|
|
Monday, March 31, 2003
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jared Diamond writes: What is the best way to organize human groups and human organizations and businesses so as to maximize productivity, creativity, innovation, and wealth? Should your human group have a centralized direction, in the extreme having a dictator, or should there be diffuse or even anarchical organization? Should your collection of people be organized into a single group, or broken off into a number of groups, or broken off into a lot of groups? Should you maintain open communication between your groups, or erect walls between them, with groups working more secretly? Should you erect protectionist tariff walls against the outside, or should you expose your business or government to free competition? These questions about group organization arise at many different levels and for many types of groups. They arise, of course, about the organization of entire governments or countries: what is the best way to govern a country? Remember the classic arguments about whether the best government is a benign dictatorship, or a federal system, or an anarchical free-for-all. The same questions also rise about the organization of different companies within the same industry. How can you account for the fact that Microsoft has been so successful recently, and that IBM, which was formerly successful, fell behind but then drastically changed its organization over the last four years and improved its success? How can we explain the different successes of what we call different industrial belts? When I was a boy growing up in Boston, Route 128, the industrial belt around Boston, led the industrial world in scientific creativity and imagination. But Route 128 has fallen behind, and now Silicon Valley is the center of innovation. And the relations of businesses to each other in Silicon Valley and Route 128 are very different, possibly resulting in those different outcomes. ... Obviously, the answers to these questions about the different success of organizations partly depend upon idiosyncracies of individuals. The success of Microsoft must have something to do with Bill Gates. If an idiot were in command of Microsoft, then however superior Microsoft's organization, Microsoft would be unlikely to be a successful business. But nevertheless one can still ask , all other things being equal, or else in the long run, or else on the average, what form of organization of human groups is best? I'm sure that there are many of you here who are involved with businesses that would like to know the answer to that question. I propose to try to learn from human history. Human history over the last 13,000 years comprises tens of thousands of different experiments. Each human society represents a different natural experiment in organizing human groups. Human societies have been organized very differently, and the outcomes have been very different. Some societies have been much more productive and innovative than others. What can we learn from these natural experiments of history that will help us all get rich? I propose to go over two batches of natural experiments that will give you insights into how to get rich. (03/31/03) | |
|
|
|
Carole Tashel writes: In 1996, twenty-six imaginative, spirited people gather together in Santa Fe, New Mexico, each month with a clearly defined committment: to take concrete actions, large and small, to live more lightly on this earth (i.e., to use less resources and pollute less). They are using some innovative tools to achieve their goals. This group grew slowly and organically out of a series of much smaller meetings dating back to 1991. Various combinations of friends wondered, with some urgency, what to do about the state of the planet. The news seemed to be getting steadily worse: global warming, pollution, acid rain, degraded natural systems, and on and on. Unflinchingly, we looked at the part we played in the over-consumption (so common in rich countries) which feeds these problems. We called ourselves "Sustainable Presence," set our upper limit at 30 members, and defined our vision: 1) To take personal responsibility to make changes in our private lives which benefit the environment and conserve resources, ultimately enriching the Santa Fe area. 2) To create a presence in the community which might inspire others to launch their own experiments in sustainable living. 3) Within our group, to share knowledge and resources, to learn new skills, and to nurture trust and effective communication. 4) To form our own cooperative loan fund to facilitate major purchases which could make a real difference in an individual's energy and resource use. 5) To have a hell of a good time doing all of the above. ... So what does all this add up to? Hopefully, a powerful antidote to frustration and despair, in the face of enormous problems. Even if you're an urban renter, you could craft a similar plan for creating sustainability and mutual support in your community. Don't be surprised, though, if you find yourself swept up in the momentum of grassroots movement toward the goals we all long for. (03/31/03) | |
|
|
|
This information-packed Web site contains all the fuel-efficiency information you were looking for but didn't know where to find. The site's “Fuel Economy Guide” features fuel-economy, emissions, and safety data for new and used cars and trucks, as well as fuel-saving tips for drivers who are looking to go the extra mile. The guide can be downloaded in PDF format. The Web site also includes gas-mileage tips and information on gasoline prices and vehicle safety. Use the site's "Find a Car" tool to compare new and used cars and trucks according to gas mileage, greenhouse gas emissions, air-pollution ratings, and safety records. In the FAQ section, learn how fuel-economy ratings are awarded. In addition, explore the latest developments in hybrid vehicles, alternative-fuel vehicles, and fuel cell technology. The site also features backgrounders on how the current U.S. tax code promotes fuel efficiency. (03/31/03) | |
|
|
|
Environmental Investors Network is the Internet's first (and possibly only) socially responsible investment search engine. Its portal profiles private and public companies, which have environmental or other socially responsible technologies, products or services and mutual funds with SRI holdings, which benefit the planet and Mankind and disseminates late-breaking socially responsible news releases. (03/31/03) | |
|
|
|
New York Times: Book Review -- In A DANGEROUS PLACE: California's Unsettling Fate byMarc Reisner, we are told: Robber barons by the names of Harrison Gray Otis and William Mulholland manufactured a city where not even your conventional garden-variety civilizing impulse would have thought to put one, so far is L.A. from any significant reserve of usable water, something Reisner documents exactingly. The existence of San Francisco and its surround is only marginally more justifiable -- there is in ''A Dangerous Place'' the usual Northern Californian presumption of social and cultural superiority -- built as so much of it is on land created out of marsh and water, protected by old levees. Reisner compares it to Jell-O in a hot frying pan. Here, then, are the crosshairs of doom: little readily available drinking water and a geology of pudding; and the names of these crosshairs are the Hayward Fault -- ''an offspring of the Mother of California faults, the San Andreas'' -- and the Delta, where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers come together, east of the Bay Area. Halfway through ''A Dangerous Place,'' Reisner pulls the trigger. The book turns into a work of apocalyptic fiction set on the final day of February in the year 2005, when the Hayward Fault, running from somewhere 25 miles north of Berkeley and Oakland down to Silicon Valley, slices in two the Delta's supply of water to 20 million Californians all over the state. This isn't a disaster, it's a cataclysm. As a piece of dramatic narrative the book isn't as persuasive, in part because the emotional responses of the main character (the author himself) are a little banal, even pulpish -- ''It takes two or three seconds to sink in: an earthquake! An earthquake! AN EARTHQUAKE! . . . An epiphany dawns: This is it! The One!'' -- compared to the stupefying immensity of what's happening. But then, whose reaction would measure up? The conspiracies of earth and future may have a scope and imagination few of us can comprehend. More than this, however, for all the horror of what he envisions, Reisner can't help betraying -- there lurking between his lines -- a grim sense of satisfaction at what (one suspects) he really considers seismic retribution and the earth's fitting payback, as bridges tumble, highways are ripped asunder and thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands die while those who don't are confronted by the prospect of thirsting to death. (03/31/03) | |
|
|
|
BUZZ/FLASH.com -- I put the flag in my lapel tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15. So what's this flag doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo -- the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. And during the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's Little Red Book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread. (03/31/03) | |
|
|
|
New York Times: Science -- A common industrial chemical used to produce Teflon might pose health risks for young girls and women of childbearing age, an internal report by the Environmental Protection Agency has found. ... The chemical, which is part of a family known as perfluorochemicals, plays a key role in materials that are widely used in the aerospace, transportation and electronics industries. A chemical related to C-8, used in the fabric protector Scotchgard, was voluntarily pulled from production by the company in 2000 under pressure from the E.P.A. Since then, 3M has ceased production of perfluorochemicals. DuPont, which had been a longtime customer of 3M's C-8, began producing it in Fayetteville, N.C., and uses it in a number of factories around the country. Studies have shown that C-8 accumulates in the blood of workers and in the general population because it takes a long time to break down. The highest levels found among general populations are comparable to the lowest levels found among workers. (03/31/03) | |
|
|
|
WIRED Magazine -- How much money? How about the amount spent to put a man on the moon: $100 billion in today's dollars. With that investment, the nation could shift the balance of power from foreign oil producers to US energy consumers within a decade. By 2013, a third of all new cars sold could be hydrogen-powered, 15 percent of the nation's gas stations could pump hydrogen, and the US could get more than half its energy from domestic sources, putting independence within reach. All that's missing is a national commitment to make it happen. It'd be easy - too easy - to misspend $100 billion. So the White House needs a plan. The strategy must take advantage of existing infrastructure and strengthen forces propelling the nation toward hydrogen while simultaneously removing obstacles. There are five objectives: 1) Solve the hydrogen fuel-tank problem. 2) Encourage mass production of fuel cell vehicles. 3) Convert the nation's fueling infrastructure to hydrogen. 4) Ramp up hydrogen production. 5) Mount a public campaign to sell the hydrogen economy. By pursuing all five at once, the government can create a self-sustaining cycle of supply and demand that gains momentum over the coming decade and supplants the existing energy market in the decades that follow. Rather than waiting to build a hydrogen infrastructure from scratch, the US can start building the new fuel economy immediately by piggybacking on existing petroleum-based industries. Once customers are demanding and producers are supplying, there will be time to create a cleaner, more efficient hydrogen-centric infrastructure that runs on market forces alone. (03/31/03) | |
4:04:49 AM 
|
|
|
|
© TrustMark
2003
Timothy Wilken.
Last update:
4/1/2003; 5:17:07 AM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves
(blue) Manila theme. |
|
|
