It seems to me that diversity, individual creativity and self-initiative seem to be going down, and conformity up, with the advent of internet. Some people call this "homogenization" of cultures, but it seems the same within a particular culture. It started with TV.
With employees and people in general, I am so often astounded with the inability to analyze or solve problems, and the tendency to ask others rather than think oneself.
People who don't watch a lot of TV or constantly surf the web for entertainment seem to have more originality and initiative. Is it that creative people get bored with TV and the usual sorts of things on internet, or is it that less TV and less internet forces people to put out the effort and develop the mindset of entertaining themselves? Or both.
Then there is the issue of peoples' desire to socially conform comfortably, versus willingness and independence to think out of the box.
There are some other elements of creativity and originality that I someday wish to write about in a more systematic, academic format, but that will require researching the existing literature on these topics as well. I usually create something myself first, before being influenced by others' writings, and go back and forth. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear from any readers of this article about originality and creativity.
For me, these are personal issues of who I want to spend my limited social time with, as well as very important as regards employees and strategic partners as regards business progress and success.
I like producers, not pure consumers.
People encourage me to spice up my writing style, but I refuse because I don't think it's right to exaggerate or dramatically mislead in order to better entertain readers. It's more important to be accurate, and to keep things in their proper perspective, rather than dramatically blow things out of proportion.
I don't strive to get the most readers. Likewise, while I've had Google Adsense for years, I don't even run it on most of my pages. It's not about getting the most readers or making the most money. It's about quality, not quantity, of readers and colleagues. And keeping them.
Some of my most popular articles are buried down within a website. This is because I prefer to be organized and keep things in proper perspective. However, it's important to not be too obsessive about staying organized.
On my desktop, I keep a few text files for just writing ideas and thoughts in a free association way. Each is a mix of diverse ideas and thoughts, not organized at all. When I get a thought, I just quickly click on one of these and type it in at the top, and put a line of a few dashes between topics. Sometime later, usually on another day, I go back to these thoughts, choose which ones are worth my & maybe your time, and plug them into the right website in the most appropriate place.
Issues on this page should be moved elsewhere within my writings. Where, I don't know yet.
What is long overdue is a blog-like list of links to everything I've written and edited.
I hear politicians saying there aren't enough good jobs, and it is the fault of our government and politicians, therefore we need trade protectionism, and so on. That is DISGUSTING.
No politician is up there saying that we must provide better quality of services ourselves, better values and education starting at home, better continuing education for ourselves, and take responsibility for our own circumstances, not blame and stereotype others.
Just try getting support or information from service providers. The quality of support is terrible in so many places, though some are excellent. (It is a keen topic of interest of mine how some exceptional organizations maintain quality of service up and down the line.) Sometimes, it's just carelessness. Other times, it's people who just can't analyze and think, and I wonder how their ancestors survived natural selection (rape and pillage inheritance?). Careless, lazy thinking.
From my experience, it seems to have degraded steadily over the past 25 years.
The problem should not be blamed on government. The problem is ourselves, our companies, and the erosion of our societies' values.
I also have a theory on the effect of TV and multimedia, which erodes so many kids' abilities to self-entertain or think by themselves. When bored, just change the TV channels. Become a couch potato. Adopt the opinions of public relations professionals. And so on.
All the violence and sex on TV, which seem to be the most popular subjects, reflect demand from the mass market and tells us a lot about ourselves as a species.
I have considerable history with fund-raising organizations and people, plus my own. Different appeals and motivations.
PERMANENT requires major investment.
I've known too many ostentatious people who would lead you on just for an ego/status trip for themselves. They get an ego charge to have high members of society beg them for money, and another ego charge by rejecting them. Then a third ego charge thereafter by showing how they can afford to blow huge amounts of their money on vain things.
There is no intellectual or spiritual class in that, only financial class.
Some of these very same people will not accept calls or visitors from organizations like Save The Children because they will feel guilty by rejecting them. Others will accept them and donate a little bit of their money so they feel better about themselves, not so much to save the children. Saving the children may be hopeless for the most part anyway, and they may sense a scam from other organizations, but what counts is what they do with their abilities in this life and their state of mind and intentions. This is just an all too typical example.
Many people have achieved the ability to make a significant difference for humanity, but cannot transcend their distractions, addictions and sociopolitical environment.
I don't believe the saying that "If you do good things to others, then good things will come back to you." It's not only a selfish reason for donating, but there's also no cause and effect. The reason for doing good things is simply love of others, or love of life, or love of the universe. Love. Goodness. Just to be that kind of individual, or merge with that kind of spirit, albeit a minority spirit outside the box but why conform?
It is incredible all the life on Earth we have destroyed and how we are transforming the climate over conspicuous consumption and unnecessary ego / social status things in this throw away gadget society. Comfort is mostly in the head, not one's luxurious environment. "Better is the enemy of good enough", in this case.
It is notable that so many of the charities I have come across are actually not a lot different from scams.
I have a long background in international aid to the poor and disadvantaged, and know a lot of former Peace Corps volunteers who are among the best people on the planet. It's remarkable how luxuriously some of the executives live (normally not former Peace Corps people), and how little of the money gets to the people, often in ways that aren't well thought out, but competent outside analysts and consultants are often shunned.
Some of my shocking experiences with "beltway bandit" USAID and UN programs are noted in my journal article on corruption in USAID and UN emergency food relief. That is just one example, and it was written about because of its timing.
When there's a crisis, you just don't get that sense of urgency among the wealthy elite. When the New Orleans disaster met with little response, it was no surprise. You can bet that the executives didn't spend much time thinking about it from 5pm Friday until 9am Monday, except maybe how to make more money off the disaster. That is par for the course.
On the other hand, so many donors are often careless and clueless people who just want to donate to relieve some guilt, or to brag about it in social circles, or believe "if you do good things for others, then good things will come back to you". I don't want to discourage them from donating to any group, corrupt or not, since their money will still be better put to use that way than blown otherwise (such as conspicuous consumption). I am usually on the side of the humanistic organization, be it corrupt, mismanaged, or otherwise seriously flawed, instead of the usual selfish and clueless donor side. However, there are exceptions when I think that some truly good person is being conned. However, that's rare, as good people can normally see right thru cons. There's an old saying that con men are the easiest to con, and there's no shortage of rich selfish people who are clueless on the nonmaterial front.
I was astounded that CNN founder Ted Turner donated a billion dollars to the UN. He must have been too lazy and disinterested to deal with the alternatives. He said "A billon's a good round number." He was, of course, lined up to be given great awards by the United Nations Association among much fanfare at the moment. It's better than nothing ;-), but it seems questionable to donate it to the UN. (See a BBC and CNN coverage.)
Other great donors seem to be much more involved and lower profile in deciding where their donations go and how it's spent, such as George Soros, the Bill Gates Foundation, and others. In fact, Gates retired and is focusing on his foundation.
In contrast, Turner somewhat wisely challenged other rich people to "compete" with him to give money away. However, just throwing money at problems is wasteful.
What's really needed is some sort of management consulting company consisting of experienced businesspeople from top to bottom to make sure their money is spent transparently, efficiently, effectively, and sustainably within those communities.
I was born and raised in the U.S. "Bible Belt", as discussed in my personal history. My parents took us to church occasionally, but never pushed religion onto the children. My mother did read Bible stories to us, and I was well versed in the story of Creation, Adam and Eve, the 6000 year old Earth, and so on, but I was also fortunate to be exposed to some encyclopedias by Time Life which illustrated the concept of evolution, and though I couldn't read at that age, I somehow got the concept of "natural selection".
As I was generally not impressed with religious people, had the impression that a lot of it was security beliefs and wishful thinking, and saw a lot of contradictions and things that just didn't make sense ... evolution made a lot more sense.
I do believe in an evolving holy spirit, a kind of cosmic consciousness.
I could go on about that, but instead I will put forth a fairly unique outlook I have, or, at least one I don't see anywhere else.
Biologically, we are individuals/individables, separate animals, competing to leave our genes in the pool. I explain a lot of our behavior, drives, and happiness in terms of instinct and leaving our genes in the pool. Like the material status instinct (better to attract a mate, don't be a loser, establish power for your family).
All you have to do is watch groups of wild dogs on the street (like all over Thailand, including in Bangkok, where leashes are almost unheard of, just peaceful packs of dogs except when there's occasional social friction within a pack). The similarities are striking.
Most religion appeals to the individual. Especially Western religions. "It's all about ME." You go to heaven, remaining a separate individual.
That I don't believe.
I believe that it is your connectedness to others, both human and nonhuman, which expands your consciousness, transcends your selfish animal instincts, and connects you to the Holy Spirit of cosmic consciousness. This is my experience and my sense.
Creativity can come from individuals, or it can come from synergy between individuals, or from inspiration from established schools of thought. I think individuals are the cutting edges of the holy spirit. We are linked (some of us much more than others), but we are expanding the realm of consciousness.
At the opposite extreme, being a selfish individual is like being an island disconnected from the land. A spiritual aloneness.
Most important are compassion, understanding, love, letting go of greed and materialism, good intentions towards others, tolerance, the ability for independent thinking, and creativity.
We are not born innocent. We are born selfish. We must go thru paradigm shifts.
It is like Buddhism preaches. There is nobody born perfect from birth. (Forget the virgin birth and all the myths ... including the Buddhist myths that go around, like the folklore fiction that comes from followers about their revered leaders...) What real Buddhism preaches is that we all start off as humans with natural inclinations towards selfishness, greed, material status, etc., just like the Buddha himself until he left the luxurious life around age 35 and sought out the real meaning of life, unlike anyone he knew.
You must find your own path.
Japanese Shinto is also interesting (as is the god of baseball...), as are the Janes of India ...
I think there are elements of many religions and animisms that are relevant, though I also see flaws in most of these ways, too.
I do think that much of what is practiced in many religions today has strayed from the original teachings. In fact, Muhammad was illiterate, Jesus wrote nothing, and the Buddha's teachings were recorded by others -- very human. You can see a lot of contradictions in what is practiced today. It's like people going to the temple to try to get inspiration over next week's lottery numbers, or praying for more wealth.
It is more important to learn to be fulfilled spiritually with a minimum of material things, little more tan just what you need to be comfortable, creative and productive.
I don't think you can tell what's right by "feeling", as feeling is instinctual emotion. At least for myself, it's thinking and something that just clicks like it's right, and gives me a calm, clearness and sense of connectedness. It is not something that excites me or satisfies the general instinctual drive for happiness or joyfulness that so many people pursue. Happiness after death? It's not that at all. It is a kind of love for understanding and constructive creativity.
Definitely not destructive, not about virgins (after biological death), or ego or power over others like:
Extremists who are offensive to others must be stopped, but not at too much expense of our own principles and style of existence. By over-reacting, especially in journalism (focussing on their terrorism instead of positive news stories) and politics (war), we give them exactly what they want and encourage them (the attention of the world, like they are great).
I won't get started here on journalism's self-serving and profitable policies... though sometimes I do want to expand on that topic; but not here and now.
Terrorists are egomaniacs who just want to feel their personal power and have an impact in a cheap negative way. Bin Laden is an "egomanic" like Hitler.
Followers are so stupid ... Some have feelings and beliefs that they are serving their god and will go to heaven. Some have anger and hatred for some other people, and let it all out on strangers.
Any God who condones such murderous behavior is to be rejected. God is Good, not bad to condone violence.
If your God needs you to kill, then your God can't be so great because your God is threatened by humans.
It all just doesn't make religious sense. It's all about a lust for power and personal ego gratification of leaders and followers alike.
This is how I would address the issue if I were a political leader speaking directly to terrorists.
There is no religious sense in killing strangers or any other people. Any leader who condones this is drunken with [the emotional/instinctual] lust for power, not really love.
Fortunately, there haven't been many terrorists walking into US shopping malls and blowing themselves up. It is very easy to do. You can make bombs from internet recipes using commonly available supplies. You can buy a handgun over the counter or from a black market gang and go walk into a shopping mall and shoot people for your cause. However, from what I've read about Al Queda and its volunteers, Bin Laden has learned what other leaders have learned: Volunteers will come to socialize and belong to a group, with all kinds of enthusiastic promises and commitments, but are extremely unreliable when unsupervised. That is why the main threat is from "cells" -- peer pressure and supervision.
Stay away from crowds and mobs, too.
On the other hand, who is willing to buy smaller cars rather than gas guzzlers, switch to electric vehicles, or use public transport? There just doesn't exist the leadership or caring on a large scale. Sure, we talk the talk (sometimes in "holier than thou" ways), but do we walk the walk?
If Bin Laden wants westerners out of the holy land, then why doesn't he invest in electric car R&D, or lead otherwise? Because he wants conflict and people to have emotional hurrahs for him. It is much easier to make an old bomb to disorganize everything than to create something new and different.
It doesn't take communism or an ant colony like mentality to make solutions. It takes only society's commitment to move away from oil. However, these things apparent don't work with the genetic programming of the majority of population of our species, especially the "urban psychology".
As discussed on my website at www.PERMANENT.com , there is a serious threat to our species by the development of biotechnology and nanotechnology, e.g., some individual in a lab somewhere genetically modifies the Ebola or bird flu or HIV virus to make it more contagious or more deadly or more robust, and it spreads around the world like an extremely contagious virus within the right rate. It would at least be the collapse of civilization, and could be the end of our species.
In the earth's history, there are entire species which have become extinct suddenly, with no environmental clues, and it is suspected that it may be a virus. There are many small colonies of animals which have been wiped out by a virus.
Introduce our world travelling species...
Look at malicious computer viruses and worms. Who writes these things, and why? It is the nature of our species. Like spammers and scammers every day, except virus writers have nothing to gain except malicious damage to the world.
Now consider advancing biotechnology, and nanotechnology, and the power of an individual.
This is the reason and urgency for www.PERMANENT.com -- to get our species off the planet and survivable out there, because we won't survive the technological age down here, for sure.
(Notably, I am astounded at how many con men send me emails asking if I would give them my domain permanent.com for a small donation to my cause... or as a student with an idea which they don't specify... and so on. Delete.)
There's also a lot to be said about big Congressional and Presidential panels, too -- big egos do the talking, and just a few staffers do all the writing. Afterwards, reports go onto the shelves where they mainly just collect dust while little is done. Get them away from the group, and they also falter. It takes money, but then who gets the money? The people who really care and are willing to do the work, even for low pay? No. Corruption. Contractor friends get the money, who can talk the talk but hardly walk the walk. I've got real life stories to tell about that...
While government does some good and necessary things, it is terribly inefficient at cutting edge matters, including its contractors, and I think the vast majority of potential solutions are in the non-governmental organization (NGO) community. We just have a shortage of good leaders in this world, as well as good people mobilized in the trenches. There are a lot of good people out there, but they aren't being mobilized or managed well, and there's a shortage of money ... except what's being blown on the big polished operations with P.R. and connections.
This is why we come far short of our potential.
There are huge numbers of good people in this world (partly because there's 5 billion of us), but they are a small percentage of our population, genetically and sociologically. They are poorly mobilized and organized.
There are also a lot of crazy people, and the power of the individual is increasing. This won't change until we genetically engineer ourselves, but the same technology will destroy us before it improves us, e.g., a supervirus technologically engineered, not natural.
With the advance of technology, there is a very high risk that the bad side of business or humanity will make us extinct suddenly by biotechnology or nanotechnology, probably by accident, but if not then by design by someone.
Governments cannot solve this problem. (Many problems governments cannot solve.) That is impractical idealism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This is why I don't focus on humanistic projects on earth much anymore. It will all be moot in about 20 years. We must get our species off the planet self-sufficiently. That's all that matters. www.PERMANENT.com
Meanwhile, I spend more than half my waking hours just trying to make enough money to support myself, my company, and all our dependents ... very frustrating.
(However, with my instinctual compassion for others, and thoughtful morals of what is right and wrong, I can't just go out and maximize income for myself by having salesmen in my company sell sell sell, advertise misleadingly or provide careless business services and neglect paid-up customers like objects for quick money or cash on a massive scale. I see a lot of rich western exporters and mainland Chinese people around Asia who do this, plus internet digital tigers with little more than website fronts with careless advertising and brokerages, and various others, who have relatively easy lives financially, with light conscience, just business is business. I can't do that, just not that kind of life. Nor can they "get" what I do, and some cluelessly ask "why" I care...)
I take responsibility for all my own shortcomings, and look for ways to improve myself (not excuses). Anything is possible, and it's just a matter of whether I'm good enough. And maybe some luck.