"marriage is not a particularly kind thing to do to someone you really care about."

alain de botton’s interview on design matters was ah. may. zing. i think there are at least three different ideas i want to write about, but the first was this killer line (starts in the interview at 36:33):

“marriage is not a particularly kind thing to do to someone you really care about.”

at first, i thought… whaaaaatttttt? where in the world could this guy be going with this? but as he got into it, i really really began to believe his thinking. and mostly because it lines up with so much of my developing thoughts on love.

here are the main arguments used to get to that conclusion:

1. true, loving relationships are hard. well, if you believe love is just a feeling that happens to you, then maybe not. but if you believe that loving someone is about taking actions that support their well-being, love is hard. of course, the idea is that the benefits outweigh the costs, but prioritizing the well-being of others is no easy task. note that loving relationships don’t just exist between lovers. friends, parents, even co-workers can all be loving (if you subscribe to the action-based definition).
2. if you are in a truly loving relationship, you are constantly being taught and teaching. in loving relationships, we are always trying to help someone be better. this means telling them things we notice about them that are getting in their own way. it also means supporting them through those things. it also means they will be doing the same for us. and learning about yourself is probably one of the hardest things people can do. in fact, it’s so hard… that most people just don’t do it.
3. so if #2 is true, what you are asking of someone is that they being your teacher (about yourself) FOR. EV. ER. and some (all) of us are dealing with some deep, dark realities and ways of being. with friends and even people you break up with, if you truly love each other, you’ll be teaching each other for while… but then it’s over. if you get tired of teaching or being taught, you can leave the relationship. but with marriage… that’s it. it’s forever. supposedly…

on jobs, automation, and the future of work (part 4)

what’s my conclusion based on all this (parts 1, 2, and 3)? if we can take the productivity gains and distribute them equitably (instead of upwards like usually happens), we have a real opportunity to institute a creative economy.

so what would a creative economy look like? i don’t have a full picture yet, but some parts i can already see are:

• meaningful work for all people
• livelihood disconnected from the value of work
• low resource output lifestyles (note that this is different than low throughput lifestyles)
• prioritizing people, relationships, and experiences above material consumption

some people would call this an arts economy. a friend of a friend thinks that when the robots have automated away most labor needs, everyone should be an artist. given the way art is currently shaped in america, that sounds pretty unappetizing to me. but if the definition of art were to change, i think it could be great. i think art would need to expand to include things that aren’t just aesthetically interesting, but i’m not yet clear on what the full definition should be.

either way, i do believe that what is necessary is that people need to be able to find ways to use their time when work is disconnected from livelihood. and i think the only work that will never be fully automated is creative work. as in, work that requires the process of connecting things which shouldn’t be connected, but create a special added value and joy when they are (more on that in the future).

whatever this next phase economy looks like, i think it will require people to know their

• passions,
• skills and abilities, and
• core needs

this passions-skills-needs (psn) triangle, imo, is the one of the keys to a sustainable, livable future where people do what they love (because it’s best for the world that way), are able to develop skills that amplify their ability to live their passions, and know how to connect to other people to get what they need (probably in exchange for those skills, abilities, and passions).

this is just the beginning of a fully described system, but i think this is the seed of where we’re going.

we’ll see!

on jobs, automation, and the future of work (part 3)

please see part 1 and part 2 first. 

now the fact of the matter is that companies will almost definitely automate that which can be automated. it’s just cheaper and easier to maintain machinery than human capital. and in the long-run, machines that can learn with minimal resource inputs will outpace the productivity of humans.

now, this assessment of our current reality (which is not original) could go one of three ways (1, 2a, and 2b):

1. as a society, we could decide to prevent businesses from using machines (robots, algorithms, etc.) to replace human labor. this preserves jobs as we currently understand them. as in, you go somewhere for a prescribed number of hours per week to produce goods and services. this pathway is generally the advocated for by labor (i think).
2. collectively and legally, we could do nothing to intervene. this allows individuals and companies to do whatever is in their best interests. this will (almost definitely) result in diminishing labor needs (this is happening for fast food; farming; movie theaters [think fandango + automatic ticket machines]; even doctors; 3-d printing). with all of these changes, it’s not that jobs won’t be created; it’s that low-skill jobs will be destroyed (or driven to even lower skill level) and/or be replaced with a smaller number of high-skilled jobs (and if you read part 1 and 2 of this series, you’ll know why that creates a problem for anyone basically older than 35). from here, we could go one of two ways:
   
   (a) collectively, we could seek to create jobs. in the past, this could be driven by companies or government. however, if the robots have and are continually taking up more and more of the economy’s labor needs, government spending is the only way this can happen in the future.
   
   (b) we could redistribute the productivity gains to a group of people larger than shareholders and stockowners of companies that decide to automate away their labor.
   

now, given the way the economy is changing, the government is unlikely to ever again (unless we get some more taxes and lord knows how unlikely THAT is in america) have enough cash to stimulate the economy enough to get anything back into a state of stasis.

so we could be terrified about how we’re never gonna be able to fix this. or, we could see the opportunity here and take advantage of it:

*cue the creative economy soundtrack*

ps - there also could be other pathways out here, but i haven’t heard of them…

on building new models that make existing models obsolete

below is one of my favorite buckminster fuller quotes:

“To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

the other day, i was explaining it to a friend (can’t remember who anymore). that friend basically said that that quote is unrealistic for non-technological systems. i think my friend’s argument was that (a) fuller was a techno-positivist, and (b) this quote only really applies to technological change because human systems are too messy for change to happen so simply.

i understand that technology systems are less constrained by human complexity. and still i think the quote is applicable.

it seems i’m not alone. below is an excerpt from an interview with max ventilla (co-?)founder of AltSchool.

Max Ventilla: AltSchool’s mission is to enable all children to achieve their full potential.

Interviewer: Isn’t that the mission of the public school system?

Max: I’d say the mission of a public school system is to allow those children to achieve their full potential.

Interviewer: What’s the difference?

Max: You need to create a network. You need to have a network effect where people are flocking to a new ecosystem that’s getting better and better, not because they’re altruistic, but because it’s the best.

of course, it’s much too soon to know if altschool will actually work. regardless, that last line i think could prove itself outside of technology fields as well. i know there is historical data that disproves this (example: gun control), but i still believe it’s possible. given the right information and the right motivation, i genuinely believe that people will flee failing systems for ones that function differently and just really are better.

one can dream, eh?

waking up in another place is really important when traveling

over the past few years i’ve started to truly appreciate the value of traveling. starting when i was in grad school, i began to take more and more trips. i traveled with friends, chosen family, and lovers. 

regardless of who i was traveling with, though, i learned to prioritize  waking up in another place. the process of going to sleep and waking up in another location really makes a trip feel different. i’m not totally sure why, but i have a few guesses.

first, waking up in an unfamiliar place breaks you out of your typical patterns. now, i’m all for routine to enhance productivity, but knowing when to break up your routine is an important part of having routines. that may sound counter-intuitive, but i’ve written about the routines (here and here) and also why getting out of them can spur creativity.

travel and waking up in a new place also is a reminder that the way you live your life isn’t the only way to live. whether in the wilderness or the suburbs or a city or a new climate, seeing a new day from another perspective is helpful for building just that: perspective.

i’m definitely not rich, but now whenever i travel, i try really hard to make sure i get at least one night and morning away from home. even if it’s just a quick trip to an airbnb one or two towns over, having 18 hours away where some of it is the overnight is more beneficial than getting up early and coming back lack on the same day.