“In our world, we have enough power to topple our most important systems, but not the power to restore most of them…[but] there is still time to restore this well enough to aid fundamental changes in how our societies make decisions, and especially to start to better deal with the large potential systems disasters we face.” – [Alan Kay](http://worrydream.com/EnlightenedImaginationForCitizens/)
This is awesome: [use excess solar power to drive trains uphill](http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/), then let them drive back downhill to generate power when the sun goes down.
I love [the Peloton Series by Harold Braul](https://www.google.com/search?q=peloton+series+harold+braul&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X); dreamy and beautiful.
In an age when all the attention is on rich Silicon Valley people [designing things for each other](http://mashable.com/2014/10/16/startups-for-rich-people/), it’s interesting to read [why the world’s most successful investor lives in Omaha, Nebraska](http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-berkshire-omaha-2012-8):
> Buffett is known for investing in quality businesses that have fallen out of favor with the market, and he said being in Omaha helped him do that.
> “In some places it’s easy to lose perspective. But I think it’s very easy to keep perspective in a place like Omaha,” he said.
> Buffett said being far from Wall Street actually helped him.”It’s very easy to think clearly here. You’re undisturbed by irrelevant factors and the noise generally of business investments…If you can’t think clearly in Omaha, you’re not going to think clearly anyplace.”
I’ve worked with several rich and famous technologists, and I always wonder if their prior success helps or hinders their future efforts. I think it’s a bit of each, but no matter how rich you are, there’s one thing you can’t buy–the groundedness and perspective of life outside the bubble.
I love this–traditional South African negotiating techniques were used to get a climate deal in Paris (and Durban in 2011):
An indaba is designed to allow every party to voice its opinion, but still arrive at a consensus quickly. It works because opinions and arguments can only be aired in a particular way:
Instead of repeating stated positions, each party is encouraged to speak personally and state their “red lines,” which are thresholds that they don’t want to cross. But while telling others their hard limits, they are also asked to provide solutions to find a common ground…
[In Durban in 2011] the South African presidency asked representatives from the main countries to form a standing circle and speak directly to each other.
A South African analyst explains the indaba process in more detail:
The draft text of the agreement is produced (by the chieftaincy, presidency, secretariat, etc. following extensive stakeholder engagement) and circulated. Those in support give automatic approval of the agreement and discussion ensues; those who agree during the discussion are incorporated in the agreement.
Those most affected or with immovable positions (simplified to key disagreement areas) discuss among themselves, arrive at a solution (this is a more facilitated session) and the solution is then incorporated into the wider agreement with changes acceptable to the whole collective – which is easier as everyone was part of the process and changes tend to be superficial, if any.
Interesting that some of its success comes from making the process more intimate and personal–while still keeping guidelines on the format. Hopefully the way we move decision-making forward includes learning from the history of different cultures like this.
> When the Long Now audience of 2515 looks back on the audience of 2015, their level of contempt for how we go about judging political debate will be roughly comparable to the level of contempt we have for the 1692 Salem witch trials. – [Philip Tetlock](http://longnow.org/seminars/02015/nov/23/superforecasting/)
It will be interesting to see–and invent–the ways we do improve political debate.
A nice image from my [Headspace](https://www.headspace.com/) meditation this morning:
Imagine your thoughts as rainbows. They can be inspiring and impressive, but ultimately they’re just an illusion. Look at them from another direction and they disappear; chase after them and you’ll never get any closer. But let go of them and they’ll surprise you with unexpected beauty.
This perspective gives lightness and transience to my undesirable thoughts, while letting me appreciate the nice ones that come naturally.
“In my room, the world is beyond my understanding;
But when I walk I see that it consists of three or four hills and a cloud.” – Wallace Stevens
One of the few pros I raced against when we were juniors, [Danny Pate is coming back to a US team](http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/features/lees-lowdown-danny-pate-lets-talk-about-him/) after years in Europe.
Even as juniors I remember him being more concerned about having fun and being fair on the bike than winning. Glad to see he’s kept that attitude even while racing in a tough time for cycling.
[Neal Stephenson identifies the paradox](http://damiengwalter.com/2014/05/07/nealstephenson/) of a tech-centered society that is attracted to visions of technology failing:
> At the mass-market consumer level, we have a strange state of affairs in which people are eager to vote with their dollars, pounds and Euros for the latest tech but they flock to movies depicting a relentlessly depressing view of the future, and resist any tech deployed on a large scale, in a centralized way, such as wind turbine farms.
Previously: [The impact of the future](http://bob.ryskamp.org/brain/?p=5420)
