Several years ago I was asked to offer my input to a
scenario planning workshop for a large family office in the U.S. During the presentation, I suggested that
geopolitical risk had a few flashpoints that would be worth watching. I referred to these as the “Archduke
Ferdinand’s Bullet” referring to the assassination which certainly contributed
to the violence that escalated into World War I. The one that I said had the highest
consequential risk was the shipping lines stretching from the Straits of
Malacca to the South China Sea. This
region, unlike any other, is responsible for much of the energy and container
traffic for the world’s largest trading partners. An LNG tanker explosion, a “friendly fire”
salvo gone wrong, and the Asia Pacific powder keg could ignite due to the
absence of regional resilience.
Several days ago, a U.S. naval vessel passed within 12
nautical miles of an innocuous island claimed by China and situated in the
South China Sea. To be sure, the U.S.
Navy did NOT need to be there. There’s a
big ocean and passage into and through territorial distributes is not the
exercise of a maritime right, it’s a provocation. And with all of the conflicts raging across
the world, a logical presumption would be that we might do well to minimize our
willingness to inflame relatively pacified situations. Do Vietnam, Japan and others have legitimate
concerns regarding China’s interpretation of maps? Quite possibly as maps are capricious in the
first place and no entity has the universally recognized map of the world’s
land masses and jurisdictional boundaries.
Which made me pause and ask the question: given the abject stupidity of the Navy’s
choice of passage, what else is going on for which this event would serve as a
distraction?
We have religious factions unraveling the delicate, war-torn
communities of Afghanistan and Iraq. We
have massive food, water and conflict refugees desperately seeking respite from
carnage in Syria. We’re watching as
Venezuela may be about to implode under that persistent economic challenges
from the depressed petro-dollar based economy it’s built. We know that the Arabian Peninsula is
teetering on the brink of massive social inequality-fueled regime change – more
French revolution than French enlightenment if you get my drift. A few days ago, I had the good fortune of
meeting with representatives of the government of Papua New Guinea and heard
the futility in voices who have long sought just participation in the resource
extraction from their country only to know that a select few officials are
willfully or ignorantly mismanaging these assets. Consumption is down in the minerals
sector. Companies are shifting
headquarters to tax havens as they continue to extract infrastructure value
from their actual home country. We’re
looking just over the horizon to Christmas season which will, in its muted
performance, give us the opportunity to see exactly how bad consumer confidence
is.
Dystopian trajectories are epidemic all around us. The models of human interaction that have
been deployed over the past 400 years have born their blighted fruit and, in
the main, this is the generation shouldering the indictment on the Occidental
epistemological order. There are, in my
estimation, several generalizable factors of the entropic conclusion of this
human experiment.
As I state in my documentary Future Dreaming, one of
these is the concept of dominion. The idea that anything or anyone is “over”
anything or anyone else is a fallacy that results in immeasurable harm. The religious narrative that places a god
“over” the created order is palatable only in the corollary illusion that “man”
is entitled to have dominion over everything else. From divine rights justifying autocracies to
our most intimate interactions between men and women in which “my” serves to
reify linear possession, our behavior indicts our abject failure to see the
natural order as absolutely interdependent and covalently linked in energetic
exchange. And the immoral justification
of patronage in which benevolence to the “lower” absolves the “higher” of their
tyranny is not appropriate even if the benevolence is absolute. For in it, the perspective of one forms the
context for the other and the “lord’s” context and motivation is opaque.
An additional systemic failure is enclosure. From the Adamic
myth of naming all the flora and fauna in Eden to property laws to accounting,
the presumption that life requires boundaries is anathema to all natural
systems. In classic Nordic folklore, the
Milky Way or Linnunrata (the light
path) was thought to guide bird migrations to and from nesting grounds. The birds were not thought to “own” the Milky
Way but simply use it as their guide.
Edges, boundaries, enclosures and the like – whether defined by fiat or
consensus – create separation and separation reinforces scarcity. We can see this cancer throughout our entire
social order. “My” or “mine” not only
implies ownership or dominion of or over a thing but it too has an ugly
corollary – digital choice. Choice is heralded as a valued human
ideal but within it is, all too often, the implication of a rejection of the other. From which laundry detergent to use to which
restaurant to select to how to vote, our social behavior sees choice of one
person or one thing as an explicit rejection of all others. Without enclosure in the illusion of time or
space, choice could be seen as temporal selection in a moment or for a utility
where all other expression, options, or opportunities preserve all attributes
of availability in all other moments.
But we don’t live that way. By
selecting a house or a job, we have cut off other options for shelter and
purposeful action. By selecting a
relationship, we are thought to deprioritize all others. In a world that celebrates “choice”, we force
the illusion that one dimension of value leading to prioritization is somehow
predominant over all other dimensions.
And finally, digital. I was fortunate to be invited to speak at the
International Day Traders Association conference in Gold Coast Australia a week
ago and return for a speaking engagement for the Big Blue Sky Event a few
days later. I was amazed at the
ubiquitous intrusion of “digital” in much of the discourse. Once again, we can barely detect this memetic
absolute. When we don’t like something,
we “change” it. But unfortunately, we
don’t specify with any precision that which we find revolting and the
attributes of what better would be.
Things are “right” or “wrong”, “functional” or “dysfunctional” but the
use of digital thinking (like choice referenced above) means that we can only
see momentary state conditions in a macro sense without discerning the subtle
nuance that makes all things a composition of all phases and states in subtle
variation. I spoke about the reflexive
acceptance and rejection of models of behavior and planning which fail to fully
understand the illusions within the stories we are told and used examples like
the Third Reich’s contribution to Silicon Valley and the Occupy Wall Street
response to Chicago’s CDS trading market to show that digital and causal
reflexive response is NOT thinking. It’s
reacting. And reacting is seldom, if
ever, fully conscious.
Overlay these epistemologies on the growing conflicts in the
Middle East, South America and the Asia Pacific region and there’s no surprise
that the South China Sea is boiling. We
are a common humanity not only divided by our language but equally incapable of
integrating and evidencing our capacity to live in a heterogeneous, infinitely
orthogonal perspective that is isomorphic with Reality. And while we may feel incompetent to deal
with the geopolitical audacities of systemic failures, we can, in these
moments, treat each other with greater grace and mercy. We can seek to understand rather than
judge. We can seek to inquire rather
than project. We can triangulate
perspectives and, in so doing, achieve a more considered existence. And if we begin that journey in our immediate
fields, we can foster an expanding dynamic that, like the Sun, warms the field
around us and gradually illumines a path to a more complete human
experience.