There is a lack of appreciation for old technologies that we use everyday. Two examples are mail and checks. Both systems are incredibly easy to use and arguably far easier than their electronic counter parts (just ask someone over 50).

Imagine this crazy idea: you drop an item in a red box, with a handwritten address and a small fee and it will be reliably delivered nearly anywhere in the world. Yes, email is great, but delivering physical objects around the world in a timely, affordable and reliable fashion is even more impressive. On top of that, it has been argued that the penny post was a major contributor to the industrial revolution.

Checks are a nutty idea too. Take some liquid dye (pen), apply it in a pattern (words) on a piece of paper, and boom, you just transferred money. This is far easier than transferring via Paypal, and there are fewer fees attached.

Too quickly we write off the amazing accomplishments of the past to make way for the shiny new toy that the neighbour just got.

As Kevin Kelly pointed out, old technology rarely dies completely, and there is a reason for that: it usually does what it does really well.

With the hyper-active behaviour surrounding Copenhagen this year, climate-gate, and the failed climate change bills in the US and Australia; it might be time to take some perspective on our situation as a species and global warming as a problem. We are destroying the planet, but not in the way you might think. Global warming is a serious issue that threatens countries and people, but it is a superficial, easy to solve and a fundamentally materialistic problem.

Global warming is caused by the overconsumption of fossil fuels, used for the transportation and production of goods and services. Therefore, the solution is quite simple – reduce our use of fossil fuels. Global warming is a secondary level problem. When you steal an item off a store shelf, you are directly committing an immoral act and harming another person. When you burn a barrel of oil, you are indirectly harming people, but the indirectness reduces the level of immorality you might feel. Global warming is a secondary issue, it is therefore not as significant on the moral scale of crimes.

Global warming and other environmental issues are external to ourselves, while they might affect us and be our fault, they are manifestations of our failure as a society, not the actual problem.

In fact, there are much more pressing issues to solve.  In 2010, there are over 26 million slaves in the world, nine hundred thousand women are raped every year, over six million people are behind bars, and over 200 million children are abused while working every year. To these people, pollution, global warming and other middle class issues could not be more remote. Slavery, inequality, and poverty are fundamental problems of society – pollution is a consequence.  A doctor always strives to treat the source of a sickness, not simply mask the symptoms. We need to attack the root of the problem.

To tackle global warming, we must fist address the underlying issues that plague our society. Not only  is it morally urgent to address human suffering, it is also beneficial to the overall improvement of the environment. Let me be perfectly clear, you cannot put a price on human suffering and life and you can therefore not equate carbon reductions with a child slave. Priorities matter. Therefore, it follows that we should first address the issues with the greatest moral weight and and largest potential dividend.

Some will say that we need to tackle all these items – global warming, women’s rights, slavery, etc. But resources are finite and even more limited is the ability to keep the public engaged on an issue. As an example, contrast the fundraising results during large natural catastrophes such as the Haiti earthquake or Asian Tsunami with the average fundraising efforts. It therefore follows that we should focus on the items that have the largest moral potential first. I cannot conscientiously ask for money for carbon credits when our fellow humans are in such misery. The problems of inequality and injustice go to the root of civilization and the way we treat each other. They are therefore much more difficult to resolve than secondary level issues such as climate change.

Not only are the victims of our crimes within reach of our help, the perpetrators are also  within our sphere of influence. We choose not to act because it is fundamentally a reflection on ourselves. The diamonds on your wife’s hand may be tainted, the clothes on your children may have been made by another child, and your cellphone contains coltan dug by slaves in eastern D.R. Congo whose mothers were likely repeatedly raped. By recognizing the failure of mankind, we inevitably confront our own failure to change.

To truly effect change we must change ourselves, we must ask ourselves, “What am I doing on a daily basis that may be making the world worse, not better”. Find one thing, and change that. Day in and day out, if done on a global scale, we could begin to change things in a fundamental way. It is far too easy to point the finger and say, not my fault!

Pollution is easy to externalize. The poor countries claim the west created the mess, the developed countries point at the coal factories in China, and individuals blame corporations. While we recognize we are all part of the problem, none of us think we are at the root of the problem. By focusing our media attention on global warming, we are actually making ourselves feel better, which is exactly what global warming advocates are doing. Green people, myself included, too often go to bed saying, “Yes, climate change is a big problem, but it is not my problem, I drive a Prius”. Global warming just isn’t that important when placed against other issues. All of these issues are intertwined, but we must focus on those with the largest moral payback and which lie at the root of our ills?

In my opinion, not a penny should be spent on climate change programs while children die of hunger, women are raped and slaves toil away around the world. The money proposed for climate change initiatives could have far more moral impact if it were employed to reduce poverty, improve medicine, increase the equality of women, and strengthen democratic institutions. The problems I propose to address first are so massive it may mean we never solve climate change. But do we deserve to solve environmental problems if we cannot address our most fundamental societal failures?

Words are not real. In his very interesting take on Canadian history, John Raulston Saul (my review here) proposes that the canadian style of governing is heavily inspired by the Amerindian oral tradition. He claims that Canada stands on three pillars – english, french and amerindian. To support his claim, he cites the Delgamuukw supreme court decision that allowed for the use of oral proof, not just written proof.

The trouble with the written word is that it can be used in so many ways – it can easily be taken out of context and even when it is found inside a larger document, sometimes amongst thousands of pages of context, it can still be taken to mean something entirely different from its original intent.

A fascinating case was the prosecution of a drug dealer in the United States. This drug dealer was engaging in an exchange of drugs for a gun. Under American law, if firearms are “used” in a drug deal, the punishment is far more severe than if no weapons are involved. In this fellow’s case he was sentenced to 30 years of jail because he “used” a firearm in his drug deal. The entire case, and appeals (all the way to the Supreme Court), rested on the meaning of the word “use”. In a 5-3 decision, he was found guilty and sentenced to 30 years in jail. This was based on the fact that “use of a firearm” included any use that was material to the drug deal. Of course, the original intent of the law was to punish violent drug deals that used firearms as weapons, but that lack of precision did not withstand the prosecution’s ability to twist the word. The written word, is the written word. This case is well discussed in the Philosophy bites podcast, Stephen Neale on Meaning and Interpretation – Philosophy Bites.

In an oral based society, it is very difficult to take things out of context. History, laws, rules and other cultural institutions are constantly evolving as they pass from one generation to another. However, to pass from one generation to another and to be enforced in the present time, the rules must be agreed to by the parties involved. On the other hand, written text can very easily be manipulated by the next generation or by another party with different interests at heart.

Contrary to the this situation, the actors applying orally transmitted rules and history must agree on its meaning, they cannot simply repeat a written word – because it does not exist. That need for agreement as to the meaning of a rule or tradition forces compromise, understanding and flexibility to the situation at hand. This fundamental difference between the oral and written word lead to very different societies.

Not only does a written tradition allow for manipulation, it removes our responsibility for intelligence and wisdom by falsely claiming that we can write down all the rules needed. Consequently, we have millions of pages of laws on every imaginable subject, yet we far too often fail to apply the true intent of those laws. Despite our attempts to write all possible situations down, and close all loopholes, new circumstances will arise making our previous reflections inadequate. It is a futile attempt to outsource our responsibility for reason and compromise to a document. (see these excellent TED talks on the issue: Barry Swartz on our loss of wisdom,  Philip K. Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system).

Canada, having endorsed the validity of the oral tradition in court cases has departed from the European tradition and created an entirely new way of dealing with history, tradition and laws. For that, we should be very grateful.

A few of the neat designs he discusses include:

A refrigeration system using clay pots that costs about 2$ to make and allows rural Africans to store food safely. The design is extremely simple, you place one clay pot inside the other and fill the gab with wet sand. As the water evaporates, the interior pot cools, very basic thermodynamics. More info on Wikipedia

Another neat design is small houses that feel big. Sara Susanka is the author of The Not so Vig House: A blueprint for the way we really live. Her architectural approach focuses on using all the space in a house, as opposed to wasting it on a fancy sitting room and dining room you use twice a year. By reducing the unused space and properly designing the rest, you can build a 2000 square foot house that feels like a 3500 foot home.

The book also discusses Lance Armstrong’s training methods, fractal geometry and Eat-N-Go burger joints (that have 4 things on the menu). All of these examples tie back to a concept of removing as much as possible from a design until there is nothing left to remove. Basically, Matt May tangibly demonstrates how to apply Occam’s Razor, which states, “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)”

Please watch the 12 minute talk below, it will be worth every second. Inspired by his clear presentation, I will be posting some items that I have seen over the years that could have a big impact on performance for little to no cost. Details are the most important part of a product; they show the level thought that went into it. Again, be sure to watch this video.

In my view, the most valuable thing on the planet is time. We are running against a countdown and every moment wasted in labour that could be accomplished more efficiently is wasted. If something can be automated it should be automated. Do not confuse that with the statement that “everything should be automated”. Humans should focus on what they do best: artistry, innovation, and creativity. Redundant back-breaking work or putting pegs in a hole on an assembly line is an insult to the human brain. Each one of us carries the most powerful computer in the world, but only a small fraction of our population uses it to its full potential.

The mind is a muscle and if it is not exercised, it goes soft. We should constantly be asking ourselves, “Can this be done better and faster without compromising the quality of the work?”. We should not automate to the detriment of quality, we should automate only when it frees time to invest in other, higher level skills. That being said, humans are programmed to enjoy manual labour, to want to touch the earth and flex our muscles. We are animals, so some things should not be automated to the point of removing all human contact.

It is said (I cannot find the source) that the Luddites, who travelled industrial England destroying machines were not protesting automation of human tasks. They were protesting the reduction of the human into a machine. The former weavers who had to make complex mouvements to create fabric were now performing basic tasks that required no creativity. In a certain sense the Luddites were actually for technology, as long as it was not to the detriment of the human mind and spirit.

Here are a couple good links on innovation in the developing world.

AfriGadget

India Innovates