My Digital FootPrint

I am aware that a human limitation is our understanding of time.  Time itself is something that humans have created to help us comprehend the rules that govern us.  Whilst society is exceptionally good at managing short-time frames (next minute, hour, day and week),  it is well established that humans are very bad at comprehending longer time frames (decades, centuries and millenniums).  Humans are proficient at overestimating what we can do in the next year and wildly under-estimate what we can achieve in 10 years.  (Gates Law) Therefore, I know there is a problem when we consider how we should value the next 50,000 years.  However, we are left with fewer short-terms options each year and are left to consider longer and bigger - the very thing we are less capable of.  Why 50,000 years The orange circle below represents the 6.75 trillion people (UN figure) who will be born in the next 50,000 years.  The small grey circle represents the 100 billion dead who have already lived on earth

I have the deepest respect and high regard for Wardley Maps and the Cynefin framework .  They share much of the same background and evolution. Both are extremely helpful and modern frameworks for understanding, much like Porter’s five forces model was back in the 1980s.  I adopted the same terminology (novel, emergent, good and best) when writing about the development of governance for 2050. In the article Revising the S-Curve in an age of emergence , I used the S-curve as it has helped us on several previous journeys. It supported our understanding of adoption and growth; it can now be critical in helping us understand the development and evolution of governance towards a sustainable future. An evolutionary S-curve is more applicable than ever as we enter a new phase of emergence. Our actions and behaviours emerge when we grasp that all parts of our ecosystem interact as a more comprehensive whole. A governance S-curve can help us unpack new risks in this dependent ecosystem so that

Mind the Gap This article addresses a question that ESG commentators struggle with: “Is ESG a model, a science, a framework, or a reporting tool?    Co-authored @yaelrozencwajg   and @tonyfish An analogy. Our universe is governed by two fundamental models, small and big. The gap between Quantum Physics (small) and The Theory of Relativity (big) is similar to the issues between how we frame and deliver short and long-term business planning. We can model and master the small (short) and the big (long), but there is a chasm between them which means we fail to understand why the modelling and outcomes of one theory; don’t enlighten us about the other.  The mismatch or gaps between our models create uncertainty and ambiguity, leading to general confusion and questionable incentives. In physics, quantum mechanics is about understanding the small nuclear forces. However, based on our understanding of the interactions and balances between fundamental elements that express small nuclear forces

This post is about being lost — without realising it. source: https://earthsky.org/space/x9-47-tucanae-closest-star-to-black-hole/ I have my NorthStar, and I am heading for it, but somehow the gravitational pull of a black hole we did not know existed got me without realising it! I am writing about becoming lost on a journey as I emerge from working from home, travel restrictions, lockdowns and masks; to find nothing has changed, but everything has changed. The hope of a shake or wake up call from something so dramatic as a global pandemic is immediately lost as we re-focus on how to pay for the next meal, drink, ticket, bill, rent, mortgage, school fee or luxury item. Have you become so wedded to an economic model that we cannot see that we will not get to our imagined NorthStar? I feel right now that I have gone into a culdesac and cannot find the exit. The road I was following had a shortcut, but my journey planner had a shortcut that assumed I was walking and could hop over the ga

I remain curious about how I can make better or wiser decisions.  I am sharing this as part of my journey as I unpack my own boundaries and models that prevent me from making better decisions.   Context I have personally, and will always, dislike and distrust “traditional” hierarchy, probably because I perceived that the “power” wielded on me would never be available to me.   I was always on the outside; it is the joy of neuro-diversity that you become aware at an early age that to fit in the system and structure, you have to align to it, which for me, had no natural alignment.  You either fight to fit in, fight the system or create your own.  For many fitting in is natural, for me it never happened, and I stupidly opted for creating my own.  I rebelled against the system and structures as I could only see hierarchy as a method of control to something I did not align to - telling me to do things that made no sense.  Write with your right hand as a lefty. I am not alone; from Machiavel