Let’s see, fellow humans, how is this going to go down? Probably something like this. A trained professional in a windowless room
in Hawaii was tracking an out-going flight while bringing another flight
in. Small screens in front of the
controller’s face were lit up with simple icons slowly blipping their way
across the display. This two dimensional
representation of multidimensional data was designed by interface engineers
that were encouraged to simplify complex data into ‘intuitive’ forms. And, without deep consideration, two blips
were heading towards each other while dozens of other blips were meandering
about the screen. “Maintain Flight Level
3-3-0,” was instinctive instruction spoken by the controller between multiple
other instructions to other planes in the vicinity. And, at the point the planes careened past
each other, they were about 8.09 seconds and 800 ft away from vaporizing each
other. They didn’t.
I was flying across the same Pacific Ocean this week and got
to see the puzzling reality of the frequent passing of planes in remarkably
close proximity given the vastness of the firmament. Keeping things simple, it seems, includes
increasing the likelihood that we’ll crash.
But simplicity is to be favored?
Perplexing me all the way across the same ocean was the
conversation that sent me on my way from Papua New Guinea this week. Through a cunning manipulation of one number,
KPMG aided Bougainville Copper Ltd - owned by Rio Tinto – in calculating
investment returns due landowners for compensation due them since 1990. Using an investment return rate (PNG
Treasuries) that was never used in the PwC-audited performance reporting of Rio
Tinto or Bougainville Copper Ltd, these companies have conspired to seduced
cash-starved landowners into settling for less than 1/10 of the appropriate
investment returns made by the companies themselves. And by appropriate, I mean the actual,
audited investment returns made by Rio Tinto on their own cash investment and
their own publicly traded equity. After
all, in a country where one third of the population lives on less than an
equivalent of $1.25 per day, getting a $275 / per capita pay day sounds like a
lot! But not collecting the actual,
audited investment amount due (nearly 1% of the nation’s effective GDP) puts
this conflict-torn land in line for another predictable collision with the same
civil war and violence that’s visited its shores several times in the past 50
years. And in response to this
information, senior officials expressed concern that, “if the public found out
about this, there’d be an uprising or civil unrest.” You think?
Like the NTSB and FAA, the response to a simple oversight made in
ignorance leads to an impulse to decrease visibility.
It has occurred to me that the axiomatic “knowledge economy”
taxonomy may have more sinister truth than hyperbole entwined in its
warping. We live in a time in which information
asymmetry competes only with active disinformation as a means of
disproportionately advancing the interests of the few at the expense of the
many. It’s not knowledge that we
transact in the economy but rather our systems celebrate the predation on what’s
not known as a means to advantage.
The “free” nature of the internet leads millions to place
their personal lives in the public view for the benefit of “social” networking. Yet this ingenious seduction (even
post-Snowden when revealed to be what some of us have always known and pointed
out to a massive hypnotized audience) is a phenomenally cost-effective way for
agencies of power to collect information that would never be released if its
true aggregators were known. It’s not
the knowledge economy. It’s an economy
in which knowledge of what’s knowable or find-out-able is the easy path to
wealth redistribution and appropriation.
And to add insult to injury, well-meaning people who
actually attempt to call attention to the self-evident collisions on the radar
are told to simplify their message so that it can be consumed by the tedious masses. So here it is. Really simply.
Planes can collide and go missing when complex modes of
transportation are reduced to blips on a screen. They’re vehicles of mass-transportation with
lots of people on board. They need to be
more carefully stewarded and the lives on board need to be valued enough to
monitor their movements.
Defrauding the public using the guise of
internationally-branded auditors and advisors and using slogans like, “development
that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs,” sews the seeds today for violence and
revolt tomorrow.
Assuming that communication over “free” networks isn’t being
observed by the people who are actually paying for the network is
ludicrous. And when they’ve gotten what
they want, they’ll take it down. So,
building “sustainable communities” in virtual space is oxymoronic. If you want to be in a persistent
relationship, you need to be persistently relating in analog space.
We don’t need midair collisions, civil unrest and revolts,
and privacy intrusions to prove the fallacy of simplifying that which is
inherently complex. And we don’t need to
pick “the important” fact in isolation when the wisdom only occurs in
multi-perspectival discernment. A star
does not aid in navigation. Stars in
relative position locate us with precision.
It’s time that we opened the aperture of our perspectives, challenge
ourselves to deeply expand our awareness and sensitivity, and embrace the fact
that knowledge may be born of our reconnecting with others who know what we don’t
so that we too can avoid the collisions that are entirely knowable, known, and
in certain instances, entirely engineered.
Embrace the complicated because therein is the essence of living!
.
I identified with this article in thinking about some of the more public actions I have taken in the past, perhaps on the more QT (quiet), to avoid outside comment, mostly criticisms, but never involving important money or life issues.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "The “free” nature of the internet leads millions to place their personal lives in the public view for the benefit of “social” networking. Yet this ingenious seduction (even post-Snowden when revealed to be what some of us have always known and pointed out to a massive hypnotized audience) is a phenomenally cost-effective way for agencies of power to collect information that would never be released if its true aggregators were known. It’s not the knowledge economy. It’s an economy in which knowledge of what’s knowable or find-out-able is the easy path to wealth redistribution and appropriation."
Who are these, "agencies of power" and the true "aggregators"?
What are they using their economy of knowledge for?
How are they using this aggregated information to amass, appropriate and redistribute our wealth?
pt 1. cont.
pt 2.
ReplyDeleteIn a minor sense, I completely understand your point. Many years ago, I always said that companies should ask people, like me, my opinion, what I want and what I need in their products. Well, it seems that they have and the more they know about what I want and need, the more it costs me! Slyly they inquire, tell us what you really want so we can package it for you, -in ways most profitable to us!
For one price, I used to be able to buy a lamp with a shade. Someone along the way told probably told them that the flexibility to have a choice of mixing and matching lamp bases and shades would be lovely, so now they are sold separately, which considerably raises the total price. Look at what's happened to television and all the companies separate packaging and pricing schematics. It's the same with phones companies and their packages! And just TRY to compare different phone or cable company's packages against each other, the creative little buggers have ever so craftily mutually engineered corporate obfuscation! It has been designed to be virtually impossible. One cannot straight up compare apples to apples within these companies. Most of us waste very little of our precious time before we throw our hands up in frustration and disgust, signing on the dotted line.
I always take time to inform the management of my displeasure at their huge marketing ads laminated on the grocery store floors, which I consider dangerous because visually it suddenly appears that I am about to trip over something previously unnoticed.
I have also informed them of my displeasure at their newly installed tv's, sometimes 4-6 per aisle, blaring ads in the groceries aisles that I refuse to go down even if I needed something on that aisle.
I have informed them of my displeasure at gas stations where there are tv's newly installed at every gas pump, an un-synchronized cacophony, droning their BLARING ads at us captives loudly over traffic, where we are helpless to either turn them off, or even just down.
In short order, I discovered that the grocery floor ads were scrapped off and the blaring tv's discreetly removed as well from the aisles. I haven't run into an exploding tv population at gas stations either, but I'm not sure of the state of that issue.
I always preface my displeasure with, "I would like to share my opinion with you and I say this with a loving heart ..." I have always been very graciously received. I'm sure these changes are not due to my "loving heart" informing them alone, but who knows?!
I have also wised up about being more discreet about informing them what I want from products. Oh, and I stopped answering those surveys long ago!
Regarding the public space, I wonder do you have any more positive coping suggestions for us? Unless of course, my experience when I share my "loving heart" is a small case in point, but I do mean more online though!
A very interesting perspective, thanks for writing this, David!