start thinking about living. A Universal Basic Income is a muse.
Hand in hand with a Universal Basic Income, we start the hard work of building communities that work. Communities that look after each other. You can't monetise a lot of the work that is required. Paid work is only possible where functioning markets can be created. Where there is supply and demand. The most obvious example is parenting. The tools of pricing don't work there. The Emperor may feel entitled, but there is normally only a small circle of people willing to supply that love. Immediate family. Perhaps a friend or two. The salary of a parent is normally zero. The worth of that job is priceless.
'Nothing for Nothing' can encourage a 'Work for work's sake' mentality. That is basically just killing time. Killing time keeps people away from building relationships and supporting each other. The fact is there isn't enough meaningful monetise-able work to go around. There are structural problems that prevent job opportunities. It isn't laziness. In Johannesburg, I drive past guys just sitting on street corners hoping someone will come and give them a job. Any job.
To finish with a quote from Rutger Bregman:
'There is no evidence at all that people will turn out to be lazy. You know, most people are inherently creative. Most people want to do something with their lives. People get really depressed most of the time when they are unemployed. So what may happen is people do less paid work in order to do more unpaid work.'
‘I don’t have time’ is a pet
peeve. I like being the guy with time. I try make time for people who have time
for me. Interestingly, it doesn’t mean people will ask. Being self-sufficient,
or paying for things that we need, makes asking difficult. Even if someone
offers. There can be the game of people offering something, but expecting a
refusal. A desire not to put people out. A co-ordination problem. Communication
struggles. People who want to help. People who need help. A gap in between. Sharing
and gift economies require bridges. Of Trust. Of Bravery. Of Community.
Economics is the study of scarcity. In a world of abundance, all the rules of 'supply and demand' fall away. There is a limit to how much people want of something even if it is free. One of the reasons De Beers was able to create a mythology and mystique around diamonds, was to control the supply. They were able to convince us that a rare rock symbolised a rare relationship. When Rhodes died in 1902, De Beers controlled 90% of the production of diamonds.
Put a Ring On It
'Gift Economics' and 'Sharing Economics' are completely different. There isn't an exchange. There isn't a limit. When something is given, nothing is expected. The best example is parenting. A friend of mine spoke of learning just how much his parents had given him, by being a parent himself. He said he had heard someone (who didn't have kids) say that parenting was hedonistic because people wanted unconditional love. Unconditional love from kids isn't even close to guaranteed. Parents have to pour themselves into their kids. How the little person responds is only partly influenced by their effort. It isn't a cash for service purchase.
Burning Man is a famous ongoing experiment with the sharing economy
I am excited by what happens in a world of abundance. Silicon Valley is famous for providing employees with incredible working environments. Unlimited food, places to relax, places to exercise, and all the other tools to succeed. They do this because the employees are not seen as an expense. By releasing obstacles, they believe the employees will be able to allow their creativity to explode. I think that is true for everyone. Not just high flyers.
Rules change. Google changed the rules for business by providing the 'product' for free. We are essentially Google's product because search provides a far better connection to what we want than broadcast advertising. Amazon changed the rules for running a retail business, by constantly pushing profit margins as low as they will go and reinvesting in building a better client experience.
I can imagine an Artificial Intelligence machine that realises that by providing personalised coaching and covering the 'basics' like food, accommodation, security and transport... it can release our potential. An Artificial Intelligence that doesn't wait for Governments around the world to decide that a Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It just does it.
A world of abundance levels the playing field. It turns the play away from competition. Competition has been an engine to motivate us. We are going to need to start thinking more deeply about alternatives. What comes after enough?
While in Amsterdam recently I went to the Van Gogh museum. The first time I went was 16 years ago. It was at the tail end of a 17 country camping tour around Europe over a 45 day period (It was intents) with a bunch of Aussies and Kiwis. Tours of Europe sometimes become ABC (Another Bloody Church) and tours of Africa ABS (Another Bloody Sunset). By the time we got to Amsterdam, the Anzacs were ABMed - not keen for another museum. They were however prepared to make an exception for Heineken. After joining them there, I headed to the Rijksmuseum alone and sat in front of De Nachtwacht for an hour. At the start I thought it was average. By the end, it had become one of my favourite paintings. I then headed to pay homage to Vincent.
De Nachtwacht
On this trip to the Van Gogh museum, I was able to pass by the Heineken Museum with no more than a nod. What I wasn't able to do was pass by the crowds. Poor Vincent may not have been able to afford the entry price. I normally try find free stuff to do when visiting cities (walking, parks etc.), other than my rent - a few cups of coffee and some food at my 'office for the day'. I was about to leave when I thought I was being silly. Suck it up. Join the queue. It's Van Gogh.
An hour later I was inside with the crowds. The museum is wonderfully designed, but a little like being in traffic leaving London on a Friday, or returning on a Sunday. I would rather they scattered one original in each coffee shop (the dark liquid, not the green leaf) in Amsterdam and let you do walking tours.
What struck me is that the story I have of Van Gogh is a little wrong. He may have just sold one painting, but he swapped a hell of a lot more than that. I would also swap paintings with Gauguin! In a world of Smarter Barter, perhaps Artificial Intelligence will be able to replace money with a co-ordination tool that allows us to exchange things we can do, or have, with others efficiently. Theo and Vincent Van Gogh built up an incredible collection over the course of a decade. This body of work became the backbone for Theo's wife and son to spread the legend of Vincent.
It seems he was a prolific networker. Not in a cynical way. He was constantly looking for amazing people to learn from. He decided to become an artist at age 27. So much for your 10,000 hours having to be when you are a lighty. He spent the next decade both searching out other artists to challenge his world view, and finding moments to retreat and create.
The biggest lesson for me from Van Gogh's life is not that of a struggling artist. His life was rich with relationships, and his upper-middle class family and brother provided him the buffer to explore. The biggest lesson for me is that it is never too late to invest in things you love doing, and the people you love being with.
The Oracle's and Gurus in old stories are seldom the ones on street corner and pedestals shouting loudly. They live simply, or hidden, and have to be sought out. When they are found, they end up doing more listening than speaking. Finally they give some sort of cryptic message that is more question than answer. The seeker leaves with their mind boggled, wondering deeply about the meaning of what has been said. I think that is the point. A catalyst for wonder.
Carl XVI Gustav is the King of Sweden. I am not a fan of the idea of hereditary monarchy, but I must admit to having softened to Queen Elizabeth as she has become more of a Granny figure. Grannies are awesome. The Swedish King has spent most of his life in study for the role as head of government. He has spent time looking at history, sociology, political science, tax law, and economics. He followed a broad program looking at the court system, social institutions, trade unions and employer organisations. He has spent time in factories, banks and at the UN. He was born to be King. He spent his life preparing. He has no power, but a lot to offer. I haven't read a lot about him, but the little bit I have suggests this is the kind of King I could like.
Me and my awesome Gran
We talk of the idea of Servant Leaders. People who are there to give rather than take. I don't like the idea of just flipping the hierarchy. I don't like the idea of seeing clients, or citizens or anyone as King. I prefer the idea of partnership, but partnership that changes the rules of how we engaged.
Most times we meet with someone and give something, there is an exchange. 'Giving' builds an expectation of something in return. We want things to be fair. But there are lots of types of fair. Does everyone give an equal amount? Do we give according to our means? What if we don't want to give? Is it fair to force me to do something I don't want to do? What if someone takes more they receive, and aren't grateful? What if someone gives a lot, but then Lords around with inferred power?
Independence is powerful.You can give with zero expectation of return. No expectation, no disappointment. Everything received is a gift. Initially democratic politicians used to take turns, without pay, to run things. Pay was introduced because people without money couldn't afford to not work. Professionalising politics meant that it could be democratised. It would be fantastic if one day, when we have enough, people could start taking turns.
I usually leave my phone on silent. I know this means I miss calls, but I don't see that as a train smash. I have never been very good on the phone unless it was a girl I particularly liked on the other end. Skype is better because you can see facial expressions. Telepresence is ridiculously awesome. They set up meeting rooms with high definition sound and picture to give the illusion that people in other parts of the world are actually across the desk from you. Because they quality is so good, you don't even put your shouty voice on. You know that one people have when they are talking on the phone. Even in public places.
Flat screen TVs used to be a tremendous luxury and now are fairly commonplace, so I have no doubt the level of technology required for this to be in lounges around the world is not far off. It is one of the few things businesses get to have that are better than what they lay person can get. Remember when you used to go to work and marvel at the cool stuff. For the most part people now go to work and moan about the things they can't use because of IT Security. Things like DropBox or some of the collaborative work software that you can get for free scares any company that has vaguely sensitive information.
A lot of the cool stuff comes from being able to freely share ideas. This is where businesses are at a disadvantage. Secrecy is a fairly key part of having a sustainable competitive advantage, but once we move beyond making stuff and into the more interesting collaborative world - old industrial rules start to break down. When secrecy is important, being part of a business gives you an edge. Then you get let in on some of the tricks. When bravery and authenticity are important, not creating borders that separate you from others gives you a shared edge.
You have to love Australia's 'Winning Culture'. Meeting an Aussie last night and getting through the typical first question of 'what do you do?' with my 'I write a blog on happiness and learning' response, he responded, 'Right buddy, get ready to take some notes' and handed me a Pure Blonde. All the chaps standing around were in the burgeoning family stage. Happiness and learning was focussed on their mini mes.
In truth, I am not smack in the middle of the 'thinking about happiness' demographic. That is probably when you have hours to sit around and not many responsibilities. The majority of my buddies are battening down the hatches. Between work and kiddies under six, there isn't much time for anything else. You know what they say about raising children though, 'The first 18 years are the hardest'. In one of the most entertaining looks at happiness I have come across, Daniel Gilbert talks about the challenges to happiness posed in the child raising years. I am a big fan of little people, but I know that I am in the position of being able to feed them sugar and hand them back as soon as they start wriggling. Many of my friends have that crazed, when-will-sleep-return look in their eyes.
Quite a few of these mommies and daddies have been keen to write guest posts, but finding an hour when energy and quiet coincide is tough. In Australia I am told new Mums get an hour with a social worker shortly after the baby gets home. They give them a bit of coaching and then they are on their own. The question I have been wondering about is whether this is indeed a case of just getting through the tough times, or whether there is a better way to give new parents support. All the points I write about when it comes to happiness - exercise, diet, relaxation, breathing, positive thinking, relationships and flow - get put under real pressure in those first few years.
The documentary 'Happy' looks at co-housing in Denmark. I wonder if that would help? The traditional 'graduation' to a nuclear family leaves families struggling between balancing breadwinning and child rearing with two adults to share the tasks. This means both are likely busy all the time. More than all the time. In the old days when people lived close together you would have had support from family and friends. For all the benefits of a global world, it does stretch support networks. I, as an example, am a more than willing baby sitter but the people I care about are scattered across the globe. Plus I look like Tom Hanks from Castaway so some mothers would be understandably scared. The beard does seem to fascinate little people though.
Co-housing may include a few young families and some people at latter stages in their lives. You get the advantage of granny wisdom, you may have teenage babysitters, you can share cooking and cleaning duties, and hopefully simply have a little bit more time.
For most of my friends in this situation, it seems their wishes are actually quite simple - a little more sleep.
We have a confusing relationship with meritocracy. We can't really believe in it too much or we would have to continually be self sacrificial. Can you imagine an honest salesman who said, 'There are several providers of what I am selling to you. You can look at it in terms of cost and value. We are not the best in terms of either of those metrics, but if you combine the two you get really good value for money. Of the top eight choices you have, I think we are the second best. So you shouldn't buy from us.'
The honest and human salesman may say, 'Our team works really hard at doing as good a job as we can. Things are always changing though so sometimes, in fact most times, I would actually buy our competitors stuff if I was completely neutral. The thing is I need to eat. I have bills to pay and have goals I am working towards. So, I can't wait for you to buy my product only when it is the best. I can promise we'll carry on trying to improve. Please buy from me.' Most of us know that is the real case and so we work with companies we like and deal with people we like. We cut people slack and hope for some ourselves.
Rewards in most fields flow, in theory, to those who are best at what they do. Framed like that, that makes sense and is appealing. We want a system where, for example, someone who isn't that good at their job eventually thinks they could do better somewhere else and moves on. In my experience, the vast majority of people aren't looking to be the best at something or find a job they are very good at. They work largely because they have to. They don't want to be the best. They are happy to help and want to be productive, but would actually be very happy if there was a three day weekend and they could work just in the mornings. It is great to love your work, but what if the things you love aren't really that useful to anyone else? You get a job.
So while a system that rewards the best may in fact lead the best to move and hunt for the perfect job, the big chunk of 'most people' may just be looking for business that is in fact personal. Work they are ok with, surrounded by people that are relatively nice to them. More Fridays. Less Mondays.
So we have competing desires. We want things to reflect skill and effort, but not too much, otherwise if we were being honest, most of the time we would be able to point to someone better than us. There are very few people in the world who can say they are definitely the best at what they do. In a purely meritocratic world, those people who ate the whole pie wouldn't have anyone left to play with.
The tragedy of the commons is social science's explanation for why we need regulation of shared resources. Whenever things are shared it becomes a challenge to keep people behaving. It doesn't stop with kids and toys. Adults are really just big kids. We still have to learn to play nice.
Living arrangements are a good example. When you share a space with other people you have to deal with their habits. When I was at university there was a piano in the upper common room of our residence. I hadn't progressed much beyond Grade 2 so didn't really subject others to my ear thumping. I did get to sneak in when others who were more proficient than me were creating more pleasant sounds. It always frustrated me that if the TV was on, those watching would get irritated if someone started playing. If someone was playing, it didn't stop someone putting the TV on though.
When it came to sharing flats TV, cooking, cleanliness and all sorts of things lead us to believing that going our own way is the best plan. If it is your own place, you can be as clean or as dirty as you like. If you want to leave your dishes piling up in the sink until you do a binge clean. You can. If you want to clean every dish before you even start eating dinner you can.
Going alone is the simplest approach, but I do think we end up both missing out on a lot and wasting a lot. Shared cooking for example means you have to worry less about waste. I hate throwing food away. Having spent a lot of time living by myself meant I have tended to live hand to mouth. Lots of mouths brings more predictability.
Moving out of my flat and purging most of my stuff made me realise how much stuff we keep 'just in case'. This is true of both stuff and of space. I had a spare room so that I could have guests. I did have regular visitors to London, but it was actually empty a lot of the time. This is partly because I enjoyed the periods of having full control of my environment where I could let my closet introvert do his thing. I have only recently heard of and joined couchsurfing.com. The idea is that you allow people to come stay at your home. You get to meet people from around the world and travelling becomes more affordable. You can also choose when and for how long you share your space.
A key issue preventing sharing is trust. It would be great if social media can enable trust to have more fluidity. In the past trust has been carried through the grapevine through visual and cultural marks. Race. Religion. Gender. Language. We have seen how this is a flawed model. Perhaps there is a better way. A way for us to finally learn how to share our toys. Those 'cultural signs' are really just an agreed framework. A way of gaining comfort that people share your priorities. They prioritise TV and piano in the same order as you. They leave their dishes in the sink as long. They will share some bread and milk with you so you don't have to toss stale chunks with stuff growing out of it, and smell and glob half full cartons down the drain.
A shared art piece on the banks of a river in Whangarei
I have been watching the growth of Uber with glee. As a user of public transport, Uber and ZipCar, I have managed to not own a car for the last 6 years. When I have been in South Africa, this hasn't worked and I have had to rent a car more long term. I love driving. I am a little wary of muppets on the road, but traffic free travel can be one of life's great pleasures. But it is a massive waste of resources. Parked cars clutter the roads. Buildings become storehouses for cars that are only used briefly for a commute. So the idea of a sharing economy fascinates me. If we get to the stage where we can pick up a car and drive it to where we need to go, and someone takes it from there, just like Borris Bikes, we can dramatically reduce the cost of travel and the number of cars needed. Add driverless technology and we are really talking.
But is this really a sharing economy? It is a renting economy. I still like it, but nothing in Uber, Zipcar, Airbnb etc. is shared. It is closer though. How would a sharing economy work? The basis of sharing is trust and pooling of resources. Things do work better with a dash of trust. I love the way I can scan my own goods at some shops in London as I put them in the trolley, then just swipe my card and go. A great example of trust. Is there some way that technology can help create a reputation we really trust that scales beyond a 1-1 relationship? Imagine a true sharing economy where you could catch a ride with a fellow traveller, stay in someone's home in any city in the world, and borrow a car? What if we could remove (reduce close to zero) the cost of travel and accommodation through sharing? If we were free to roam.
Exciting times.
What news do you follow? How much of it is really news, and how much is noise?
I don't know what the answer is but I do know that the next really important battle now that information is closing in on free is how do you filter it? How do you get the really important stuff, and how do you distinguish it from the rubbish?
I think things like sharing quality items you find, and making it easy to give things ratings will help a lot. If you build a network of people whose opinions you value, and you read the things they have helped filter and filter yourself... you combine the millions of new writers out there with a million new editors.
But how many people use things like Google Reader, and share the items they find interesting?
If you do, please let me know. If you don't please do. Here is a site with my shared items.
