Opining the lack of type 1 people in public leadership? Federal Election. Climate change anyone?
Looking back to look forward.
In 1916, the year my father was born, we only knew of our own galaxy. Think about that for a moment…
We did not think there were any other galaxies. Consider that in just over one lifetime, we have now observed/measured two black holes colliding with the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO). Gravitational waves. We have come a long way. Perhaps.
[Source: CalTech ]
Energy
Just as naively, many of the greatest minds of the earliest 20th century where adamant that producing energy from the breaking down of atoms was nothing more than “moonshine”. In fact, Sir Ernest Rutherford’s famous declaration [and centuries of ‘evidence’] was totally upended less than twenty-fours hours later by Leo Szilard when he announced the nuclear chain-reaction. He conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933, patented the idea of a nuclear reactor with Enrico Fermi in 1934, and in late 1939 wrote the letter for Albert Einstein’s signature that resulted in the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb. The rest they say, is history.
That was completed in less time than the average student spends in school.
In the span of my father’s and my own life-times, Nikolai Kardashev (a Russian Physicist) posited in 1964 what is now known as the “Kardashev Scale”. Kardashev was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals and developed a scale of energy/power usage.
It has 3 base classes, each with an energy disposal level: Type I (10¹⁶W), Type II (10²⁶W), and Type III (10³⁶W).
A Type I civilization—also called a planetary civilization—can use and store all of the energy available on its planet.
A Type II civilization—also called a stellar civilization—can harness the total energy of its planet’s parent star (the most popular hypothetical concept being the Dyson sphere—a device which would encompass the entire star and transfer its energy to the planet(s)).
A Type III civilization—also called a galactic civilization—can control energy on the scale of its entire host galaxy.
The scale is hypothetical, and regards energy consumption on a cosmic scale.
The salient point here is to note that the human race and planet earth is NOT on this scale.
Not yet, ever?
Even more puzzling is the growing awareness of the silence/lack of any obvious other example of a Type 1 or greater civilization anywhere in the observable universe.
We understand the universe to be 13.8 billion years old.
This is the Fermi Paradox, or more colloquially understood as “where is everybody?”.
The Fermi paradox is named after the aforementioned physicist Enrico Fermi and refers to the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for and various high probability estimates of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations elsewhere in just the (our) Milky Way galaxy.
The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and Michael H. Hart (born 1932), are:
There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun, and many of these stars are billions of years older than the Solar system.
With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets, and if the Earth is typical, some may have already developed intelligent life.
Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.
According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or at least their probes.
This may sound far-fetched, yet the law of big numbers is compelling. Many have described this as the challenge of all intelligent life. At some point, life “cracks the atom” and then faces “the great filter”.
The Great Filter
This probability threshold, which could lie behind us (in our past) or in front of us (in our future), might work as a barrier to the evolution of intelligent life, or as a high probability of self-destruction. The main counter-intuitive conclusion of this observation is that the easier it was for life to evolve to our stage, the bleaker our future chances probably are.
The idea was first proposed in an online essay titled “The Great Filter – Are We Almost Past It?“, written by economist Robin Hanson. The first version was written in August 1996 and the article was last updated on September 15, 1998.
Using extinct civilizations such as Easter Island as models, a study conducted in 2018 posited that climate change induced by “energy intensive” civilizations may prevent sustainability within such civilizations, thus explaining the lack of evidence for intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Whatever the case, the notion of the anthropocene is increasingly valid and the national and global debates over energy sources, current and future, have starkly different trajectories for both the short term quality of life of millions and frankly, the sustainability of human civilization.
With no evidence of intelligent life other than ourselves, it appears that the process of starting with a star and ending with “advanced explosive lasting life” must be unlikely. This implies that at least one step in this process must be improbable. Hanson’s list, while incomplete, describes the following nine steps in an “evolutionary path” that results in the colonization of the observable universe:
A sobering thought [understatement] when considering energy and climate policies that will set trajectories for life-times to come.
It would be useful to have a few more Type 1 People in public life don’t you think?
Michio Kaku is an American theoretical physicist and as early as 1991, was expressing as similar concern.
Michio Kaku
Carl Sagan – The Demon Haunted World
I couldn’t send such a diatribe without a reference to the venerable (and increasingly prescient) Carl.
“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
A small series of posts over the next week or so on the concept of “Type 1″.
These will be People, Planet and Challenges.
Why? Simply put, my recent experience of public discourse and political debate in Australia (and those seeking public office) suggests we need to look closely for genuine intellectual honesty, strategic vision and coherent world views that can be anticipated through reason and defended with logic.
Complex social, economic and environmental responses are not and will not be served by simple allegiances to a particular tribe or system of patronage. The challenges of the 21st Century are far too complex for political structures and habits of “magical thinking” established hundreds/thousands of years ago.
Today, People.
The Enneagram of Personality, or simply the Enneagram is a [contested] model of the human psyche which is principally understood and taught as a typology of nine interconnected personality types.
The 9 types of people it describes are: the reformer, helper, achiever, individualist, investigator, loyalist, enthusiast, challenger, and peacemaker.
Whilst not a devotee of such frameworks, due to the conflicting/contradictory evidence available, it is nonetheless a ‘fun’ and accessible way to introduce my series on “Type 1” to you dear reader, thus appropriating one of the more widely known [if not justified] frameworks for discussion.
Consider two Billionaires. “Leaders” in their fields. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. Given the very public developments of the major companies of these two, I would contend that only one of these is a ‘type 1’.
Bloomberg business writer and author of the Biography Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, And The Quest For A Fantastic Future appears to agree with me when he says:
“He’s the possessed genius on the grandest quest anyone has ever concocted. He’s less a C.E.O. chasing riches than a general marshaling troops to secure victory. Where Mark Zuckerberg wants to help you share baby photos, Musk wants to … well … save the human race from self-imposed or accidental annihilation.”
The nature and degree to which “traditional business models” have evolved in the post-internet era hardly needs comment. Suffice to say, that inherent in every business that ever was or will be, is the core business.
To create, Innovate, grow and profit.
A matrix of every business over time would show that they could reasonably be described in a series of the oft-maligned yet useful intersecting venn diagrams showing a combination of one or more of these four goals.
Opposing goals, purpose or core businesses, however you wish to define them, still requires your business to make sense in that euphemistic 30 second elevator ride…How will we: create, Innovate, grow and profit
Often misunderstood [in my view, not in a positive way] one early quoted purpose from Zuckerberg was “Move fast and break things”.
Essential if profit is the goal, yet I am challenged to understand how this will serve the longer term goals of creating/innovating and growing long-term assets and value. Except for the owner.
We can see through recent US congressional hearings and wider reporting, the business model of the “user” being the “product” appears to have far-reaching political, social and psychological side-effects that are only now [sadly] becoming clearer to regulators and policy makers.
Mark has broken a lot of things lately and it appears many are part of a global social experiment they know very little about.
[Anthony Quintano from Honolulu, HI, United States [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]
As equally ill-defined and misunderstood is Musk.
Misunderstood if one ignores his stated purpose. “We created Tesla to accelerate a sustainable future”. Misunderstood if one uses the traditional metrics to define/interpret/anticipate business strategy and ignore the engineer, focussed on first-princples, standing in plain sight.
The purpose of Tesla: – In his own words.
Exciting to see all the new electric vehicles coming to market! We created Tesla to accelerate a sustainable future & it’s happening!https://t.co/IqREiDqIyL
[Source: Maurizio Pesce from Milan, Italia [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]
Last week I listened to the excellent podcast by Ark Invest, interviewing Elon Musk about Tesla Cars and autonomy. Whilst extremely insightful and informative, this interview also displayed, as plainly as possible, the main premise of “Type 1”. Listen carefully to this podcast. It is thirty minutes well spent. Indeed, Musk, in his own words
“People think sometimes that I’m like a business person or finance person, or something like that. I’m an engineer. I do engineering, always have.” — @elonmusk [0:12:33]
Ark Invest Podcast
As environmental, economic and social challenges persist on a global scale, many struggle with complexity, nuance and focus in the face of apparent existential risk.
One business seeks to “Move fast and break things”, creating increasingly atomised networks of personal echo-chambers, devoid of any discernible purpose other than keeping your attention. This is a a business where the “users” and their personal habits, actions and details are the “product”.
The second business seeks to improve the long-term viability of the human race by accelerating the adoption of sustainable energy and even prodvide [the once entirely science-fiction goal] of an “off-world “alternative.
Type Ones have a “sense of mission” that leads them to want to improve the world in various ways, using whatever degree of influence they have. They strive to overcome adversity—particularly moral adversity—so that the human spirit can shine through and make a difference. They strive after “higher values,” even at the cost of great personal sacrifice.
A type one person –
… is conscientious and ethical, with a strong sense of right and wrong. They are teachers, crusaders, and advocates for change: always striving to improve things, but afraid of making a mistake. Well-organized, orderly, and fastidious, they try to maintain high standards, but can slip into being critical and perfectionistic. They typically have problems with resentment and impatience. At their Best: wise, discerning, realistic, and noble. Can be morally heroic.
Google AI and engineering teams have announced Google Duplex, a new technology for conducting natural conversations to carry out “real world” tasks over the phone. Google says:
The technology is directed towards completing specific tasks, such as scheduling certain types of appointments. For such tasks, the system makes the conversational experience as natural as possible, allowing people to speak normally, like they would to another person, without having to adapt to a machine.
Fully Autonomous
The engineers say that the Google Duplex system is capable of carrying out sophisticated conversations and it completes the majority of its tasks fully autonomously, without human involvement. The system has a self-monitoring capability, which allows it to recognize the tasks it cannot complete autonomously (e.g., scheduling an unusually complex appointment). In these cases, it signals to a human operator, who can complete the task.
In an age of “likes”, “friends”, virtual business, “disruption” and automation, it appears there is still room for the genuine steel-bending industrialist with a bold vision, committed to building real assets with genuine ingenuity and innovation.
Perhaps best defined by events that occurred ten years ago today.
A single decade, a BILLION + units, 13 models, 395 sold every minute, 101 million users in the US alone,
Still hard to fathom…
Steve Jobs and Apple launched the iPhone on January 9th 2007.
[ Steve Jobs iPhone Launch January 9th 207 ]As Apple says:
At Macworld 2007 in San Francisco, Steve Jobs introduced the world to iPhone as three products in one — “a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone and a breakthrough internet communications device.” In the ten years since, iPhone has enriched the lives of people around the world with over one billion units sold. It quickly grew into a revolutionary platform for hardware, software and services integration, and inspired new products, including iPad and Apple Watch, along with millions of apps that have become essential to people’s daily lives.
.jpg)
_(8765031426).jpg)