| Author |
|
chris.macrae
30+ Contributor
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 83
|
| Posted: 19 July 2004 at 8:08am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Remember how Jim Garrison provided his view of the world's fundamental dilemma- the USA isnt able to come to terms with the fact that being the only superpower nation is no longer the only game now that networks are in many human respects more vital consequentially than nations. I suggest that this has huge implications for any be-the-change movements or movers.
Networking seems to me a very human activity that goes to the soul and permission of what we can achieve as people (directly and in the organisational forms we co-create). But the ways of doing all this are changing almost exponentially because of technology eg the internet and its consequences eg the very confusing term globalisation which actually means we can no longer hide from the consequences that decisions made in one locality impact on others. (This has consequences of earth-shattering proportion - one serious analysis of current world woes is that just as the USA has become the only superpower by investing in stuff that superpower nations did it, it is confronted with the fact that nations and networks are wholly interdependent. Another scenario which we democratically havent got our minds wholly around is that until recently corporations paid about 20% of the taxes of in many deveoped countries, but in America big corporations have halved this in the last 10 years and their advisers now suggest they can soon look forward to paying no tax. It seems that more effort is put into this modern form of corporate tax evasion than any other form of innovation).
For a quality that is as indispensible to our functioning as people as the air we breathe, our common language for how networking is done is sloppy. So no wonder, extraordinary changes are happening without people having much say and even less understanding of the compounding consequences.
So I want to try to picture this (however much this seems like a first fumble):
-what constructs have I missed that need to be included; what terms would you edit the language of?
-as far as I am concerned the stuff in green and blue connects with a lot of research that is openly available, and which I would happily guide anyone intereted around; conversely I feel quite lost by the stuff in orange and red, and would love to be guided!
questions? comments?
chris macrae [email protected] 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aeiOnline
10+ Contributor
Joined: 07 July 2004
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: 29 July 2004 at 9:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
A Global Network
Two things, Collective wisdom and ICT, if blended for a Global initiative could bring marvelous and positive changes in the world:
- a gigantic network where millions of people can interact directly. It could have 3-tier or more linkages: Global Network (countries), Regional Network (network of clusters in a country) and Local (people�s network � many localities: villages, towns etc = cluster).
- Unlike visa restrictions on physical movement, the enabling situation will facilitate global interaction between: person-to-person, institution-to-institution and even government-to-government in a less or informal, transparent and more effective manner
- Will result in to random development deriving from and developing on the ideas such as ActionAid�s �Child Sponsorship�, SOS Village programmes and Grameen�s �Telephone-Ladies� and �from Beggar to Businesperson
Should be in the ownership of trustees � a board of eminent personalities, self-regulated through near consensus and be 100% transparent.
Would form a single global community (netizens), share knowledge and resources at personal, country and international level.
How to formulate, how to organize? Once systematized should be self sustaining.
Discussion, please
Sadiq
__________________
aeiOnline
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
chris.macrae
30+ Contributor
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 83
|
| Posted: 01 August 2004 at 12:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
yes I certainly think we need a board of angels for any such movement
though a problem then arises in terms of how do angels make sure their trust and time isnt usurped by ordinary people whilst still helping the greatest conflict resolving actions
for example this group has 4 nobel laureates but I have not yet worked out what projects they want ordinary people to connect around even though I am suposed to play a small role as local linkspersonglobal reconciliation network
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aeiOnline
10+ Contributor
Joined: 07 July 2004
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: 01 August 2004 at 12:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chank you Chris,
We certainly need humans and not angels. I wish I could express what Allama Iqbal said back in 1930s:
FIRASHTUN IS BEHTER HAI INSAN BANNA,
MAGAR IS MEIN LEGTI HAI MEHNAT ZAIDA
A loose translation: It is better to be human than angel but it needs more struggles!
I hope to move forward with the help and support of the friends of humanity such as you are.
Do have a look on my second response to Dan, in my bolg on World leaders - statesman and implementer, at Ecademy. Kind regards
__________________
aeiOnline
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Be The Change Forums : Ideas for 2005 Events
Topic: Networking beyond Nations
