Things I would do if I were president

I'm not a president of course. And as a matter of fact, I’ll never be one. And that’s not through a lack of ambition. Ambition should be made of sterner stuff! I’m not thick-skinned enough. Being a president is an overly demanding job. And your life is forever in the public spotlight. People hold all sorts of flattering and scathing opinions about you. You're the most influential person in a country. And in equal measure, you’re the subject of scorn and all sorts of condemnations. You’re the CEO of a mammoth corporation. So whichever way you look at it, this is a job and a half. You're supposed to be the grand all-seer, the master planner, and the disciplined tactician. You're supposed to mind the bottom line, and the heartbeat of the economy. You’re supposed to be consistently aware of all imminent risks and dangers confronting a nation, and pretty much everything that determines a county's progress on the world stage. It's a heck of a job being a president. Definitely not a job for lesser souls.

Yet I can think of a whole host of candidates in many countries who sign up for just such a job without the requisite skills or the foggiest idea of what the job entails. And I think that's wrong. And it saddens me when lesser mortals take on jobs they are not in the least qualified for. It sets the standard very low. It pulls down a nation. Ordinary citizens become obsessed with aiming for the lowest common denominator.

It's the economy, stupid!

If I were president, I’d place the economy at the heart of everything else. I'd go out of my way to ensure the economy functions optimally. Because for the most part, that’s all that truly matters. If the economy functions well, employment opportunities are created everywhere and citizens are content. People have opportunities to dream, and plan, and make things that they can sell. In that respect, they lend their hand in building an economy. I'd give dreamers an opportunity to try out all sorts of plans they can conjure up. I'd credit failure. Because it’s only when people have an opportunity to try out a whole bunch of things that they get to succeed. And fail. So I’d give incentives to dreamers and encourage them to keep trying. I’d incentivise success of course, but I’d make sure those who stumble are not hung out to dry.

A skills-driven economy

If I were president, I’d insist that good education and skills are the foundation upon which knowledge generation rests. I’d incentivise eager young learners and instil a sense of creativity in them. I'd bolster the adoption of technology and make sure every sector optimises use of the prevailing technologies at any given time. Some of these things need to be forced through. I'd go out of my way to make sure a platform is laid for the proliferation of technologies. Mine would be a technology-driven country!

A safe vessel in stormy seas!

If I were president, I'd keep my eyes on the horizon and look out for any trouble that may besiege the ship. Through my intelligence agencies and spies, I'd cultivate all sorts of information to better understand potential threats on the economy. I'd get my spies to diligently search for and analyse a plethora of information so we can better anticipate trouble. I'd engage in a little bit of strategic planning to best determine which direction my nation is sailing. I’d rely on data and charts to anticipate trouble and be assured that the ship is sailing towards our desired destination. If there are strikes that may affect perceptions about investments in my country, I’d quickly snuff those out by instructing corporates and unions to get their act together. I'd impose tight deadlines on the different parties to sort out their squabbles (instead of standing by idly while strikes drag on for months with damaging effects on the economy). I’d expose the glaring disparities between the salaries earned by mine executives (where executives get performance bonuses even in a climate of decreasing profits and sliding share prices) and blue collar workers. Using vast datasets available in the market, I’d get my quants to conduct complex statistical analyses and highlight the glaring inequalities and inequities in the economy. These I’d use when holding meetings with the different sectors. I’d insist on making data-driven decision making the epitome of my presidency.

I'd want to ensure that my creative scientists and technologists are hard at work envisioning solutions to improve things in my country. Technology always widens the cake and gives us options to make things better. I'd want technology to be top of the agenda at all times. I'd give app developers all sorts of incentives to dream and create innovative technologies in all spheres of life. I'd identify strategic assets such as platinum and coal and drive mines and companies to do more with these. I'd not want my country to miss out on commodities booms and windfalls that sweep the world every now and then. Such windfalls are golden opportunities not to be wasted.

A knowledge-driven economy

Knowledge drives the economy. It's what makes it resilient. And sustainable. I'd want all schools to be centres of technology and excellence. I'd insist that all companies, state institutions and municipalities become creative and embrace the ethos of knowledge. Efficiency would be the key driver of everything. I'd insist that institutions such as the Independent Electoral Commission for instance make full use of technology and adopt electronic voting or tallying systems. The same thing would apply to the Motor Vehicle Licencing and Home Affairs departments. I’d insist on full use of biometric and electronic systems to minimise fraud and forgery. I'd create incentives to reward early adopters of technologies in a bid to urge everyone along. I'd make sure I embed this type of thinking into the minds of the nation. I'd push my nation to always strive for a higher purpose. I'd do most of these things and more. If only I were president. But is this the only way there is? Probably not.

So it turns out that relying solely on government is not the only way there is. But of course you already know this. For most so-called public duties or services, there is always a matching private solution. Indeed the much quoted JFK line: "ask not what your country can do for you.. but what you can do for your country". Granted that public services are the responsibility of government, but nothing stops imaginative citizens from fashioning their own solutions to help government or to help themselves. As the cliché goes, the only guaranteed way to have a future you want is to create it yourself. I read that up somewhere. And I quite like it. So that’s the code I’m gonna live by. I'll do most of the things I've written about in this article. And more. Whatever is within my control or capability. So what's yours? Ever fantasized about being a president? What would you do differently?

A village story - the devastating impacts of the dreaded disease in poor villages!

In a previous blog posting, I confessed how I hold an idyllic view of rural villages – being originally from a rural village myself. The village in question here is in the Manyeleti (loosely translated as Place of Stars in the local Shangaan language) area, located on the north-eastern part of Mpumalanga Province in South Africa. This happens to be one of those few places where I can marvel at the unblemished sight of starlit skies at night, with a clear view of the Southern Cross and the radiant Pleiades (called Xirimela in the local language). When the weather is clear, one can behold the sheer glory of the silvery stars and smile. As the famous poet once narrated, “earth has not anything to show more fair…dull would he be of soul who could pass by a sight so touching in its majesty.” That is the sense of awe one gets when gazing at the skies at night down in the Manyeleti area.

But there is a storm brewing in this area. It was not that long ago that informed people sounded out warnings about the impending doom that would be brought about by HIV-Aids. The narrative at the time warned us that HIV-Aids would devastate large swathes of South Africa, especially the much poorer areas where people do not have the inherent adaptive capacity to survive shocks and nasty surprises. We paid little attention at the time and simply laughed off the warnings thinking Aids was something affecting rich people in far off places like Johannesburg. Unbeknownst to the poor village people, the monster was lurking in the shadows waiting for the right moment to pounce.  This then is a chilling story from a humble village not much different from other villages in South Africa.

There once was a quiet sleepy village..

You’ve probably known places like the one I’m writing about here. People get on with their lives and hold fast to common beliefs and ways of doing things. Traditional practices hold sway. People carry on with life drinking traditional beer and harvesting vegetables from the fields. One can get by on a pittance here.

So it is in this relatively quiet backdrop that the monster crept in. The disease completely obliterates villages and the traditional life set-up. The poor villagers go about their normal practices of going to local shebeens for traditional beer and a good time. After a few drinks, they start frolicking with local ladies. One thing leads to another, and the inevitable happens. This is the typical setup in most of these villages. So the pattern of infection multiplies. Their poor wives back at home are none the wiser and get infected as well.  So it all becomes a sad chain reaction. When the husband or wife gets sick, they are completely clueless about how to deal with their condition, even with the ready supply of antiretroviral drugs in public hospitals and clinics. 

It turns out one needs to understand exactly what they are dealing with in order to be able to stick to a treatment plan and make suitable adjustments in their lifestyles. This seems to escape the poor country folks. Blame it on their traditional practices. Blame it on the never-ending stigma associated with HIV-Aids. Or on lack of education.

Even worse, the poor people become easy targets for opportunistic preachers and spiritual healers who promise instant solutions. They get swindled out of their hard earned money by these shameless vultures. These are desperate people of course, the sort you’d convince and sell a magic potion to. Instant solutions sit well with their beliefs. After all, claims about traditional doctors who’ve mastered some cure-for-all ailments refuse to die. The poor village people swear by these stories. Except the stories aren’t true. Desperate people do not have much to cling to in a storm. They’ll hold fast to anything that gives hope, however outlandish.

These poor people can’t be trusted to stick to doctors’ prescriptions faithfully, which is pretty much what is required with antiretroviral drug treatment. And that is the real cause of the tragedy.

So is there a way out?

In the long run, there should be. Organisms that do not quickly adapt to changing conditions eventually lose out and get eliminated. They do not get to contribute their progeny to future generations. Forgive me for being crude here, but that’s the way natural selection works. That is probably the fate facing many poor people from the villages.

The sad thing is that hardly anyone needs to die of Aids these days given the treatment options available. But people do. This is owing largely to plain ignorance, or a lack of understanding about the nature of the beast they are dealing with. And there is the little matter of a clash between prevailing Western scientific knowledge and the cultural traditions. The ordinary villagers find all these things befuddling. They can’t faithfully stick to a treatment plan or doctors’ prescriptions. If they feel better after taking medication, they tend to toss the pills aside and stop with treatment altogether. After all, what’s the point of taking pills if one is not feeling sick? And if the magic potion guy shows up with his cure-for-all, the poor village people will likely believe him. One can spin theories and sell them to these folks. So the tragedy really lies in not having enough understanding to deal with complex matters and choosing to act in old established ways. No wonder so many of them die.

I walk down the streets and am scared of asking about people I haven’t seen in a while lest they be among the departed. This cuts right across the board; from the old, the young, and the happy beer-drinkers who crowd the local shebeens. Incidentally, the shebeens are the killer corners where the fate of many families has been written. Most shebeen regulars have died. Many more will. The villages are places of dysfunctional families headed by orphans. Most of them are places of little hope. The government should surely think of a plan to save these families? Something’s got to give. 

We can blame it on those many years of foot-dragging by the government during Madiba’s and Mbeki’s tenures. We are certainly paying a very high price. This has got to be front page news. I wouldn’t be overly surprised if the population of the country has flattened somewhat (or probably already decreased in some hard-hit areas). We probably have immigrants to thank in those areas reporting rising populations.

The short end of the stick!

I would argue that the village people got the short end of the stick through no fault of their own. This was owing to conditions they find themselves in, which they can’t make much sense of. So what’s gonna become of their lot? They are already faring badly. The dreaded disease can only worsen things for them. It will be interesting to examine the villages years from now to see what effects the marauding monster has had on them. I’m not saying this as a pessimist, but as one with a vested interest in the poor villages. I would want to see them develop and grow and succeed. But I fear the dreaded disease is running the show here. Fate has dealt these poor people a nasty deuce of spades. And their capacity to adapt seems stretched beyond limits.  The types of businesses that thrive in this area are those connected with death; the macabre type-businesses (funeral parlours, hiring out of tents, etc.). You make your money when other people grieve the loss of their loved ones. Very chilling indeed, but this is a fact of life in the Place of the Stars.

 

A dose of uncomfortable truths

I have seen hell, and it’s got an ugly face. I’ve seen hell in a place called Manyeleti, which is part of the idyllic lowveld area. This is an area with beautiful star-lit skies at night with a much clearer view of the Southern Cross and other silvery stars. This is the place with the highest infestations of the dreaded disease that I’ve seen anywhere. The Place of Stars is part of the wider Bushbuckridge Municipality, which itself is a microcosm of conditions in poor rural areas in Mzansi. The government’s attempt to roll out free antiretroviral drugs, though well-meant, seems to have very little effect here. Unsurprisingly the rate of HIV-Aids infections in the country remains stubbornly high despite all the best efforts of government and civil society according to the latest findings by the Human Sciences Research Council. A few people benefit here and there, but even my poor mom can attest that we seem to be slowly losing the war on the dreaded disease. Some people do take the drugs and stick with the treatment plan, but a great many abandon the prescriptions after a short while and sadly die.

It makes no sense why people would continue to die in their numbers when drugs are available. But a cross section of the area reveals some uncomfortable truths. One of these is the traditional practices the poor people cling to. These practices must be done away with. Or better still, the traditional practices ought to be held up to the light to expose the cracks. Absence of knowledge is the biggest deterrent to progress. Sadly, natural selection will drive for the exclusion of unfavourable traits which hold our species back. One of those traits will surely be the absence of knowledge, which reduces our adaptive capacity as a species. 

Triumph of the city – a tribute to the best invention of humanity!

So the doomsayers are forever at it complaining that the world is overpopulated. These are the folks who see the cup as half-full. To them a small population is a godsend and they argue that we ought to keep the human population small to overcome social problems. As I have argued in a previous blogposting, smaller populations do not provide much of an advantage and may in fact be a hindrance to economic development. Of course this is a generalisation and I know full well that there are exceptions to this rule (think of poor countries in Asia such as Pakistan and Bangladesh - which all have fairly big populations). But the undeniable fact is that fairly sizable populations (and a hundred million seems a fair bet according to The Economist) seem to augur well for economic development opportunities. 

Some of the leading economies in the world today have relatively big populations. As already acknowledged, there are exceptions to this rule, but the argument of a positive correlation between a big population and a much higher GDP makes sense. One need only look at the economies of mighty China (1.3 billion; 2^nd biggest economy by GDP), Brazil (200 billion – 7^th biggest), India (over a billion; 10t^h biggest), Japan (3^rd biggest economy; over a hundred million people), Germany (80 million; 4^th biggest GDP), and the US (300 million; number 1 GDP).

The inexorable march to the city

Sometime in 2013, Planet Earth reached a milestone when many more people supposedly lived in cities compared to those in rural areas. Personally I celebrated that achievement. Now let me state outrightly that I do hold an idyllic and romanticised view of rural areas. After all, I've spent the better part of my life in a village and still spend my holidays there. But rural areas are a nightmare from a number of areas: it is virtually impossible and very costly to deliver bulk services to rural areas. The government - with good intentions of course – does intend to provide energy and a whole suite of bulk services to rural areas (they call it service delivery). But because rural areas are spread out, it’s a heck of a challenge to cost-effectively deliver suitable services. And people in rural areas in South Africa are not used to paying for services. So even a well-meaning municipality quickly finds that rural areas are a drain on its revenue collection system. Not that there are no options to change this, but it requires a heck of an effort and would probably take a much longer time for the culture of non-payment for services to be eradicated. After all, we readily pay for and accept use of prepaid phones. Why can’t the same logic apply to paying for services?

It is a well-known fact that the national electricity provider in South Africa (Eskom) is struggling with collections of payments for electricity in places such as Soweto. But that’s a story for another day. I see this whole debacle as an opportunity for innovative leadership where incentives could be created to encourage payment for services used. It has not escaped my attention that the good people of Gauteng are quietly buying e-tags and registering their e-toll accounts even though there has been fierce opposition to tolling Gauteng roads. Things definitely do improve with time. It’s the way the world works I guess.

The inevitable triumph of the city

In a book called Triumph of the City, the urban economist Edward Glaeser puts forward telling arguments about the advantages of city living. It turns out that we owe pretty much everything we’ve come to enjoy today thanks to the generation of smart ideas made possible by the city. The story goes like this: cities bring skilled people together. This is as a result of the availability of suitable services, reduced commute times, the concentration of skilled people, and the general availability of free and open markets that facilitate the spread of innovative ideas and wealth. The types of amenities that make city living desirable are the very things that promote wealth creation. Cities make it possible for people to get together, have fun and be creative, while building the economy. So you get the picture I guess.

In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell sets out to decipher genius and argues that geniuses are able to succeed and thrive largely because of the supportive environments and circumstances under which they were born or lived. No one ever makes it alone. Call it the luck of the draw - being born in the right place at the right time. These are essentially attributes that cities provide – one has a better shot at success in a city than in a village. For geniuses like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, it made sense that they were exposed to computers from a young age and grew up using them. There are numerous examples of geniuses who succeeded in other fields, but the common thread in all of them is the supportive environment and the benefit of being in the right area at the right time. Living in a city provides that immense advantage.

There are numerous examples of ways in which cities have contributed a great deal to the lifestyles and habits that define modern life today. The concentration of skilled people and suitable amenities allows for a favourable environment for the generation of innovative ideas. Silicon Valley is a case in point as far as the computer technology boom is concerned. Johannesburg owes its existence to the mining of gold and the attraction of industries linked to mining. London is the financial hub of the world due to the concentration of skilled financiers and bankers. Paris has forever been the fashion capital of the world and will hold that distinction for years to come. The point is not so much that these things could not have been done elsewhere, but simply that the city environment made it a lot easier for the clever ideas to be replicated. Cities, by their nature, tend to foster the spread of innovative ideas.

The demise of poor villages

Even in the relatively less-developed South African setup, villages are definitely on their way out. Soon most of them will become the equivalent of ghost towns. Even mighty China has come to accept the inevitability of urbanisation. The thing is, villages are expensive to maintain and they generate very little wealth. As opposed to having departments that encourage rural development and economic stimulation of rural areas, it would make sense to accept the reality of urbanisation and do everything we can to promote such a trend. This would make it easy for society to tackle many of the social problems that confront us.

The cities I’m talking about here are not the typical townships and suburbs in South Africa. The townships are an apartheid relic and are a nightmare for development planners. We should be advocating a rethink of our settlement patterns to encourage densification and concentration. Sadly, the proliferation of so-called ‘RDP houses' in South Africa is definitely a step in the wrong direction and a missed opportunity to build sustainable settlements. The best type of urbanisation would best be achieved through insisting on high-rise buildings (skyscrapers) and flats. Suburbs are also a no-no. From a resource efficiency point of view, suburbs present their own unique challenges such as increased traffic congestions and inefficient use of energy. I know most of us hold the cherished aspiration of building houses in less-scattered settlements and leafy suburbs. But we must be open to the reality that our fancy suburbs are not the best deal for the environment.

The most efficient (and most productive) cities in the world are those characterised by high-rise buildings and densification. Cities, by their nature, do promote the densification of skilled people who tend to become the bedrock of a country’s economy. Even in its seemingly run-down state, Johannesburg is still the heartbeat of the South African economy. Cities like London, Paris, Tokyo, San Francisco, and New York stand as prime examples of the benefits of densification and the generation of smart ideas. And because of the concentration of skilled people - who in turn generate smart ideas - cities hold the last hope of guiding Planet Earth to a more sustainable future.

So the undeniable fact is that villages are not sustainable. One can build shopping centres and all types of crafty developments in them, but these things would probably be ideally located in cities. In any case, villages compete with cities for skilled people and in the long run are going to lose out.

So there you have it folks. Cities are our greatest invention and they make us smarter, richer, greener, healthier and happier. And these are pretty much the very qualities we need to guarantee a sustainable future for our civilisation, wouldn't you say?

MOOCs to the rescue in solving South Africa's educational woes!

There is a silent revolution brewing in the educational sphere. The typical classroom setup hasn’t changed much from the beginning of time. It’s still primarily a case of the teacher passing instructions to eager (or bored) learners, and then giving them homework and exercises to complete afterwards. The poor pupils are graded on the basis of how well they perform in such tests. Not much room for fun there I’m afraid. The average pupil gets bored with these tedious tasks. The situation is even worse in poor countries where classes tend to be overcrowded and there’s very little direct communication or interaction between teachers and pupils. Certainly it was like that in the schools I attended. No wonder there are very few geniuses from Manyeleti!

Making education fun

Education doesn’t have have to be this tedious. You see, the world has moved on with new technologies and fun ways to do things. Most of these are open to the relatively better-off of course.  Kids own iPads and tablet computers these days. That makes the whole learning process fun and interactive. There’s a rich repertoire of tools that kids with access to the internet can use to make learning fun and relevant. Struggling with libraries? You can read free stuff on the internet. Virtually everything is available for free. Look up anything you are not sure of and get a world of information on your fingertips. I vividly remember those days when I would wander around a library only to find that the book I was looking for had been checked out. It meant waiting for the book to be returned. Very frustrating process if ever there was one. But kids of these days are not (and should not be) faced with such a challenge.

Short of libraries? You can just download free videos on YouTube of the exact thing you are interested in. The only limitation currently is the exorbitant charges that the internet providers in SA levy for access to broadband. But that is bound to change soon. That’s pretty much where our politicians should be channelling their energies unapologetically. The future is gonna be a very bright place. In no time cities will have free wireless access all around. I‘m not sure who’s going to be first out the door with this in SA (Stellenbosch, Cape Town, Joburg, Tshwane – any takers?), but that day of free broadband internet access is just around the corner.

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) – a pot full of gold!

SA is struggling with severe skills shortages and poor education standards. As opposed to closing ourselves off in a corner hoping we will improve things by ourselves, I think the internet provides a brilliant opportunity for us to catch up with the rest of the world. World-class institutions such as MIT (ocw.mit.edu/‎) have for years been running free open online courses that anyone in the world can access. If that is not the free education that our dim-witted politicians consistently make noise about, I don’t know what is.

There is an opportunity for poorly-equipped schools and universities to align their curriculums and educational content with the free stuff offered by the likes of MIT. Gosh, they even offer course material, lecture notes, videos, assignments, and all the rest. Just what more could one wish for?  It takes sheer laziness for teachers not to be aware of or take advantage of these open platforms.

Next time you hear someone complaining bitterly about the poor education standards in SA, point them to these high quality open education platforms. If I were anywhere in the department of education (or in government for that matter) I would insist that every educational institution in the country has access to free wireless internet or broadband so they could tap into the wealth of material available in cyberspace. The internet provides a glorious opportunity for poor people to catch up with the rest of the world on the knowledge front. If we let this opportunity slip, “the fault will not be with the stars but with ourselves that we will remain underlings”.

---

[1] Massive Open Online Courses

Aid for a much better planet

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees basic human rights and a good life for all. Even though not legally binding, the declaration has been adopted by and  has influenced the constitutions of most countries. The Declaration has served as the foundation for most laws, treaties and institutions protecting and promoting human rights. The South African Constitution grants basic human rights to all. Apart from the right to political and religious freedoms, everyone has the right to good nutrition, access to health, and the right to live in a clean, healthy environment that does not compromise the status of their health.

Which is all very good and well. Except this is one of those areas where we are clearly not succeeding. Even though we guarantee access to good health and nutrition, this is hardly the case in real life. Achieving this would make a tremendous difference to the vast majority of citizens of Mother Earth. The point here is that if we can’t give all kids a decent start in life, there is no guessing what's gonna happen to them down the road. Most often, such unfortunate kids end up on the welfare queue. Or much worse, they end up crowding our jails. So it really would be in the best interest of everyone if we spent a little bit now to help the downtrodden, as opposed to spending vast sums of money later on to fix a broken system (i.e. in the form of kids in jail, broken lives, etc.). It all makes perfect sense to me.

Giving the poor a leg-up

I'm no big fan of aid of course. Aid probably exacerbates poverty and keeps beneficiaries reliant on it forever. That’s simple logic. But is that all there is to it?

It turns out reality is a different kettle of fish. Without aid, there is little hope for others. If aid is geared to give the poor a leg-up, or help them gain a foothold on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, then aid is good. Every child deserves a good start in life. It makes even more sense if such people have been victims of a systematic system of oppression that deprived them of the most basic requirements of modern life. This would be the case in many poor African countries. So on second thoughts, aid may not be such a terrible thing after all.

But how much aid would be fair for a start?

Ours is an odd world. There's unbelievable wealth on the one side, juxtaposed with extreme poverty on the other. People struggle with lifestyle diseases such as obesity, while a third of the world’s population are desperately poor and struggle to make ends meet. It seems more a case of distorted distribution of wealth and resources. A big chunk of food is thrown away as waste on the one side, which would surely provide much-needed relief to others. Blame our political systems for this, or blame our belief systems. They're all letting us down in this regard.

So it turns out that the rich world is foremost when it comes to donating money to aid. They set themselves targets such as putting aside about 0.7% of their GDP for aid. This may be a paltry sum if you come to think of it, but one must accept that they give the money out of their own goodwill. But if one considers that percentage against the subsidies pumped into their agriculture - which distorts the market and makes it virtually impossible for companies or farmers from Developing Countries to compete with them on an equal footing - the amount set aside for aid is very minuscule indeed. Back in 2002, the amount pumped into agricultural subsidies in the West was well over $360 billion, while roughly $50 billion was spent on aid. And disappointingly, the percentage set aside for aid has been declining ever since.

An innovative idea to boosting aid

According to Michael Metcalfe, the central banks of Japan, the US, and the UK pumped $3.7 trillion to prop up their economies during the recent financial crisis through what they euphemistically called Quantitative Easing. QE is essentially money that’s artificially created, with no underlying value or assets to support it. The Central Banks went about buying assets (mostly government bonds or treasuries as they are referred to in the US) to stimulate activity in their markets. One can argue that QE has worked to save their economies (and by extension that of the world in general) from oblivion. The biggest concern with QE was the attendant inflation that would supposedly accompany the artificial money created. But this never came to be. Or so the consensus goes.

The argument then is, why can't the amount dedicated to aid be created in the same manner as that in QE to boost aid? If such a vast amount of money ($3.7 trillion) could be pumped into economies to prop them up, why can't the same logic apply to money for aid? In any case, aid is a more pressing priority than say bailing out reckless bankers. We’re talking about the livelihoods of a vast majority of people here. By whichever metric you use, the advantages of creating money for aid would far outweigh those of bailing out irresponsible banks and struggling corporates (who got themselves in the mess through not exercising proper caution in their business dealings in the first place). Aid would improve people’s lives and make our planet a much fairer place.

Call for a moral code

As you can gather, this calls for a moral code and a humane spirit. The task is not unattainable. It is perfectly within our means. As opposed to consistently making pledges which they fail to fulfill, rich countries could implement a version of QE focusing on aid in a bid to improve the livelihoods of the helpless on the planet. This would have a touch of genius and make such an unbelievable difference in the lives of the poor. Those who benefit from aid would be given a leg-up. They would gain a foothold on the bottom rung of the ladder (with all credit to Jeffery Sacchs who coined that phrase) and over time become self-sufficient. Understandably this would take time. But there's no denying the vast benefits this would have for the world economy. So the choice is in doing the right thing, or ignoring the plight of a large section of human society. And if we accept that most of those poor people found themselves in the helpless situations they are in through no fault of their own (but through our rampant greed and opportunism), saving them is a no-brainier.

What do you think? Does aid makes sense to you?

The relentless pursuit of quality… an Apple story!

I found myself awake in the wee hours of the morning recently. As I’ve come to do these days when sleep escapes me, I started scanning news on Twitter. I checked apps for updates on my favorite sports teams. At the same time I made a note to buy that song that's been playing in my head ever since I saw that delightful beauty who caught my eye at the local mall just the other day. It occurred to me that I was able to do all these things at the touch of a button thanks to the amazing feats of technology that one guy had the vision and foresight to make part of our daily lives. That hero is the late Steve Jobs of course. So this then is my tribute to him.

And in a garage the story began..

The Apple story started in a garage. With Steve jobs and his old mate Steve Wozniak fiddling around with electronics and memory chips.  They were both college dropouts of course. Not the ideal sort of model kids that upstanding parents would want their children to mimic. Woz was the gifted engineer, while Jobs was the consummate artist with the vision to design elegant products that “just work”, as he was wont to say during those much anticipated Apple product launches. The company grew in leaps and bounds and over time the Macintosh computer was born. It was a delightful product in its heyday. As befitting the Macintosh, Apple had an award winning commercial made to introduce the Macintosh. In keeping with the rebellious attitude that Apple espoused, the ad was styled after the classic novel by George Orwell (Nineteen Eighty Four), which dramatized the dangers of authoritarianism (Big Brother is watching you!!). The Macintosh was the first modern PC and completely set the trend to be followed by all. It completely defined the PC as we have come to know it. In many ways, the Macintosh changed the world and gave ordinary folks access to a classy device that combined both form and functionality. From the elegant Graphical User Interface, to introducing the use of a mouse, as well as beautiful font typeface, the Macintosh computer brought to the world desktop publishing as we have come to know it today. And seeing as the others just copied Apple anyway (Steve Jobs Stanford commencement speech), the rest of the world got to benefit from Apple.

The ouster from Apple..

Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple. Running a business can get complicated. He was thrown out from the company he founded. To be replaced by business-school-trained corporates, who supposedly understand how to run companies. But they almost ran the company to the ground. So old Steve went a-wandering and got about life as any ousted person would do. He stole some geniuses from Apple. Then formed a company called NeXT, which was eventually bought by Apple of course. So old Steve worked his way back into Apple through the backdoor. And thus followed the most defining moments in the history of the company.  

And now for the second coming – the iCEO!

Thus began the i era. Around that time, technology was driven primarily by profit-chasing geeks. The sort who would start a company and rush to have it listed so they could become paper billionaires. That’s what led to the Dotcom Bubble around 2000. These guys had no taste for quality and had no vision at all. Along came Apple to the rescue, with Steve at the helm.

First out of the woodwork was the iPod. This represented Apple’s entry into a completely new sector altogether – music. It made sense as the PC war had been won handily by Microsoft. And while the technology world was pondering Apple’s new-found mojo, Jobs changed the tune and brought the iPhone – this was a grand entry into another new sector. Other pretenders tried to copy that of course. But as is often the case in life, the copy is never as good as the original. And to this day, the iPhone accounts for well over 50% of Apple’s total revenues. The iPhone is a big cash generator for Apple. And it’s revolutionary. While the world was getting used to the iPhone, Steve Jobs threw in an iPad into the mix. That meant lots of catching up and shameless copying for the rest of the chasing pack. And in the midst of all that, the curtain fell on Old Steve. Much too soon if you ask me. As befitting of heroes. They never live for very long anyway. That is the way of the world. 

A few thoughts to ponder..

Steve was not an engineer. He was a visionary. He drove his engineers to accomplish the seemingly impossible by focusing on quality, beauty, elegance, simplicity.  Of course he harassed them and put them on their toes for the most part. He had his way of defying reality trough his famed reality distortion. He was not exactly your model boss. But that’s often the case with super-achievers; they tend to be intolerant of mediocrity.

It’s not very often that one individual defines everything about a company. Indeed one of the early mottos of Apple was, "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication". There was another slogan called "think differently". And another one that says "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who actually do". Steve's thinking was woven into all those lines. It's amazing how the life of one person can be so ingrained in the life of a company and its products. It is impossible not to admire this hero. Even if you're not an Apple fan. He had a blemished record as a human being of course (funny tastes and weird food choices, a bit of a rebel who thought normal rules of society did not apply to him, etc.). It is surmised that some of these quirky habits may have led to his demise in the end. But there's no denying what he strove for and accomplished during his tenure. He hated people who settled for less, or those who were unashamedly driven by the  desire to amass money for its own sake. That was never good enough for Steve. Quality and elegant products that "just worked" was his ultimate drive. 

Through diversifying its business to focus on music (the iPod and iTunes), mobile phones (iPhone), and the concept of the iStore (to sell apps and music), Apple defined the new technology space and changed its fortunes. The company was saved from oblivion. It literally set the standards for technology and set the trend for others to follow.

Admittedly, none of the devices that Apple made brought with them any new technologies per se. Old Steve had an eye for taking what existed and making it nifty and neat and intuitive. I bet you many technologies fail to see the light of day simply because there is no one smart enough to simplify them and make them easy for ordinary folks use. Steve wanted to make a dent in the universe. He just did. The world is a much better place today because of him. Today Apple is the biggest company in the world by market capitalization. Apple even toppled Coca Cola off the perch as the coolest brand in the world. Steve is not around anymore, but he laid the foundation and built a successful corporation that will surely last long into the future. 

So there you go. Strive for quality in all you do. The all-knowing universe will reward you immensely. Steve Jobs did. And thanks to him you're reading this - probably on one of the devices he helped bring about. Wouldn't that be fitting? 

Saving the environment or saving ourselves?

Does the environment need saving? Or much better stated, are we better off saving the environment or saving ourselves? You probably get the point of where I’m going with this. I want to zoom in onto that well-worn subject of climate change and natural disasters. About the sacrifices that we supposedly need to make to save the environment (even though in reality we are saving ourselves here). I will outline the matter for you as easily as I can without boring you with trifling details. Of course there is general consensus with regard to where we are, what the causes of climate change are, and what we can do to contain the effects thereof and save our civilization.           

History of climate change 

So it turns out the climate of our little planet has been changing over eons of years long before our species graced this planet. Scientists have amassed plenty of evidence to confirm this (through dating of CO₂ in glaciers). There have been moments when the earth has been much warmer than it currently is, though the current warming seems exacerbated by the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases[1]. So the issue is not merely the warming being experienced but the disruptions and associated disasters that have been all too common lately. It seems every year parts of our planet are besieged by hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, record rainfalls, etc. You've seen it in the news of course. The cat, as they say, is already out of the bag!

I remember not that far back reading about climate change predictions and the fact that some of the anticipated effects would be in the form of natural disasters and extreme weather events. Unbeknownst to me at the time, this would happen within my lifetime. Very chilling indeed.

So what is there to do?

The battle is really about reducing the artificially-induced levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere, which come about as a direct result of emissions from our industrial processes. Scientific consensus points in that direction. But the science, as you’ve probably heard it said before, is not perfect on this one. Which is pretty much why we talk of scientific consensus! Thing is, the natural environment is way too complex to be simplified or studied through our famed reductionist approach. That is not to say the information we get is meaningless or useless. But simply that we do not know enough for sure. Or that there is much else we can’t explain. But we ought to do the best we can in any case. Even in the climate of uncertainty in which we operate. Otherwise we can’t wait till the last snow caps have melted. Or the oceans have washed away our coastal cities. That would be tantamount to waiting for hard evidence, while weather phenomena are wreaking havoc and making conditions unbearable for Homo sapiens on this planet.                   

So does Planet Earth need saving?

The planet has carried on fine long before we showed up here. Evolution relentlessly shaped and fashioned natural systems and organisms to adapt to conditions on this planet until such time that conditions were suitable for human habitation. The poor dinosaurs found themselves on the wrong side of climate change and weather disasters, which explains why they are not here anymore. We could be headed the same way ourselves. But life will carry on regardless. Conditions will become suitable for other species. Perhaps another dominant species will  arise and rule the roost. The bacteria will be there in their vast numbers of course. As well as the little microorganisms that take care of the dirty work on our planet (decomposition, recycling, etc.). And out of them, new life will emerge. So this whole  business about saving the planet is nonsense. The planet does not need saving. Human beings and their self-destructive civilizations do. Which brings me to another important point about priorities for saving the planet (or saving ourselves – with apologies to Bjorn Lomborg who made the popular TED Talk video).

Priorities for maintaining human life on Planet Earth

So if we had it in us to solve all the immediate problems that confront human society, where would we start? If we had adequate financial resources (say a mere $50 billion for a start), how would we stack up some of the biggest problems in a way that would most benefit society? Seeing as we can’t possibly solve all problems that face human society  in any case, which would we select to get more bang for our buck? Bjorn Lomborg proposed a neat way to prioritise solutions to problems, which will in turn guide us to focus on those problems we actually can make a difference on. You can watch the video here if you haven’t already – you will enjoy it. The top four problems on the list (the complete list included such popular topics as climate change for instance) are given below: 

• HIV/Aids
• Malnutrition – providing micro-nutrients to improve physiological development 
• Promoting free trade (by removing the market-distorting agricultural subsidies from Developed Countries)
• Malaria (kills millions of Africans every year)

Tackling climate change came last on the list. It may be sexy to tackle problems like climate change through mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases and all that, but it costs a fortune. And in all fairness, we aren't really making that much of a difference doing that. As opposed to solving the most basic problems such as improving human health, nutrition, and education standards. 

So there you have it. Society can make the most tangible difference through doing the basic stuff right. That would be a much better investment. Imagine if the powers that be could just bring themselves to do the right thing for once. Or if African governments could just focus on the right priorities. If you consider that even Mighty Europe itself - which previously was on the forefront of the climate change war - is now scaling back on its commitments, it makes perfect sense to focus on the really basic problems confronting poor countries and dealing with those first. This would benefit the planet in a big way. I take my hat off to Bjorn Lomborg for this really inspiring video. 

---

[1] The earth functions like a greenhouse, allowing incoming radiation to enter the earth. The gases in the atmosphere trap the resultant heat and prevent some of it from escaping into space. This results in much warmer average temperatures on earth. The gases are called greenhouse gases (i.e. with carbon-dioxide being the chief culprit).