Tag Archives: futurologist

The End of the European Union!

What do you get when you mix the British Pound (B£) with the EURO?

Donning the cap of a ‘Futurologist’ and pontificating on such questions, I’ve had great deal of fun over the past two decades. Never one for false humility, I can say I’ve been very good at it. Just look in The New Barbarian Manifesto and you’ll see a number of my successful ‘prognostications.’ I prefer using that word, rather than ‘predictions,’ because of the way I use my crystal ball – I don’t predict the future, I forecast the present. That’s my secret – I spot trends in the near past, and just follow the trajectories. The hints are everywhere, you just have to see them – and for that you must reject orthodox thinking.

“Don’t state the matter plainly, but put it in a hint;
learn to look at all things with a sort of mental squint” (Lewis Carroll).

It helps to be standing on solid philosophical ground, which provides the consistent perspective needed for that mental squint – anyone who has attended my lectures won’t be surprised to learn that my particular guru is Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nietzsche’s one-liners slice across the hypocrisy of the political classes and strikes at the heart of so many issues. Consider: “Many too many are born. The state was devised for the superfluous ones.” This one quotation lies behind my questioning of employment policies. Mass-production methods needed an over-supply of humanity; the Machine Age spawned the nation-state, but with its demise what is to be done with the glut as we enter the Information Age?

Territory in itself is a liability. New Barbarians do not waste resources subsidising large tracts of land filled with rusting industry and populated with the unemployed. To protect their wealth, rich areas will ‘rightsize’, ensuring a high proportion of wealth generating knowledge workers to wealth depleting service workers.

Barbarians will reject the liberal attitudes of the present century. The expanding underclass they have spawned, and the untrained migrants they welcomed previously, are now seen as liabilities.

I have seen the future …. and in that future, democratic government won’t disappear, but its role will be to nurture, propagate and supply the quality human raw material. Democratic government, or any other kind for that matter, is merely the supplier at the bottom end of the value chain that ultimately supplies wealth. This wealth is not the product of labour, but of individual intellect and determination.

The majority of society, the service and production workers, the unemployed and the underclass, are a drain on a region’s economic potential. In the Information Age, governments based on a universal franchise and chosen by this majority are governments elected by losers. The ‘politics of envy’ is suicide, and the ‘will of the people,’ voting for full employment, a minimum wage, and fair(?) taxation, is merely the turkeys voting for Christmas. The big political question of the coming decades is how to find a socially acceptable means of dismantling democracy. Even with strong political leadership this will be an extremely difficult task, but much of the West, with its cast of parliamentary degenerates, hasn’t a hope.

All these pressures fermenting the Information Age will produce new winners and new losers. Where does the European Union sit in all of this? Its outmoded collectivist and bureaucratic institutions, so steeped in the ‘Factory Metaphor’, are incompatible with the aspirations and expectations of the entrepreneurial networks that are creating the New Order of business. European politicians think that all businesses are run for their benefit, to pay for schemes that will buy them votes.

And you will never reduce government expenses, because those expenses have a vote. The European Union is a disaster waiting to happen. I’m not alone in saying that: Alan Greenspan is convinced that the EU is finished unless it finally leaves the Industrial Age and scraps its highly restrictive labour laws. I ask you to contrast the sentimentality of the European Union’s vision of a Socialist “Information Society”, against the hard-edged American Dream of an “Information Economy.” That says it all. The smart money is on the USA. And that’s only for the medium term. The US too will degenerate unless it can revitalise the American Dream. The future lies with China, India, Brazil, and a few ‘Smart Regions.’

The European Union (EU) won’t make the jump from EU to an e-U, but to an e-USSR. The EU is just the USSR with a forty-year time lag.

The European Union is just another collectivist disaster waiting to happen: the USSR with a forty-year time lag – the EU-SSR. The USSR was born in the Russian Revolution in 1917, and died on the Berlin Wall in 1989. The EU was born with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. My prediction for the year of its demise … 2029.

What do you get when you mix the British Pound (B£) with the EURO? A new world currency that will replace the dollar? No! The anagrammatic ROUB£E.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Attribution: http://www.ianangell.com

To e- or not to e-? That is the question

(article originally published in Ambassador magazine)

According to President Pompidou “there are three roads to ruin: gambling, women and technology. Gambling is the quickest, women the most pleasurable, but technology is the most certain.” So, will e-technology lead companies down the road to ruin? Of course not! They may be damned if they do, but they are doubly damned if they don’t. The very fact that computer technology is so diabolical means that this is a time of great opportunity for those who can manage it appropriately.

Companies must look beyond the functionality of computers, beyond the good intentions of the designers, toward the observable consequential risks and opportunities of integrating computers into business. A good e-technology platform, although necessary, is not sufficient for success. Computers can deal with objective well-structured problems, at amazing speed, but they cannot cope with the subjective subtlety, ambiguity and complexity that is the human condition. Success (and failure!) will be determined by unique social, political, organisational, and particularly personal factors.

Our touching faith in e-technology has uncanny parallels with preposterous claims made in the early days of other technologies. X-rays were once considered harmless novelty, used unguarded in shoe shops to check foot size. In its pioneering days, electricity was promoted as a cure for consumption, dysentery, cancer, blindness and worms.

Nothing has changed! We believe that computers increase business potency. Governments and businesses have rushed headlong into a technology binge, believing that lavish spending will ensure success and progress. No expert can appear on television without the ubiquitous microcomputer peeping over his shoulder. The modern manager is obsessed by computerized methods that claim to model the business environment. But there can be no control over a business environment in which nuances of detail, as well as deliberate, accidental and arbitrary actions feed back and continuously modify and amplify, elements, processes and sub-systems within a firm.

It is sheer madness to believe that measurement and computerization will make our world ‘the way it ought to be’. Yet the gullible manager describes his world neatly in networks of boxes, polygons, circles, and arrows; a world controlled by bubbleware. However, ambiguity cannot be resolved into tidy patterns, and jumping onto a band-wagon of methodologies is merely compulsive stress-relief. Hence the business-world is full of insecure managers who, with their organizational charts, mission statements, with battle cries of synergy, management of change, competitive advantage, business process re-engineering, total quality management, data warehousing and data mining, knowledge management, with their tidy minds, they turn firms into … ‘obsessive compulsive neurotics’.

Neurotic firms want to control their world by computerising the arbitrary use of measurement and numbers; with systems analysis, opinion polls, market research, socio-economic classifications, efficiency audits, cost-benefit analyses. They see themselves in control of a better world, achievable through tidy thoughts, implemented by tidy minds, on that icon of tidiness, the computer.

The obsessive, compulsive quest for computerized efficiency views redundant data as human faults, to be corrected in the world of the virtuous machine. Companies throw telephone-number sums into the bottomless money-pit of computerization, and forget Dennis Healey’s warning: “When you’re in a hole, stop digging”. Their brave new world will not be one of ordered and controlled lives, but a rule-based bureaucratic shambles.

Madness! ‘Information Audits’ claim to represent reality within their limited models, and imply that all decisions can be reduced to a form of algorithmic bookkeeping. Such performance measurement is more akin to ‘reading the runes’ than to any legitimate science. Yet this lust for numerical solutions is spreading. Strategy becomes a matter of controlling the future by labelling it with numbers, rather than by continually re-evaluating the uncertain situation.

But “the figures don’t lie!” According to Mark Twain: “It’s not the figures lying, it’s the liars figuring.” Perhaps numbers are lies: instrumental fictions. Numerical models can only ever be a pale shadow of what actually happens, and can never emulate the subtle, and not so subtle, checks and balances and the feedback of unknown and unknowable interactions. They really cannot hope to emulate the infinity of parameters implicit in the systemic risk of ‘being there’.

Underneath all numerical methods is a belief in atomism, in category. However, category is not truth, merely an act of choice. A choice that says it is OK to treat similar things as though they are the same, and then to assume that all comparisons between such data-choices are absolute facts. But all data is context sensitive. “A fact is like a sack. It won’t stand up until you put something in it” (Pirandello).

Whenever anyone tells you that information is good, more information is better, and computerized information is best, reach for the straitjacket. Only neurotics think that e-technology can control the uncertainty implicit in the real world.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Attribution: http://www.ianangell.com