![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Saving Business
Skip Wiley posted an interesting quote from Paul Hawken’s, The Ecology of Commerce:
Perhaps during the many battles between environmentalists and businesspeople we have been asking the wrong question all these years. As generally proposed the question is “How do we save the environment?” As ridiculous as it may first sound to both sides, the question may be “How do we save business?”
Business is the problem and it must be a part of the solution. Its power is more crucial than ever if we are to organize and efficiently meet the world’s needs.
Later in that same thread, “Springhuman” adds the follow-up comment: “Business, distilled, is about some people making stuff and other people wanting/needing that stuff. How could we do without that?”
And Brooke articulates what I think is the much more common form of this conversation:
When you’re dealing with very self-interested people (as business people most always are), the way to get them to support your interests is to figure out what’s in it for them, and sell them on it. Appeal to their self-interest, not their charity. […]
So yeah, “How do we make saving the environment good business?” That would be the question. Make it a win-win, sillies. It’s so simple
And Skip also added:
To me, some off the civ-crash stuff seems to assume that schools, the suburbs, business, and civilization as a whole will just disappear overnight. Okay….. but where would they go? I think they have to be a part of the solution, as the quote states above.
The common thread I see between these bits goes something like this: sure, we see a lot of negatives and excesses (evils even) that we can pinpoint on things like “business” or “civilization.” And then once we believe we have isolated that cause conceptually, we believe the solution is to eliminate its real world analogue. But is that going to work in a practical sense when the forces being railed against are merely extensions of natural needs and processes to fulfill those needs? As pointed out above, how could we ever hope to “smash” business if it’s as simple as some people having things, other people needing things, and those groups coming together for mutual benefit?
I’m unable to find it at the moment, but there is a Carlos Castaneda/Don Juan quote I came across recently where he is talking about warriors or the “man of knowledge” or something, and he says that the sorceror doesn’t act against the forces of nature, because that is not only foolish and a waste of time, but essentially impossible. Rather, he acts in accord with the forces of nature, orchestrating them so that their natural impulses are directed towards fulfilling what he needs or wants to have done. This philosophy is of course very Taoist and is at the root of martial arts such as Aikido (I think), wherein you use the motions and energy of your attacker, directing them rather than acting against them. So taking wisdom from these traditions, how can we apply this sort of approach to our current dilemmas we face today?
- BitTorrent As Business Model
- Dammit
- Staying In Balance
- Business card idea
- [Alt$] Celebrities Cashing Out Of $USD
- Prev: That Slimy Underbelly
- Next: Marijuana: Gateway Drug?
September 18th, 2006 at 11:50 am
First, would need to identify how the changes required will reduce cost / increase profit for the business in question. If you can put together this kind of business plan, with solid stats showing how it can be profitable (over time), then likely someone would be interested in listening at least. Maybe we can take an example and build a mock plan on this site…
September 18th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Technocracy keeps the same business system as now. It keeps the vertical alignment business premise of advancement through a meritocracy similar to as it is now.
The big difference is that it changes from using money to using energy. Each citizen would get an energy debit card, to not buy things with, but to get things with.
This is a way to get off the growth cycle which has to used when using money. A lot of things such as banking , insurance , cost for health care etc. would also be eliminated then.
Competitiveness in thinking and acting would not go away. In fact with a good educational system encouraging creative thinking it would flourish.
We have not been a very creative culture for many decades.
When making money is tied to business as the most important aspect, business always makes the poorest choice`s .
Can you imagine the type of world we could be living in.? Freedom of and from religion, liberty to be creative. The Technocracy program calls for 3 to 4 hours of work a day. About 2 months or more of vacation time a year. A twenty year work period, and then full retirement with equal consuming rights.
Sound interesting.?
Also the profound problems that are not dealt with now would be dealt with. Environmental cleanup, Health care, Education, etc. all things that we now think require money to implement change, could be dealt with and solved. Money contrary to what most people think never actually solves these problems, only rather makes them worse. Throwing money at a problem is like chasing a mirage.
Our current system got us to where we are. It will not take us into a very pleasant future though.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
[…] Saving Business […]
September 18th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Nuts to that, buddy. Is the biggest problem people with barrows to push? Fuckin ideologies, man, has one ever held up over time? Quoting myself from the above-linked post:
It’s jazz, baby. What’s the old saying? “A plan is just a list of things that ain’t gonna happen.”
I have a house full of books, cds, dvds & ps2 games that begs to differ. Original art by my brother adorns my walls. Yesterday I planted 4 kinds of vegetables in the backyard. I’m right now posting on a very creative blog on the friggin internet for god’s sake. I’m beatboxing shit you never heard. Sure the mainstream for the most part is pretty ordinary, but for every Paris Hilton there’s a Tool.
Aside from that, a minor quibble: there is not really any creation or destruction, only transformation. Focussing on one aspect or the other leads to wobbly thought, in part because it denies things their larger context.
The problem is not money, but inflationary mechanisms. Growth-based economies, corporations with no purpose but self-perpetuation, goddamned usury, these are the things that keep me up at night. There’s no grey goo like compund interest.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
People are afraid of freedom and responsibility. So they prefer to hide behind the prison bars which they build around themselves.
The luxury of the rich is paid for by the misery of the poor.
Do you really think this system we have now is so very good.?
The problem is not money.?
Oh really.
I beg to differ and your little statement about interest tells me that you have also thought about what money actually is.
Money is a debt token, and abstract concept. It makes the class system go round. Lucky you. You have a garden. You own private property.?
Isn`t that great.!
Are you a proud home owner.?
Are you brain washed.?
Do you believe in private property.?
Are you a middle class person.?
Have you ever really thought about that term.? Do you care about the poor people.?
Do you want to be rich someday.? How much did it cost to purchase your house full of material goods.? Does that give you meaning.?
By the way you never know, I just might be able to riff rings around you on my stratocaster. Guess we won`t know unless we jam. This is kinda like jamming.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Ouch. Why are ideologies so prickly?
Never said the system we have now is good. Never said I had a garden either, said I planted vegetables. If you must know, they are in pots because I don’t own property, I rent, so pride isn’t much of a problem for me. I believe property is theft, which of course doesn’t change a damn thing. Don’t identify with classes, although I’m sure you’d clutch your handbag a ltittle tighter and cross the street if you saw me. I care about all sorts of things, don’t have to be poor to qualify for a little empathy. I can empathize with anything, even your pathetic attempts to control the future and everyone’s path through it. Bang up job in the PR department, btw.
Ooh, a stratocaster. Couldn’t just be a guitar now could it? Tell me how much did it cost and does it give you meaning and blah blah blah. Oh and I suppose it’s made out of something other than atoms, since all that material stuff the rest of us are made of is just so ewww yuk! (What’s the Technate’s technology made of anyway? Jus askin.)
Yeah, I’m brainwashed, just like you. Difference is, I don’t run around deciding what’s best for people. So you can take your Citizen’s Energy Debit Card (ooh look at that, a debt token and an abstract concept!) and jam that. I work for ideological assholes already.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Ah. Touche` ,
First of all Technocracy is an ideology. Secular/humanistic , the greatest most liberating type devised by man, and administered by science.
People are suspicious of something that sounds this good.
There is no conspiracy aspect to it what so ever.
It is very plain as set out in our Study Course.
The whole basic idea of it is humanitarian. It breaks the control of politics, and religion as the power possessor’s, and puts that into the hands of science.
Doesn`t that sound better.?
Science is not belief related. We are non-sectarian in membership, Christians , Jews, Hindu`s, whatever lame belief system , we don`t care , as long as you are interested in implementing the technate.
Is it fascist or authoritarian.? No, and it is about as far from that as possible. We do not care what anyone believes. Belief is personal.
The guitar is ash , I found it in an abandoned house. It plays really good after I tinkered with it.
Am I brain washed.? No , I don`t think so. That is my value judgment.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
What if I’m not? Will you leave me in peace or will non-participation be construed as a threat?
What I’m suspicious of is the conjuring of egregores. Time and again, our ideological creations (whether or not they arise from good intentions) escape our control and end up biting us on the ass.
Back on topic for a moment, doesn’t it seem from the paucity of responses here that business can’t be (easily) saved? The primary impulse of business is short-term gain. I for one can’t think of a single way in which appealing to that impulse can benefit the vast majority of us who do not own a business.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
You have put your finger on a big part of the problem. In a price system short term gain rules , and what are you gaining.?
Money.
While it is true that you can make anybody do just about any thing with it , that is also a dehumanizing thought.
Carrot and stick.
Compile all the wrong choices for something of no value except to manipulate people with and guess what. ?
Nothing turns out right.
Have you ever wondered why nothing ever turns out right.?
What can anyone expect with all choices revolving around something that is worthless. ?
What would we do with people that didn`t cooperate.? Nothing. Most people would be proud and happy to contribute in a good culture.
Any one who did not want to work, or cooperate would still get their full consuming ability. In a high tech society , human labor is marginal.
Most healthy young people want to contribute to society. The very few who do not would not make a real difference anyway. Today young people know that they are not valued. That is obvious.
Young people know society is antagonistic like a torture machine. They know that they are only judged by how much or little cash they can generate.
September 20th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Life is perpetual contingency.
How does a society protect its people from monsters? How does it prevent becoming a monster itself?
Any functional mechanism is also an exploitable weakness.
Like the administration in Aeon Flux: It seemed like a good idea at the time.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
The Rules of the Game could be adjusted to make for a better time for all.
Moralizing and preaching do not work.
It is better not to reward bad behaviour as we do now.