Archive for the ‘The new way’ Category
Markets are conversations… so what? Part II
Good replicators get replicated
Over 3 billion years ago, a remarkable accident occurred…
Molecules were created that could make copies of themselves.
Not that surprisingly really – probability-wise – given the zillions and squillions of instances of stuff swooshing around and colliding.
Essentially the earth’s first replicator was born. As Eric D. Beinhocker said in The Origin of Wealth, GOOD REPLICATORS GET REPLICATED. This is a thought worth pondering for a very long time. The implications are huge.
This golden rule was basically the point of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene [1976], in which he explored how genes will get copied if they can, regardless of the consequences; and so long as you have variation, selection and heredity, you must get evolution, or ‘design out of chaos without the aid of mind’ (Dan Dennett). This is basic circular logic.
The really interesting thing that happened next was the birth of the second replicator on earth…
Us.
We humans copy information, or ‘memes’, from person to person, brain to brain. There’s variation and selection… it’s basically a design process. Just like genes, if memes can get copied they will – from hand gestures, to wearing earrings, to language, to toilets, to education. We’re all essentially propagating copying machines.
The thing is, we don’t just copy useful, beautiful, true things. That’s part of the reason our brains have grown so large. Rather than staying economical, concerned only with lighting fires, hunting, breeding; our brain capacity is extended to encompass other things, like Britney Spears, sudoku and advertising. In fact our brains have become mighty strange, hijacked by parasitic ideas, like religion (and like most parasites, we end up with a symbiotic relationship). Just as it isn’t our fault when our germs harm others who haven’t developed an immunity, we can’t be blamed for effectively wiping out others’ traditions by spreading our memes; and we can’t be surprised when those who aren’t immune to things we’re used to are very freaked out as a result.
This is something to bear in mind as we spread our teachings and technologies. Likewise, we should be aware of the evolution of technology and its parallels with genetics and mimetics. Good replicators get replicated; and the ‘fit’ is determined by the environment. So just as plants producing oxygen led to oxygen breathers like us prospering; you could say that we’re essentially destroying our current environment to make way for computers.
That may sound a little dramatic, but it’s worth considering whether the ‘fact’ that we invented the internet and other technologies is really true. Didn’t the internet evolve as a result of mimetics, i.e. the copying of cultural ideas from brain to brain over a period of time, whereby the best replicators get replicated?
At the same time, we can see how humans are evolving via technology. For example, before we could read and write, our memories performed much better. Nowadays that’s exacerbated by Google-mentality, skimming and quick kicks. We’re getting very good at developing technologies that remove functions from humans.
So what?
Well, the really interesting thought in all this is that we might be entering the era of the earth’s third replicator. In order to get what Susan Blackmore calls ‘temes’ (technological memes), you need the variation, the selection, the copying, all done outside of humans. Of course we’re starting to see that happen.
So maybe we didn’t create the internet for our own benefit. Maybe we’ve been looking at it all the wrong way. Instead, consider that ‘temes’ spread because they must. Just like the selfish gene.
If teme machines replicate, it won’t matter if the planet is unstable. They can thrive without us.
We are the old machines.
Brookside, postboxes & SaaS development
Loads of illuminating analogies have emerged in conversations with Andrew Missingham, but today there’s one in particular that popped up…
You may remember when the soap Brookside launched on Channel 4. The storylines were based around folk living in a close of houses. They had some trouble at the outset however, in that script writers realised they hadn’t created enough ‘stock devices’ – places where people could meet that would fuel the dramatic unfolding of events. Their answer was to put a postbox on the street, so residents would accidentally meet.
Given that the ability to innovate relies on diverse skillsets and knowledge banks coming together, this analogy is more relevant than ever. New knowledge uncovered by researchers, for example, needs to be matched with entrepreneurs who can interpret and understand the opportunities, then commercialise… in turn with the help of skilled troops, whether designers, developers, craftsmen etc.
Barriers to entering this innovation ecosystem are lower than ever – and the very reason for the existence of Scramblr is to lower them even further.
The question I’m asking myself today, is ‘What are our postboxes?’
The conversations are out there
Social media circa 1900
School of Communication Arts 2.0
Yesterday me and a bunch of other mentors went along to the IPA to eat breakfast and talk about SCA’s Wiki initiative. It’s the first time any industry has collaborated online in the creation of a curriculum.
A bit more about SCA:
- 50 students, 300 teacher/mentors
- 15 scholarships places in 2010. 25 scholarship places a year by 2013
- Pathways to become a copywriter, art director or ‘Ideapreneur’
- Every year, 10 of our cohort will each win £10,000 start-up funding to launch a business whilst at the School
- Qualification accredited by University of Arts London Awarding Body
- Governors include Lord Bell, Sir John Hegarty and Rory Sutherland
If you’d like to get involved, contribute and sign up as a mentor you can do so here.
Humanity 2.0 on slideshare homepage
Nice one slideshare!
“Hey ResonanceBlog!
Your presentation Complexity & Humanity 2.0 has been selected amongst the ‘Top Presentations of the Day’ on the SlideShare homepage.
Our editorial team would like to thank you for this awesome presentation, that has been chosen from amongst the thousands that are uploaded to SlideShare everday.
Congratulations! Have a Great Day!
- The SlideShare team
p.s. Why not blog/twitter this and let the world know about the masterpiece you have created?”
More complexity theory & humanity 2.0
Collaboration and democracy
Future of TV Advertising
Yesterday I spoke at Marketing Week’s TV Advertising conference in London. BBC, ITV, MTV, UKTV and Thinkbox were there, alongside Fallon, Qmedia, RSA, Royal Mail, Co-operative, Premier Foods, Nike & Boots.
You can take a look at my presentation but it’s loads of pictures without many words so dunno how much sense it’ll make:
What struck me with a sledge hammer over the head, was the fact my presentation was deemed ‘brave’, ‘ruffling a few feathers’ etc. To be honest, I’d toned it down. Quite a lot. I talked about the various revolutionary stages in communications (printing press, phone, TV and radio… then internet); and how the internet is a vehicle for all other media, so they’re all shifting over to the web (the cloud) and sitting alongside one-another in a way that’s enabling people to listen to stuff, watch stuff, make stuff, then gather around and talk about it.
Nothing particularly new or contentious about that.
But even on that point there seemed to be a level of denial, as apparently ‘broadcast will be around forever’ and there was mention of ‘internet-centricity’. Hilarious!
I showed some breathtaking figures… such as the 8.9 billion videos watched online in the US last month… and the fact it would take the big three US networks, working together, 4,500 years to create and air original content that matched the volume of YouTube (thanks Michael Rosenblum for great insights). Maybe I did get a little bit contentious with the mention of scribes – the fact they weren’t considered slow when they were the only means of producing books.
BUT… what perhaps did ruffle feathers was that I dared mentioned the astounding levels of ad avoidance; and the fact younger folk are sacrificing TV time in favour of social media (which was fiercely denied – as ‘WE HAVE PROOF PEOPLE ARE WATCHING MORE TV THAN EVER!!’). Okay. Whatever.
Anyway, stepping back from stats, pointless arguments about whether the internet is everything or not (duh) etc etc… isn’t it truly bizarre that you could hold a conference on ‘the future of TV advertising’, that solely consists of broadcasters and related companies bigging themselves up, talking about how fabulous everything is and congratulating one-another on their success ??? !!!! ?? !
It wasn’t brave of me to stand up and mention the obvious.
If that’s considered courageous, or maverick, or ‘out there’ in any way, what the bloody hell is industry coming to? Not only that, but where is it going to go?
I talked about bureaucracy and hierarchy Vs fluidity (or starfish / spider analogy you might be familiar with). My point was really that brands, agencies and broadcasters should open their doors to the people. That they should view the people of the world as their ultimate creative resource, production resource and distribution mechanism. That half of all the crap organisations do is solely as a result of lack of trust (imagine the expenditure); and we can solve the bulk of our problems through open collaboration.
It’s just common sense.
It isn’t that controversial.
If it is, how dull, backward and old hat is this game? How much cash are they prepared to chuck down a black hole, reinforcing the legacy and exhibiting what are very clearly the Kubler-Ross stages of Denial, Anger, Bargaining and Acceptance. I thought we were nearing the bargaining stage at the very least, but yesterday I saw anger from 2 or 3 key people. Obvious where their pay cheques come from – and that they might just manage to retire and die before having to change their psychological outlook.
Most of the crowd loved a shake-up. Or at least more people found me to say well done, rather than to berate my crazy ways. They welcomed some home truths. They wanted debate and new learning and fresh thinking.
What are people so afraid to loose, that it’s virtually impossible to stick your neck out and say what’s blatantly obvious to anyone who has bothered to understand what’s going on, without seeming like some sort of zealot?
I’m finding this all very weird.
Copyright ResonanceBlog 2009
Recent Comments