Preventing A Disaster–Or Preparing To Survive One

* A fictional musing somewhat continued from "Divide and Conquer" originally posted in August of 2012, and “Financial Crisis”, originally posted in March of 2008 and inspired after conversations with former senior advisors to multiple Presidents of the United States and senior officers in the US Military. *

In a darkened room lit only by the glare of a collection of large monitors on one wall, two men sat in silence as the flickering images provided an update regarding the state of the planet known as Terra.

And what a tale the monitors told.

Global warming continuing unabated while people argued over whether it was manmade or a natural part of the planet’s cyclical nature.  They argued over prevention when survival would be a better subject for discussion.  Others found a way to profit from promoting panic and fear without providing any solutions.

Wars percolating amongst a species that prided itself on being at its pinnacle in the areas of knowledge, understanding and peace.

Structured religions that didn’t see how they hypocritically violated every precept outlined in their own holy texts as they implored the devout to follow them.

New diseases constantly cropping up with the solution being to create products that solved that problem while creating three new problems instead of eliminating the root cause of the disease in the first place.

Poverty and hunger in a world that discards as trash, more than the destitute need to lift them out of their condition.

Government agencies around the planet whose laws are so self-contradictory to the principles that the respective countries were founded upon and whose spending habits would be decried as unsustainable and suicidal if any business or individual adopted similar practices.

And a planet hell-bent on shouting and screaming at each other instead of recognizing that respectful collaboration and dialogue provided the solution to every problem that Terra faced.

It was all good, proceeding exactly as planned.

Almost.

The first of the two men spoke softly, not taking his eyes off the monitors.

“How long do you think this charade can continue before the Terrans figure out what’s going on?”

“What do you mean?”, replied his colleague.

The first man continued. “How long do you think it will be before the Terrans realize that their governments around the planet have no ability to solve the problems in the world and then discover that their governments are not only not trying to solve the problems but in fact are intentionally allowing them to happen?”

His colleague nodded silently but said nothing, motioning for the first man to continue his line-of-thought.

“After all”, said the first man, “Our plans will not be brought to fruition if Terrans discover that their governments exist to placate them, keep them calm and keep them so off-balance that they don’t have time to think.  In fact, the sole role their governments fill is the role of positive public relations – “eat, drink and be happy while we solve all your problems”.  In addition, our strategy to use consumption as a means of keeping them placated has run its course as they exhaust their financial and planetary resources.  When they are no longer able to consume at the levels we need them to, their governments will lose the ability to control them and in turn, our influence over these governments will diminish.”

“What are you suggesting?”, asked his colleague.

“I’m not sure”, replied the first man, frowning. “If they discover that the momentum of what is developing on Terra cannot and will not be stopped but that hope for them lies in preparing for and surviving the aftermath, they may discover a solution that we had not anticipated”.

“In that case”, replied his colleague, “we will need to accelerate our efforts.  Surely it shouldn’t be that difficult to escalate a few wars, introduce a few more contradictory opinions to confuse them and instigate a few more causes to further weaken their so-called morals and values”.

The first man laughed and then, chuckling, said “You are right, as always.  I had forgotten that Terrans are in fact their own worst enemy.  Once again I give them too much credit to be able to solve their own problems.”

His colleague paused and then replied, “This is true for the most part.  However, there are still some holdouts who can make a difference and who can adversely impact our intentions.  But even they won’t matter soon enough”.

The first man smiled silently …. and they both turned their attention back to the monitors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2012 – Harry Tucker – All Rights Reserved

The Boy Who Cried Wolf And Our Future

Authorities announced today that the “Internet Doomsday” virus that allegedly infected thousands of PCs (or millions according to some “experts”) and which would prevent them from accessing the Internet has failed to produce little of any threat or impact.

Some say that it was because of the attention brought to the situation that allowed us to solve it before it became a problem.

Unfortunately, when I asked for proof of such claims, I haven’t received any credible, verifiable explanations.

As usual, our media has overhyped the latest threat du jour beyond the fear scale commensurate with the threat.

The problem with the media doing this is that as each new problem facing the world gets overhyped, we get a little bit more desensitized to real issues that are developing all around us.

We’re Always Facing an Imminent Disaster

In the 50’s and 60’s, nuclear war threatened us at every turn and we were taught the ever so useful “duck and cover”.

Remember the energy crisis in the 70’s?  We were taught in elementary school in the 70’s that oil would be gone within 10 years and that a doomsday energy scenario loomed in front of us.  Scary stuff for 8 year old kids.

In the early 80’s, we were taught that our global food usage would exhaust all natural sources of protein within 10 years and that the only steak we would enjoy would be made from soybeans.

In the 90’s and up to the present, some promote the belief that terrorists exist at every corner and that the billions (or trillions if you factor in military action) being spent have actually protected us from an infinite number of planned attacks and thus have saved thousands or tens of thousands of lives as a result.

Experts predicted that Y2K would cause our energy production systems to shut off, bank systems to fail, planes to fall out of the sky and our nuclear weapons to launch by accident.

Some “global warming experts”, including Al Gore, have said that global warming will leave NYC under several feet of water.

Every time a new flu season rolls around, we are told that THIS is the year that we will be decimated if we don’t get a flu shot.

And now we have dodged the bullet of not being able to access the Internet.  Facebook users around the world are breathing a sigh of relief.

Some Useful Prevention is Occurring

Don’t get me wrong.

I do believe that some preventative actions have been successful.  Some systems were saved from disaster during the Y2K situation.  Some terrorists have been prevented from conducting attacks.  Deaths and the spread of contagion on a crippling scale have been partially prevented through the use of flu vaccines.

However, my vehicle still burns gasoline that is widely available, the steak I enjoy is still not made from soybeans and NYC is not in immediate danger of becoming the new Venice.

That is NOT to say that we shouldn’t be alert to the potential for challenges in these and other areas and the need for solutions to address them.  They are just not threatening to derail us “tomorrow” and therefore we have the time needed to find solutions to these and other issues if we methodically approach each challenge.

We just don’t have the will or the interest on a global scale.

There’s a big difference but that’s not what the media promotes.

When we focus on the fear surrounding these issues instead of focusing on them as just challenges that need to be overcome, then we will continue to crush our brain with unnecessary negativity or pressure, spend inordinate amounts of money that we don’t have in a manner that far exceeds the nature of the threat that is being resolved or embrace incorrect solutions that are a waste of time and resources.

And when we do that repeatedly and on an ever-increasing “fear-focused” scale, then we will not be prepared when the REAL problem arrives.

In fact, we will probably ignore the warnings (or the messengers) totally until it is too late or as if often the case lately, spend our time yelling at each other while the clock ticks down.

And so whose fault will it be when we find ourselves in real trouble?

Will it be the fault of the media that exists to sell entertainment instead of knowledge and facts?

Will it be the fault of groups who sell fear because it is useful to keep people in line or to get them to consume things?

Will it be the fault of governments who sell misinformation to redirect our attention from the many issues that they are unable to solve despite their election promises to the contrary.

Or will it be our own fault for failing to ask for specific, objective data that allows us to make informed decisions instead of allowing someone else’s intentions or actions to direct how we should feel and respond?

There are things in our future that will require our undivided attention to address on a global scale.

Unfortunately, it will be difficult to solve these things if we are emotionally, physically and financially exhausted from every cry of wolf that we get wrapped up in today.

Putting It In Perspective

We don’t get in our car fearing that we will die in a fireball on the nearest highway.

We don’t go to a restaurant assuming that this hamburger is the one that will give us a heart attack or stroke.

We don’t fear walking outside in case that killer asteroid has our number on it.

We don’t fall asleep thinking that the person sleeping next to us is going to slice our throat as we sleep.

So why should we feel fear just because someone tells us that our demise is imminent and therefore we must be very afraid.

Such fear doesn’t promote solutions.

It promotes anger, distrust, waste and paralysis.

And that is NOT what the world needs today.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum – July 9, 2012:

Here’s what I mean about sticking to facts.  I received an email from a reader citing a CNN article entitled “Officials: Past 12 Months warmest ever for U.S.” as proof that global warming is about to doom us.

If the reader had read the article, they would have seen this line inside the article (underline emphasis is mine):

The mainland United States, which was largely recovering Monday from a near-nationwide heat wave, has experienced the warmest 12-month period since record-keeping began in 1895.

“Since 1895 “is not the same as “ever” as indicated in the headline.

If the reader studied the history of the earth, they would know that during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which occurred between 5000 and 9000 years ago, the average temperatures in some parts of the world were 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer on average than they are today with MUCH LESS Arctic ice present then than there is today.  There have been other periods identified as warmer in the history of the earth as well.

So the temperatures today are not the first time they have occurred on the earth.

Am I trying to make a case that global warming is not happening or that we aren’t contributing to it?

Not at all.

I’m just suggesting that we stick with the facts and stay away from hyperbole.  In the case for global warming, it is only when we do this that we can truly understand the causes of the current changes in the earth, learn how to separate our contribution from natural causes and know the difference between preventing it (if possible without making a bigger mess of things) and living with it if current changes are unstoppable.

As the character Joe Friday once said on Dragnet:

“Just the facts”.

Global Warming–A New Approach Needed

I was listening to David Suziki’s daughter Severn Cullis-Suzuki talk about the intentions at the UN Earth Summit currently being held in Rio and her thoughts regarding the Rio Summit from 20 years ago and something interesting popped out.

Two intriguing sound bites from the interview, which can be found here, spoke volumes to me  as a strategy guy (approximate locations within the video shown for reference).

2:35 We haven't even come close to achieving the sustainable transition that we knew we needed then

3:10 We don't know how to fix the problems we are creating

As a business strategy guy, if someone tells me 20 years into a project that we don’t know how to fix the problems we are creating, I would have to ask the obvious questions:

1. Is the problem solvable?

2. If not, why are we doing it anyway?  Are there alternative solutions or fall-back plans?

3. If it is solvable, why does the solution continue to evade us? How do we adjust our execution to find and implement the solution?

In the business world, when a deadline is imposed because of regulatory, financial, strategic, tactical or plain old survival reasons, we rarely have the luxury of randomly executing with the hope that we will accidentally land on the solution prior to the deadline.

We execute, review our results-to-date, adjust our execution (and the expectations of those involved) and continue to execute.  Occasionally, difficult questions need to be asked which may mean killing the initiative.

Unfortunately in this scenario, according to global warming experts failure is not an option and that the time for solutions is NOW. This means that killing the initiative is not an option and that every passing day without a solution brings us closer to the abyss.

So if the sense of urgency is there, why do we continue to do the same things 20 years later while lamenting how much closer to “the edge” we are getting?

With a track record of little success in 20 years, the situation is obvious that the means of execution must change, including possibly adjusting the approach from prevention to how to thrive in a post-global warming scenario (or finding a strategy that implements both, with the latter being the Plan B scenario).

Otherwise, if we continue to do the same things repeatedly and don’t see the results we seek, Einstein’s Law of Insanity rules.

And in this case, failure will be the inevitable result.  Unfortunately, if the global warming advocates are correct, such failure will exceed our worst nightmare.

In business, we change our approach and our expectations when the desired results aren’t being produced.

I wonder why, 20 years into a project, the global warming advocates don’t do the same.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum: June 22, 2012

To prove my point, CBC just posted this article:

Rio+20 earth summit concludes with few commitments - countries agree to develop long-term sustainability goals - but without timelines

As most of us know, goals without timelines usually produce little of significance, especially when it comes to bureaucrats who like to avoid measurable objectives in the first place.

It reminds me of an unnamed source at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 who said that a positive result of the Copenhagen Summit was that the representatives had pledged to talk more moving forward.

Exactly … to talk more.

<Yawn>

It is difficult to balance alleged “urgent needs” against vague commitments without timelines.

Unless the sense of urgency is not as real as people claim.

Perhaps I should get some government grants to travel to a few of these summits on the backs of taxpayers.  Maybe then I will “see the light” when it comes to the reason and value of these summits. :-)

Addendum 2: June 22, 2012

Then there is this little ditty reported today: Green Drivel: The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

Addendum 3: June 24, 2012

Gwynne Dyer’s article, Rio+20: Vengeance Too Long Delayed, sums up the failure of the conference perfectly.  The following quote reiterates what I noted about how a different approach is needed in order to produce results:

The 49-page final declaration of Rio+20 contained the verb “reaffirm” 59 times. In effect, some 50,000 people from 192 countries traveled to Rio de Janeiro to “reaffirm” what was agreed there twenty years ago.