Yes friends, we are in an international era. Yesterday I met an officer of the Montgomery County economic development department, she was of Belgian origin. We ran into the treasurer of said county, he was of Dutch origin.

Where are we headed? It's obvious that we are headed for fewer cultural borders, music is listened to universally, Ketchup is available in every country on Earth as is Coke, Mars and all the other usual suspects. Our haircuts are all similar, we all wear jeans…

So does that mean that some day we will be 'one'? I think so. I think that some time in the far distant future we will, if not be one, have different sub-divisions. We will not have 'national' borders per se. So what kind of borders will we have? How will we be compartmentalized? Maybe tomorrow's borders are online? Maybe they are local? Maybe they are professional? Let's briefly explore all three.

Our lives have become increasingly virtual. We are connected by our various online traits using various online tools that exist within online communities. Could this be tomorrow's world? If the online world remains as it is today, no, that won't happen. But things change, all things change, and so too will the online world. At some point the online world will have genuine impact, power, leverage or whatever we choose to call the concept of control.

Next there is the possibility of borders becoming local, or maybe provincial. In Europe, there is already a considerably influent movement calling for the 'regionalization' of the continent; no more countries, just regions. If this happens, what is to stop the process of decentralization from going to its extreme making the local community the one responsible for most of what affects our lives. I mean, simply, if we were to do away with external or foreign relations and the military would we need such a large federal government? We would need one, probably, but on an entirely different scale.

Last is the professional vision. Maybe some day we will be grouped into what we do. Maybe it will be by profession, maybe by supra-corporation (a kind of mega-holding concept). Imagine all athletes being grouped into one political entity. This is the least likely scenario but worth exploring.

That's all for today. I just wanted to make the point that in a world of extreme globalization we might want to start imagining where all this will lead us; if not for us, for future generations.

These systems don't just happen. People conceive them, implement them, improve them and ultimately revisit them constantly. After all, we want things faster, cleaner, bigger and just plainly better from day to day. Use a system once and you're immediately looking forward to its next version.

So what does this have to do with me, the mondofragilis world we live in and the mondofragilis group that I work for? In my opinion, the systems that drive governance, funding, humanitarian relief, development aid, coordination and every other aspect of the public interest sector are stale, under-resourced, held back by lack of technical expertise at the decision maker level and lack of funding streams in the budgets.

Case in point: the systems that do exist tend to be monolithic mastodons created in one heck of a hurry upon realizing that we've neglected systems for so long that they are worse than broken, they are dangerous. But the result is an over priced beast that is so fragile and prone to bugs that at the slightest program error, the whole system crashes.

Please note that I am not just talking about computer systems. The same applies to our programmatic and operational systems. We, in the public interest community, have simply not recognized the importance of streamlined systems. Instead we cling to tools and processes of another era. Just look at your average reporting requirements. By the time you've finished reporting on something as simple as a first contact mission, Mount Rushmore will have another three Presidents

We need newer, more efficient systems. We also need to realize that these systems will require constant improvement; you do not just install and forget. Need help designing systems… we can help (that was fun, I rarely write a blog that has a sales pitch attached to it! I should scale this up into a system…)

Next option, we force everyone to spend as much as the other. We do like the A1 motor racing championship who unlike F1 (Formula One) forces all teams to race with the same car. This process would likely be financed by government. The obvious problem is that people do need to know what their candidates stand for hence they need to be fully exposed to them. This exposure can cost a lot of money. If the government pays, that means we the citizens pay. Would you rather that money be spent on campaigns or vaccines and education.

What about a compromise model. Everyone spends what they want but with a ceiling. You are allowed to spend up to X. Who establishes that X amount? And if it's too low we're back to the same problem. If it's too high, the poorer candidates and parties will never shine.

I have another approach that would put the responsibility of coverage squarely on the shoulders of media. As part of the television, radio or newspaper license you agree to support campaigns with a specified amount of free coverage for each candidate. You also commit to giving them sufficient space for their message to reach citizens unfiltered. If you are a medium, you are about to tell me I'm nuts because by the third election you'll be bankrupt. Think again. What if we forced the time to be specified. By this we mean that, for example, every Tuesday all stations cover the candidates from 8 to 8:30. This means that you will not be losing audience to a competitor. It also means that you will be, because of your superior coverage, getting higher ratings. Those ratings raise your advertising rates.

I have other models in mind that I'll give some more thought to but in all cases, one thing is certain, if the current trend continues, in the US, presidential elections will cost billions and in other countries, coups will remain the only affordable way to gain power.

As I look at today's news, I wonder if maybe 'things' are not worse than they were. I arrive at the same conclusion whether I approach it from a 'what I see' deduction or from a 'what has probably led up to this' viewpoint.

Let me start with the latter. It would make sense to accept that there is 'more' of everything today. We have cell phones, hence far more communication. Please, for those that are older, remember that in the 'old' days, if you wanted to call someone, you called their home or office, not them directly. Now, whether at the airport about to leave, at some remote hotel, in the car or in the toilet, their personal mobile phone will ring. Then there's travel. Yes, the number of planes, routes and destinations has multiplied enormously. Consumer goods? More than ever! And then there's the Internet. The web allows us to share, teach, incite, cheat or lie to the order of ten to the fifty.

Back to what I see. Today's news is about Thai unrest. If memory serves me right, there has always been unrest, war and plundering. So, nothing new. This year is the year of the Icelandic volcano eruption and air travel disruption throughout Europe. Here too, nothing new. Volcanos have been erupting since the dawn of time, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis too. The news is also filled with crime stories. Were there not brigands and pirates in the middle ages? Famines are another news story along with refugees, pandemics and slavery. Sorry to say, here too, no new invention. History is replete with all of the above.

Here's my simpleton take on the matter. I actually think that mom was right about the scale. I just think that she wasn't right about the reasons. It's not that there is more crime, disease or war. It's just that our growing population, with its growing ability to communicate, travel, manufacture, sell, transport, build, waste more and more, is pushing ever closer to the edge of the environmental, social and personal health boundary of disaster. In short, the more we are, the more we do, the closer we get to the chaos point where the system fails. That's what we are doing.

For those of you who have been on an ocean liner, a ferry, a bus or a plane, you know the paradigm of everyone rushing to one side of the vessel to look at the xyz. You know that if we all rush over, the vessel will tip. In many cases, this is not theory, it is fact. Our problem is that we have all been rushing in the same direction. We all want the same comfort, possessions and prestige. We either find a new equilibrium or we topple.

Mom was right. Now what am I going to do about it? Are we just going to sit and watch the earth as time rushes past and matters worsen?

What angers me, and so many more, most is that we all know what's wrong. We know we are overconsumers. We know that our synthetic materials are built from powerful and destructive industrial processes. And yes dear friends, we also know that all this growth is fueled by the zealous drive to become the world's wealthiest man, woman or company. Do you know how much profit Exxon declared last quarter, the first quarter of 2010? They posted a 6.3 billion dollar profit. Sit and think about this for a moment. Please don't whizz by that number. 6.3 billion dollars in profit, not revenues and in only three months. By the way, this is up 38 percent over last year when they posted a 4.5 billion dollar profit.

This is not a breaking news story. We all know how much money industrial moguls, financial wizards and mega corporations have made over the past few decades as they romped freely in a deregulated financial playground. But what about 'us'? Why are we playing along? Is it the same as the drug trade where demand fuels supply? If we stopped buying the latest upgrade, would things slow down? Of course they would, but then our unemployment would go up. Or would it?

Our economic leaders, often trained in the financial sector, have led us to believe that if we stop consuming, we stop producing and then we stop working. I, and I am not alone, beg to differ. We just need to make the shift (okay, maybe it is a leap) into an economy that is based on collaboration and cooperation. We need to dropped the armed struggle. We need to… actually, if you think about it with a clear mind, there are not that many things to change. If we could change the mindset from one of defending ones interests to sharing one's excess, we would rapidly change our planet. I think it will happen. I just think it will happen the day after the magnitude ten earthquake or the nuclear explosion in one of our major capitals where millions perish. Or maybe the aliens will invade and finally knock some sense into us?

In the meantime, we do need to do something about this unemployment. Not that it makes a major difference in the grand scale of things, but despite the hard times, we've been hiring; we're trying to do our part. Others must too.

Basically, I'm getting to the overload point. Too many websites. Too many emails. Too many events to attend including congresses, trade shows, fora, meetings… I have over 250 television stations on two different television offers. Where is all this going? What do we do both individually and collectively? Or do we just wait for the laws of chaos to cause the system to cripple itself?

I do know that I want to take action, at least for myself. I need to filter better. I need to unsubscribe from lists, visit forums less often, travel less, use video conferencing more, copy fewer people when I send or reply to email. I also need to let people know when they are submerging me with their useless jokes, wow web sites and requests to sign petitions. It's just getting out of hand.

Professionally, I also think that I need to make some changes. I need to recommend that our clients not embark on noise making for the sake of noise making. Even if it costs more, we need to target our communications better. We need to send things to people who need and request them.

One disturbing recent development is the use of massive mailing lists by public interest organizations. I'm appalled. I cannot believe that NGOs are now turning to spam to get their message out. I realize they need to raise funds, but not like this!

Looking ahead, I'm not sure how the issue will resolve itself. There is no sign of any impending decrease in information. Web domains are still being sold by the bucket. Smart phones, tablets and e-readers are providing new conduits. Just look at Times Square. Is there any room left up there? A few years back I thought it was full and yet, every year I discover new billboards, giant screens and limitless other tactics for getting the message of consumption out. Nope, I don't know how it will resolve itself. I'll give it some thought. But for now, I'm in lockdown mode.

How are we doing, you might ask. Well, I am of two minds. I believe that, as congress participants, we are genuinely doing well. Lots of contacts are being made, lots of talking amongst potential partners, lots of initiatives being launched. But I will be frank and say that the format of major UN conferences needs a facelift. We need a new way of dialoguing. I know I said this in my previous blog but I feel as though I was not forthcoming on the solution.

My solution is to force participants to get to the point. We seem to rehash very superficial statements over and over again. We need to get to the core of the discussion. No more PowerPoint presentations without a counterpoint. It's not the participants' fault, it really is not. I can tell that all want to get deeper into discussion. It's the format. We need moderators that are willing to confront the speakers. We need speakers that want to disagree, or not. But they need to seem to be working towards solutions, not just stating the problem.

For instance, in the interest of getting more speakers 'in' we end up doing 20 minute sessions with four speakers. If you include introductions, niceties, technical glitches, you end up with 3 minutes per person and no time to debate. Also, if you give speakers too much freedom to talk about themselves or their organizations, there too, you get into a monologue that people shut out and walk out on. Last but not least, is when you ask a speaker to address the 'problem'. This presentation tends to manifest itself as a simplistic overview of the problems that most people in the room already know. Take the case of this World Urban Forum. I don't think that any of the 18,000 participants need to be reminded of the basic urban issues. Maybe reminded, but not told in some 30-minute PowerPoint. I think that we can skip that part and get right to the specific problem or solution with which the speaker is most familiar.

I'm looking for a name to this new type of speech or presentation. How about a 'Single problem, single solution scenario'? If I had to do one of 'those' I might indeed pick a single problem, propose a single solution and then open up the floor to debate. Or how about a 'One to one hardtalk session'? I steal the 'Hardtalk' concept from the BBC, but it works. We need some presentations where rather than try to flatter the speaker as though she or he were an untouchable dignitary, that we grill them. I want to know the truth, the hard truth. I want questions asked and I want answers. In fact, if I think about it, I believe there are no sessions, except for the press conferences, that are moderated by professional journalists. Why not? That might, indeed, be a means of getting to the heart of the debate rather than continuously applying skin cream.

This said, I'm happy I came because I met with some people that brought me some genuine ideas and solutions. Now I have to pack my bags and get ready for my next global conference some time in April… hope it'll be a little cooler.

I have two concerns. The first is trend-connected: climate change. I'm very aware of the carbon footprint left by 18,000 people taking planes, consuming taxi rides, moving around in air conditioned conference spaces and overly generous buffets. The second is operational. Isn't there an alternative? Do we need to bring 18,000 people together to get the planet moving? Do we need to all meet to get our development agendas coordinated?

My answer to the first dilemma is obvious: moving 18,000 people does not make sense in an era when we tout video conferencing, smart phones and laptops. In fact soon, according to Cisco, the internet will be able to handle multi-million video person video conferences. So maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to finally do things the 'high-tech' way sometime soon. So yes, some day soon we will have huge virtual meetings (today it's still at the hype stage, multi-person 'virtual events' still do not work well enough to be effective.

But there is still the issue of the added value of actually putting the 18,000 people together in one space. Instinctively I am against it. But admittedly, I have been giving this issue some thought for many years now. This is not a new dilemma for me. I started thinking about this the very first time I went to a major conference in 1979. Back then it was not an issue of climate change so much as an issue of efficiency. Time was, I believed, a precious commodity, and traveling 20 hours to just listen and talk about things we can often just view or read… Today, however, it's time and carbon and money and disease and many more issues. So, are these huge meetings good? Do they accomplish something? Did Copenhagen accomplish something? Did Rio (climate)? Do UN general assemblies or World Health Assemblies move the world one or several steps forward?

My answer?

I'm going to, for now, take the risk of saying yes. I think that these meetings do more rather than less. I think that they motivate organizations to do more. I think that they do forge partnerships. I think that they do give us some ideas. But I also think that they are not as efficient and effective as they could be. Let's be honest, most of us come away wishing more had been accomplished. So what's the solution? It lies with us. It is up to us to get things done both at the conference and beyond. Let us not squander the privilege and opportunities given to us by these meetings. Let us act responsibly and aim to learn, teach, partner, pass on and otherwise be great conference participants.

Gotta run, suitcase to pack!

Two days earlier, on the 5th, we arrived in New York from Montreal. It was a gorgeous, sunny Sunday, not a cloud in sight and rather warm. The cab driver was great, an Italian who was all thrilled we were going back to his hometown. We had come to get on board the Cristoforo Colombo that would move us from North America to Europe. The destination port was to be Naples so I imagined all the Italian immigrants, like our cabby, heading home to visit family after years away. Who knows what they would be bringing from America for their relatives? My father chatted him up in his broken Italian and told him if he wanted a nice fare, to pick us up at the Hilton on Tuesday morning at 7AM. He agreed.

The Cristoforo Colombo (29,083 grt, 700 ft. long) was the sister ship of the Andrea Doria. She entered service in 1954. She was sold as an accomodation ship in 1977 and scrapped four years later. But on that day, she was the most majestic sight a child on his way to the glorious old continent could witness.

Fast forward to the 7th. In the words of many who lived through it, "it was the big one." Indeed, as we woke up at the Hilton just south of Central Park, my mother mentions the 'smog' to my father whose pilot eyes quickly realize this is not smog but a major snowstorm. Down we come from the 20th floor to find a lobby filled by stranded travelers. The lobby was simply packed and paralyzed. The trip, we assume is off. We also find out that the dock hands are on strike so we'll have to carry our trunks up the 200 or so steps at the dock by ourselves. But who are we kidding, we're not leaving the hotel today, not with 20 inches of snow outside. But my dad, with his usual cocked smile, pipe in his mouth, tells mom, sis and I to stand by. He walks to the front. Sure enough, there are loads of people trying to figure out a way to travel to the train station, port, business meeting, whatever. Not a cab in sight, the occasional snow plow, the rare daring car with chains inching along. It's now 7:10 AM. A few moments later, as my father is still puffing on his pipe, I walk up to him anxious to go see this snowstorm, and what do we see pulling into the covered drive way? Yes indeed, the yellow cab, with our Italian cabby apologizing for being ten minutes late.

To this day I imagine how long it took him to get to us. I figure he did not live in Manhattan but rather in Brooklyn, Queens or another borough. On a day like February 7, 1967 it must have taken him hours to get to us. What time did he wake up? Was it just for the fare my dad had promised? Was it because we were traveling to Naples? To this day I think it was because my dad and him spoke the same language of trust. The story does not end here. In fact, much more happened on this trip to Italy that reinforced my conviction that fundamentally, we are tribal brethren. When we got to the docks only to discover that the strike really was on, the cabby did not hesitate to help my dad with the trunks, all the way up those steps which I later went back to count, there were 280! I believe there is in each of us the ability to be kind, helpful and bound into a bond of solidarity. Unfortunately, many of these have been lost in the haze of a complex and chaotic social system. May we find our way out of the snowstorm soon.

Just for the record, dad kept his word and dropped him a c-note! In 1967!

--

Images Courtesy of Héctor Cicero from the Björn Larsson collection and taken with rights to do so from here.

If we are to create a new world order based on collective solutions, we need to change our paradigm. Climate change, the Millennium Development Goals, viral pandemics… all these need us to work together. But we also need to work together in our daily lives. Do you want to reduce unemployment? It's simple, as long as 'everyone' participates in the effort. As long as we all make the necessary sacrifices we will succeed. As long as we all base our decisions on our own interest we will not.

I've often wondered where this aggression comes from. Is it genetic? Is it drawn from our ancient tribal past? Do we need to be aggressive to survive? If that were the case then how did we manage to progress so much? Is not science, predicated on open collaboration? Is not education an act of passing on one's knowledge selflessly?

I was recently in a business meeting and the tone just did not suit me. Instead of everyone working towards a common solution, it was all about positioning. What was most disturbing is that the tone of the meeting was rising over the most trivial issues. Later that day, I was at a meeting that was just the opposite. Participants were really willing to compromise both on their positions and the resources they brought to the process. It was about "what can I do for the process" rather than "what can the process do for me?"

As I move into my fifties, I think it's time for me to also rethink the way I deal with staff, clients, partners and even competitors. I want to try to find a gentler tone. I want to start and end a meeting with the intent to achieve collaboration rather than gain. Does this go against the fundamental rules of business? Can one only succeed if one champions over the other? I'm not sure, but I'm definitely going to try. My most hated phrase in the English language: "every man for himself".

I'll leave you with a thought. I like oranges better than bananas because they allow me to share more easily. Just a thought!