Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label innovation. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Human Imperative



For the next several days, the national discourse is going to turn on President Obama’s State of the Union address, and this is as it should be. However, I would like to call attention to a news item that I suppose many people will overlook, and how it dovetails nicely with the call to America that President Obama issued in that address, to “out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.”

Tuesday’s New York Times carried an article by Kenneth Chang on the current status of NASA and its projects. The article quotes James A. M. Muncy, a space policy consultant, who describes the situation at NASA as “a train wreck ... where everyone involved knows it’s a train wreck.” Overall, the agency has been given uninspiring and unambitious direction by Congress, and much less money than necessary to achieve even what it has been given to do. It seems that, given the current state of the national economy, NASA’s exploration mission has been put on the very last row of burners of the very large stove of our national priorities.

I understand that we live in extremely difficult financial circumstances. However, I would like to take this opportunity to come at the whole issue of the economy, national priorities, and so forth, from a somewhat different direction than we are used to taking. Start off by looking at the picture accompanying this blog post, the famous “blue marble” picture taken by Apollo 17 in the early Seventies, just as the Apollo program was winding down. Look at it for awhile, then come back and pick up from here.

- - - - -

Throughout human history, human beings have been called to face an extraordinarily large range of challenges, a range so large that most species simply could not have adapted to meet them. We have settled environments ranging from the frigid polar regions to the searing deserts. Using primitive technology to provide adequate clothing and hunting implements, humans have spread their settlements across valleys and jungles and Himalayan mountain plateaus; with more sophisticated technology, we are exploring ocean depths. We have encountered diseases, wars, famines, and floods. We form our world with language, abstract thought, culture and technology. The daily life of a technologically savvy American in the 21st century would be almost inconceivable to that person’s 10th century ancestors in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, or the islands of the Pacific.

And yet, through all that change, in all those environments, through all the fifty or so centuries of written human history, there has been one stable constant, one thing that the race has always engaged in, one thing that pushed it forward.

Exploration.

They say that early humans pushed out of Africa. Later, the history of languages suggests, Indo-Europeans spread from the Indus River basin to Western Europe. The exploratory impulse is sometimes hidden under the guise of military conquest. To focus just on European and Mediterranean civilizations, the Egyptians engaged in massive voyages of exploration; the Greeks travelled thousands of miles to form an empire; the Romans traveled to create an empire that spanned from Scotland to the gates of Persia. The Huns, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals swept out of the steppes of Central Asia, throughout mainland Europe, ultimately ending up on the Iberian peninsula of Spain—because they simply ran out of land. The Vikings didn’t let a little thing like running out of land stop them; they extended their territories from Scandinavia to Iceland, then Greenland, then North America, however briefly. The Americas were discovered at least three different ways: by land bridges from Asia to North America; by sea across the Atlantic; by sea across the Pacific. And I am omitting from this narrative any detail about the explorers of Africa and Asia.

Human beings explore. It is part of our very being, part of the essence of what it means to be human. Sometimes we have explored peacefully, sometimes belligerently, but, as a race of beings, we always, always have explored.

And what has come of it? Room to live, certainly, but beyond that obvious result, it can be argued that much of human technology and culture are byproducts of exploration.

Much technological development has been driven by exploration. Advances in transportation and communication are obvious examples. It is too often forgotten today that the Apollo program provoked great development in computer technology and materials science. (It wasn’t all about Tang and space pens, folks.)

Much of cultural development has been driven by exploration. Wherever humans have explored, they have brought things home. It’s not just Marco Polo bringing gunpowder from China to Europe, or explorers introducing the potato to Europe from the Americas. It’s also about the bringing of ideas and experiences to different cultures and peoples.

Here’s the thing about exploration: individual expeditions may come to nothing, may even end disastrously, but over the long haul, exploration always brings in more dividends than the assets expended. So where do we go, now? Either down, into the earth, or up—into space.

Right now, a thoughtful commitment to space exploration would do wonders to jump-start employment, science, technology, and the spirit of innovation in the United States. Consider this kind of time table:

  • 2025: Return to the Moon with a sustainable human presence.
  • 2050: Reach Mars and begin an ongoing human presence on the Red Planet.
  • 2075: Establish human scientific stations throughout the solar system, including some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
  • 2100: Launch a mission to the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri.

To do this, we would have to force ourselves to make major innovations in computer science, materials science, the technologies of propulsion and communication, and perhaps even advance our basic understanding of the underlying physics of the universe. (Steven Hawking thinks that Star Trek-style warp drives are physically possible. Let’s find out.) We would have to have the best educational system ever devised in human history, to help bring these innovations about. We would have to make quantum leaps in technology.


Frankly, the Sixties space exploration program was far too limited in what its vision became to do much good. In the end, it became all about beating the Russians to the moon, the ultimate ‘so what?’ of meaningless achievement. The vision that President Kennedy had was betrayed by his presidential successors. The two good things about the space program of that era are that (1) it gave the human race a taste of what was possible, and (2) it gave us images like the one at the head of this post, to remind us that we are, all of us, on a single world, and we would do well to cherish it, and to make nice with our neighbors.


But a new space program, a real space program, could revitalize both America and the whole world, and help us to transcend the soul-numbing conflicts of the Twentieth and early Twenty-First centuries. Yes, it will help the national economy. But it will put us back in touch with a crucial aspect of the human soul, as well.


As you look towards fulfilling your 2011 priorities and, ahead, to 2012, give us our wings back, Mr. President. You may find that you meet all your goals and much, much more.


 A real space program: that would truly be On The Mark.


Reference

  • Chang, K. (2011, January 25). For NASA, longest countdown awaits. The New York Times [Late Edition], pp. D1, D4.

[The photo of the Earth was taken on December 7, 1972, from the Apollo 17 spacecraft. The picture is in the public domain and was obtained from Wikipedia.]


(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Sunday, October 11, 2009

(Part 1:) A Real Recipe for Financial Wealth


[Photo by PHGCOM. Details at the end of this post.]

Usually in the “On the Mark” blog, I consider issues of meaning, the higher values, good and evil, honor and duty.

But sometimes you just need cash.

Contrary to popular opinion, the scriptures do not say that ‘money is the root of all evil.’ Rather, as the ancient apostle Paul wrote, “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Timothy 6:10, emphasis added), and I agree. (Although there are certainly other roots to evil, I get his point.) But if one can transcend the selfish love of money and wealth, money can allow one to do great things. In the Latter-day Saint scriptures, one reads that certain believers “will seek [riches] for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted” (The Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:19). A comprehensive solution to any one of these problems would require billions of dollars. If those are your ambitions—how do you generate that kind of cash? Good question; one might want to look at what people with billions of dollars do.

Beyond that, even for the task of providing for oneself and one’s family, it is fair to wonder whether there is anything to be learned from the hyper-wealthy. If you’re looking for financial inspiration in these difficult times—why not dream big?

Consequently, today I will consider some advice that a major American financial magazine has given regarding financial wealth. I find their advice at best useless, and at worst quite harmful. In this series, I critique this article, point out some potential landmines, and make my own observations about wealth and its creation. I hope that readers will find something here that they can use to create wealth for themselves, and advice that they can pass on to their children and grandchildren.

If you find that what I have to share works for you, then, when your riches come in, I ask that you remember the poor, the naked, the homeless, the hungry, the captive, the sick and the afflicted. In a big way.

The online edition of Forbes magazine on September 30, 2009, published an article, “A Recipe for Riches,” regarding the characteristics of billionaires. (I read it first in a version of October 9 appearing on Yahoo! Finance.) The article opens by asking such questions as, “What are the common attributes among the über-wealthy? Are there any true secrets of the self-made?” Let’s consider what the article has to say—and what it fails to say.

The Basic Secret to Wealth: Create Value for Others

Somewhat stunningly, the article ignores the single most important common attribute among the very wealthy. A large proportion of them are involved in the creation of value for others. Many of them invented new ways to create value for others. This is clear for many of those on the Forbes 400 List of Richest Americans.

Perhaps the most spectacular examples are in the areas of computer software (and, to a lesser extent, hardware). Bill Gates of Microsoft (#1 on the list), and Steve Jobs of Apple (#43), between them invented the desktop computing industry. Michael Dell of Dell Computers (#13) invented methods to get computers to people cheaper. Larry Ellison of Oracle (#3) invented an important software application for business. Sergey Brin and Larry Page (both tied for #11) created value for others through inventing Google, Jeffrey Bezos (#28) through inventing Amazon, Pierre Omidyar through inventing Ebay, David Filo (#tied for 296) and Jerry Yang (tied for #317) through inventing Web portal Yahoo, and 25-year-old Mark Zuckerberg (tied for #158) through inventing Facebook—all software applications that it would be difficult to imagine modern life without. Michael Bloomberg (#8) invented a way to get investment information to investors quickly. Charles Schwab (#50) invented a way to help people invest more easily.

However, it is not just in the area of software applications that wealth is to be made through creating value for others in innovative ways. The same principle applies in other industries, some very old indeed. Several of the Forbes 400 (starting at #4) are related to Sam Walton, who invented a different way to manage retail sales, one of the oldest businesses there is.

Few things are as basic to human life as food. One might think that there was not much room for wealth from innovation in this area—but one would be wrong. Several on the list (starting at #19) are members of the Mars family who inherited wealth generated by an innovator in candy and pet food, the latter also being the domain of Clayton Mathile’s success (tied for #204: Iams); William Wrigley, Jr. (tied for #154) is on the list for chewing gum, James Leprino (tied for #141) is there for cheese, and Christopher “Kit” Goldsbury (tied for #347) for salsa. People important in the Subway sandwich shop chain (Peter Buck and Fred DeLuca, both tied for #236) and S. Truett Cathy (ditto), the founder of the Chick-fil-A chain, are on the list.

Innovation in responding to other basic human needs has created billionaires, as well. Philip Knight (#24) and Jim Davis (tied for #204) made their fortunes from innovations in shoes—yes, Nike and New Balance, respectively, but still shoes. Ralph Lauren (#61) made his billions from innovations in clothing and its marketing. Ty Warner is on the list (#94) from one of the oldest types of consumer goods in history: toys. (He’s the Beanie Baby man. And anyone who does not think that “toys” are a basic human need has never been around four preschool children as the winter holidays approach.)

Bradley Wayne Hughes and his family are on the list (#85) for one of the most low-tech industries imaginable: he developed Public Storage. (And I’m glad he did: half my stuff is still in units in Orlando.)

Wealth can come through innovation in the creakiest and seemingly most boring of industries. Take package delivery. Frederick Smith (#212) wrote up his senior thesis in college on the subject of a system for delivering packages, efficiently and cheaply. Word is, he did not get a great grade on this paper. But Mr. Smith took his Yale thesis, built an integrated network of planes and trucks, and founded FedEx in 1971. Now he’s worth over $1.6 billion—personally. All this, through creating value for others.

I’ll tell you whom I do not see on this list: stage entertainers, musicians, and professional athletes. Yes, Oprah Winfrey is on the list (tied for #141), but Oprah is not really in the category of “stage entertainer.” Oprah is more “infotainment” than entertainment; in addition, she runs a slew of businesses: her show, a magazine, a TV production company, and, soon, her own cable network.

My point? Mega-wealth is developed by innovation in creating value for other people. Yet, our popular culture does not celebrate this kind of achievement. Instead, the culture lionizes stage entertainers and professional athletes. Those of us who do not consider ourselves stage or sports field material might benefit by realizing that we can still think outside the box, that we can still innovate, that we can create value for others in ways that have not been done before. In addition, we can encourage our children to think in innovative ways, to think about improving how things are done, to think in terms of how to create value for other people. They’re not going to be getting these thoughts from popular culture, to be sure.

Creating value for other people in innovative ways is most definitely On The Mark.

As always, your comments and "follower"-ship are welcome.

[The photo shows a 250 kg (about 550 lb) gold bar, reportedly the largest manufactured pure gold bar in the world, currently in the Toi Gold Museum in Toi, Shizuoka, Japan. The photo is dated 2007, and its author is PHGCOM. The photo was obtained from Wikipedia and appears here under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License.]

(Copyright 2009 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Annals of Innovation, I: The Football Lineman and the Solar City

As I mentioned in an earlier post, humanity faces quite an array of problems, ranging from global warming and terrorism to illiteracy and the threat of asteroids from space. It is a real joy to see someone doing something about one of these problems, in an innovative way. I am talking about the former football lineman and the solar city.

Time magazine reports on its website today, in an article by Michael Grunwald, that a former NFL lineman has made an innovative proposal for Babcock Ranch, a solar-powered city to be developed in southwest Florida (near Fort Myers, roughly halfway on a line between Miami and St. Petersburg). This would feature what would be the world's largest photovoltaic solar power plant.

After the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, when the volume went up on developing renewable energy sources, one argument against solar power was that 'the science isn't there yet.' It surely is now. The Florida solar power plant presumably would look and function something like the photovoltaic array at Nellis Air Force Base (Nevada), currently the largest solar photovoltaic power plant in North America (pictured above, from the Wikimedia Commons). The Nellis array, when fully developed, will supply over one-quarter of the power used on this base, which is home to more air squadrons than any other U.S. Air Force base in the world, including four air wings attached to the United States Air Force Warfare Center. Somehow, solar power is good enough for one of hte largest and most important bases of the U.S. Air Force. It should be good enough for much of the rest of the United States.

This idea for a solar city in Florida--what Time is calling the Sunshine City in the Sunshine State--is the idea of Syd Kitson, who, after six years playing as an NFL lineman for the Green Bay Packers and the Dallas Cowboys, turned many years ago to real estate development. As Kitson put it in Grunwald's article, "The time has come for something completely different."

Kitson's proposal for his solar city includes details that would make his development sustainable and self-contained, with a green orientation that is unprecedented for a community of its size. That would be a major change of orientation for Florida, where communities typically are not sustainable, do require a car to do anything, and do carry an enormous carbon footprint per person. (I lived in Florida for over eight years. Sorry, my friends and former neighbors. I'm not saying that New York City, where I live now, is any better, either.)

My point in describing all of this is two-fold. Sure, I am promoting green ideas. However, beyond that, I am promoting innovative thinking. Here's a guy who played pro football for years. However, when that career ended, his thinking and ambition did not. He was willing to think outside the box, and to apply his intelligence to addressing some of the significant problems that our society faces: how to design sustainable communities, with renewable power, so as not to make our current environmental crisis even worse.

May his tribe increase. And may we each follow this example: each of us, in our own way, applying our intelligence in innovative ways to address the problems of the world. Yes, we can. Yes, you can. An innovative orientation like Syd Kitson's is definitely On The Mark.