TED Conversations

Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed.

Evolutionary! Let me know your thoughts and how you could help facilitate something like this.

Its time for a change. We all know this. We think it's time for a change to fix a financial system or prevent business from failing or to protect our country by whatever means necessary. No this is not the time for that. NOW is the time for a change on how we treat each other and how we think of each other. It is time for a spiritual change, a moral change, a change that really matters to our children and their children. We have to change or we doom them to pay for our irresponsibility and ignorance. I will not ask you to make this change for me or for your country. I ask you to do this for your family. That is all I can ask of you because I will do the same for mine EVERY SINGLE TIME! We don't need to change the world. The world got us this far but we have lost our way. We all seek the path of peace and prosperity BUT this cannot be achieved through violence or intimidation. This can only be achieved by UNDERSTANDING. Understanding that we cannot rely on people who lie for a living. We cannot rely on pretenders. It is clear we cannot rely on what we have been relying on. We must rely on each other. They do not want to help us. We've made it easy for them. I refuse to continue this any longer. I'm tired of being walked on, I'm tired of breaking my back to make a company richer while I struggle, I'm tired of it all. Aren't you? It is time for this change. We are watching the world fall to pieces day by day. I say we build our world NOW as we watch this old world crumbles beneath us. We CAN make it better. We just have to work together and believe. Think of what Humans have achieved in small groups throughout history. Everything we know now is because a brave group believed they could make a new way. Lets not let their efforts and sacrifices be in vain. All we have to do is try.

Share:
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2013: Didn't John Lennon already sing this tune?
    • thumb
      Aug 11 2013: I was getting flashbacks from the 60's too - lol
      "Come together right now.."

      Same old stuff different decade.
      .
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 16 2013: We still missing to understand what kind of "change" are we talking about...
      Is it Social change? Moral change?, Ecology change? Belief system change? Technology change?
      In any case, if we are discussing Social and Moral changes, we must remember there have been and still are incredible persons giving and dedicating their life on behalf of Human Enhancement.
      I suppose the OP suggests a higher degree of Humans is expected to rise, promoting changes and bringing life on this world to a new level of understanding, tolerance, freedom and happiness.

      Is it any other way?
      • thumb
        Aug 18 2013: " It is time for a spiritual change, a moral change, a change that really matters to our children and their children." This is really an overall change of almost everything which is what will be necessary to make this change stick.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2013: I think that if everyone had a helping mentality it could catch on. It seems unlikely that my generation could accomplish this but teaching the next generation how to think and act like this is much more likely.
      And yes Carolyn I love my brain and the things it comes up with.
      • thumb
        Aug 18 2013: Hey Jah:
        Whether is on topic or not, if find something VERY interesting in your last paragraph...
        "I love my brain and the things it comes up with."....
        This brings up a question I make to many folks:

        Who is the "I" loving the brain?
        Is it the brain saying it "owns and loves himself"?

        I strongly think, no matter being repressed, we are NOT the brain or product of it's activity. You are right. The brain is ours!

        We have a brain..... Who are "we"?

        Interesting subject for a new conversation indeed!
        • thumb
          Aug 19 2013: I believe I is my soul. My body is just a vessel. I'm a big believer in reincarnation too. A little short on time right now or I would fill this box Mike. What are your thoughts on the soul?
      • thumb
        Aug 19 2013: Of course! We are all souls!
        I might have different ideas on the subject of soul, life, recurrence, reincarnation, the beyond, life-after-death.
        But we certainly are of a Spiritual Nature.
        Now: The subject of this topic translate into: Should ideas, theories, communications or anything relative to the Soul and Spirit be subject to restrictions, ridicule, banning and persecution?

        Science (thanks God not all, neither all scientists) are making strong efforts to destroy the right to openly discuss the subject. They might find "proof" of the ideas being "dangerous" and "harmful".
        Once proven, there will be herds of science believers or followers ready for combat!
        The new Inquisition might be looking at us!
        A plain return to the pagan pre-Christ Roman eras or am inversion of the Spanish Inquisition which wanted to force Galileo into accepting the earth was flat as a tortilla!
        The same irrationality is exhibited today in many pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-rational circles trying to control what people think and what people believe!
  • thumb
    Aug 14 2013: I agree with you, Jah, that how we treat each other and think about each other is a pivotal factor in what we can accomplish. Working together means being able to listen to different points of view, consider challenges to our ideas, and ask difficult questions. I think it means being really conscious of tendencies to label "them" and "us,' where "them" will often include people who keep asking questions because their integrity prevents than from following anyone blindly.

    It is useful for each of us to remember that our friends are not only those who say yes to everything we say. People do not need to be clones of each other to build something together. It is better if they are different.

    What are you doing, Jah, along the lines of what you propose?
    • thumb
      Aug 15 2013: At this moment, I am just spreading the idea. I'm only 23 so I'm still trying to get my life together and the way I am doesn't work to well with the way the world is right now. And yes the variety of thoughts and people contributing is the only way we can truly achieve the best society we can make. Violence stops this process in its tracks. Everyone gets so caught up on "you did this to us so we will do this to you". Didn't they ever learn to be the bigger person and walk away? It is hilarious to me that you said that following blindly thing because that's what got us here. We followed our gov't blindly into Iraq and after a few years Bush admitted he couldn't prove it was Al Quada that did 9/11. Yet the war goes on. We blindly follow central banking as well. It is so ironic that people would feel that way when that is what our lives are today. We know nothing compared to the gov't and we know almost nothing about their actions and reasons for their actions. Everything is classified yet people justify with no information at all. If people are going to follow something blindly they should follow something that will potentially benefit everyone, and I mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH, not just Americans or Israelis or anything else like that. Ever person has the same needs. This is our common ground. Most people share goals. More common ground. Everyone wants to be happy and live peacefully. The most important common ground. We should be trying to achieve this. What is the purpose of being so smart and aware of our consciousness if we ignore it and don't things we know we should? I've always felt I should help someone if I could because I hope they would feel the same. That is something my grandmother taught me and I don't have her anymore and I don't plan on giving up what she taught me or changing who she made me because the way the world thinks. I want the world to be better for my kids. I want them to hear violence/war and not know what it is. That's my world.
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2013: You will find it is entirely possible to live life by your standards of reaching out to others, what some faiths call "brotherly love," what others call "repairing the world"... It is indeed a fulfilling way of life, taught by grandmothers the world over and practiced by their progeny.

        Yes, following blindly is not a wise course in life in my opinion and questioning is a good thing.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 14 2013: That was really good and thats exactly what i want other people to do. Give ideas and thoughts and if they would help do this when the day comes.
  • thumb
    Aug 11 2013: Dear Jah,

    any line, any aspect of your calling I share with you, because I think what you are describing is true.

    It took me some years to understand the direction 'our world' was changing towards, and to peace together different information of different sources to a mosaic, which image I didn't like. Unfortunately, the newest 'pieces' do not contradict this picture and only blend the seam lines.

    When I was trying to 'be' the change I wanted to see, it didn't work out well from within 'the system', as the ruling paradigms have been engraved steadily and deep into our societies.

    One of those modern paradigms is the installation of 'individualism', which allowed for a whole new freedom for oneself to interact or not to interact with society, which as a consequence, lead to a new form of self chosen 'isolation'. I don't think that this new form of 'individualism' is negative in its nature, but it seems to have weakened our instincts to 're-connect' which each other in times of need.

    I also think, that the overall 'pain threshold' has not been reached yet, even though this fact on its own is surprising enough. When I look at the fact, that 'we', meaning the 'first world' societies, are living in the most comfortable times ever, technically seen, it is terrifying how little of it seems to be consciously 'felt' by the people within them.

    The rise in prescription of psycho chemicals and 'burn out' syndromes, the disintegration of family structures, the decline in birth-rates, all of this indicates more than clearly, that 'the system' does not work for us and only 'we' work for 'the system'.

    At the moment I have not the slightest idea what I could do to 'help facilitate' what you propose, and I think I am not alone with this feeling of helplessness.

    My only explanation for this, my 'paralysis', is, that I didn't have reached my 'individual pain threshold' yet. Multiply this by the numbers of 'individuals' it may need much more disturbance for 'EVOLUTION' to come.
  • Aug 10 2013: Hi Dear jah kable,I deem every change should be from myself at first.
  • Aug 10 2013: "Let me know your thoughts and how you could help facilitate something like this."
    I believe you must begin and continue to, plant the seeds of change in others minds.
    Conscious and unconscious. Actually, in the unconscious mind is where it is planted in order
    to take root and grow.
    The change? Thinking differently. Imagining new ideas and ways instead of dismissing them.
    One reason new things are dismissed so quickly and easily is that today, people are highly
    brainwashed. They hear sound bites of every kind that enter their psyche, dwelling there as
    lies that have usurped the seat of truth within them. Once these lies are repeated enough times,
    people hum them, sing them but worse, they believe and live by them.
    They become what I call, "deep-seated beliefs" but they are not real beliefs. They are what people have
    been told to believe, what to think, what to say and what to do. Conversely, they are also told what
    not to believe, what not to think, what not to say and what not to do.
    The effect is that they become personally-perceived convictions, but notice. In the word convictions,
    is the word "convict" and people are now prisoners of these false beliefs, en masse.
    One reason people react angrily to the truth is because it goes against the lies they have within them and they
    have also been brainwash-trained into reacting that way and dismissing the truth. A great effect of this
    is that when the truth enters the psyche by word, ad, image or voice, it has to run, be filtered or be diluted by this baffle-like system, as it seeks the seat of truth within human minds. By the time it reaches a persons inner core, it is literally devoid of the real truth and people wind up a baffled lot. And they are. Just look at them. Being slapped right in the face. Theft of their freedoms, breaking into their privacy and demolishing it, constant threats of terror and terrorism using lies and it is now done right out front, in broad daylight.
    They have to be woken up first.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 10 2013: I'm not very religious to be honest with you. Thank you for all that too and the group is not formed yet but i figure "We The People" would be good.
  • thumb
    Sep 8 2013: These concerns may be precisely why the current day would be a horrible time for revolution. The American revolution was wrought by colonies with experience in mostly ruling themselves, who after winning the war had the power to codify their wishes for the country. A revolution today wrought by the powerless poor against industrial complexes they know nothing about would result in disaster - an unguided missile providing a blank slate to the powerful in its wake. A new government would be created by corporate and foreign lobbies, likely without many of the rights that we enjoy today.
  • Aug 23 2013: Thats why we have systems, close systems and open systems (what do and not do)
    This is why things are like the way they are, its someones IDEA and or thoughts, you want CHANGE thats how it all started with charge because nothing stay the same, I can only hope that after you have achieved the change you are seeking nobody will be overstaped with your change, nobody will feel that your change interfered with his space. They all say its for a greater good and yet we all sufer from greater good, end up paying tax (not negotiable), paying for land which I think it was someone's IDEA to say land belong to some individual.
    • Aug 31 2013: land ownership came to us through oppression and it is a problem no doubt. but you have to fix the things you can fix before you try to fix the things you cannot (currently).
  • Aug 23 2013: if people buy land as much as possible and open it up to those who are willing to work the land to grow food and provide shelter and energy freely, this will create self sustainability and an alternative to dependence on the system. ultimately evolution is that which unites people, just as cells coming together and becoming larger organism was maor evolutionary push forward.
  • Aug 15 2013: Blablablablablablabla. I have just translated your entire rant into a single "word". You spew lots of vague generalities and emotionally-laden terms, but nothing real, nothing concrete, nothing common-man oriented. Let me guess, your "change" must be in gigantic "movements" or other dramatic gestures.

    Such "changes" usually end up merely as "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." What is a "real" change? At what point would it become so important that we are to start hurling bombs or shooting people, because such wild-eyed ranting as yours feeds the bomb-throwers.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2013: Bryan, I find it comical that you blame people who voice their ideas for the violence that people commit against them.! If that isn't a completely messed up mindset, I don't know what is. MLK got what he deserved and so did JFK because their "wide-eyed ranting"? Or is it only ranting when your a normal person? Or does actually being successful turn your rant into a speech? I can't agree with your thought at all. If you wanted to disagree you can make some valid points to why you don't believe in what I said? I'm also sorry that you expect the new world to be the same as the old one with a different face. That is the hopeless mentality that keeps us stuck. The world was made by people no smarter than us. I feel we are smarter now so why wouldn't we make the world better? I will let my thoughts evolve along with my actions and my message. You have every right to be a deconstruction person but that's not me. Hope you get better soon Bryan,
      • Aug 18 2013: Are you pretending to be as stupid as you sound? Quote SPECIFICALLY where I blamed victims of violence for the violence. GIVE THE SPECIFIC QUOTE. The "new world" will be the same as the old, because people like you--totalitarian dogmatics who refuse to compromise or bend, will be the ones who run the "new world", just like they run the old.
        • thumb
          Aug 18 2013: "At what point would it become so important that we are to start hurling bombs or shooting people, because such wild-eyed ranting as yours feeds the bomb-throwers."
          Specifically the second part of this quote.Ranting like mine feeds "bomb-throwers".Those people are called extremists and I don't approve of that.

          People who oppose multi-million/billion dollar corporations are usually the people being attack. Who did Monsanto hire??? Blackwater mercenaries or whatever they are called.
          http://www.naturalnews.com/040492_gmo_activists_monsanto_blackwater.html

          The ones who stand to lose profits are the ones that attack, covertly of course.

          If you read my comments I'm quite sure I said in one manner or another that I don't condone violence or the use of violence to coax someone to think like me. I'll admit that if you think what I'm saying is impossible or too expensive, I'd say you care too much about dead people on fancy paper.

          History has proven that people will do very bad things to get rich or become powerful. Seeing as I have tolerated this world and attempted to compromise and just can't stand all the things i see not happening because of money. Kids starve because of money. People don't get medical attention because of money. We don't take advantage of technology to save natural resources because of money. If money was gone these problems would disappear. You can disagree if you want but I'm still going to do what I've been doing and spread the message I've been spreading.

          By the way the new world will be ran by the people. We can communicate world wide in the blink of an eye. Man I don't know though, if you can't see it than I'm sorry. I see a great future in my mind and have hope that something close to it can be achieved. We just have to work together. One day we will see and I really do hope something changes peoples minds even if it is not me.

          It was good debating with you Bryan. I look forward to the next one.
  • Aug 15 2013: I concur.
  • thumb
    Aug 14 2013: Evolution fundamentally means "change". Hence, evolution is happening permanently. There it seems to be a great confusion about the meaning of -evolution-
    If the question in this topic really is: Is it time for a change IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION then we should all agree. But we should also realize such "evolution" would be CREATIVE EVOLUTION, or an evolution with a direction, a purpose, an aim.
    Such as the so called Universe Evolution.
    If the universe would be a product of pure evolution, chaotic, as ruled by the second law of thermodynamics then at this time there should be no beauty, no order, no extreme complexity, no wonder of Human Kind, not an awesome Universe at all.
    Yes! we can make it better! With creativity. Not by mere evolution.
    Thinking otherwise is accepting the crude views of pure evolutionary minds, which deny the most important element for an Evolution. Without a Director; without a Creative Mind evolution leads to total disorder, total chaos. That is a FACT!
    Would you leave the creation of better ways for this world to mere chance?
    It would be quite silly! Just as to think the Marvel of our Universe has happened by mere chance...
    • Aug 15 2013: As a biologist, the idea that a stochastic process cannot give rise to "order" is quite absurd. Nothing at all in the second law of thermodynamics says that, at any given moment, every individual local condition must be more chaotic than every given local condition of a previous time point. All it says is that the sum total of conditions will, over enough time, be more chaotic. It says nothing about the specific condition of a specific time and place. Indeed, second law is so chaotic that it even permits for local order to exist and for order to actually increase on a purely local basis, for a limited time (say, no more than a million years or so), so long as, over the entire lifespan of the universe, the entire system moves to chaos.

      A simple analogy: The Toy Law of Toy Sums says that, given 1000000000000000000000 different numbers, the sum of those numbers will ultimately go from the original maximum value to zero over a period of 100000000000000000000 years. Okay, so, let's say that you are able to track 1000000 numbers over a period of 10000 years. Your observation says that the sum is actually climbing, ever so slightly. That doesn't prove the Toy Law of Toy Sums is false. After all, you have only observed 1/10000000000000000000000000000000 of the numbers to which the Toy Law applies. Likewise, someone else, who observed an overlapping but different set of numbers, comes up with a decreasing sum. Now what? The existence of local order is not adequate to disprove the second law of thermodynamics, since the second law does not preclude local order. It talks about the end-game sum vs. the start-game sum.
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2013: I've heard the argument before, many times indeed. Curiously, it seems to be a favorite argument from biologists, which strangely think the whole evolution is solely related to biology and the Life process.
        Being myself a Computer Scientist, with easy reach to complex computer systems, we have many times created simulations of pure chaotic generation, starting from a perfect data order. We could observe, after performing an enormous amount of generation cycles, serendipity increased constantly, and our search and efforts to identify any particular "local order" we found very rare and occasional minimal set of simplistic order, never comparable to the tremendous complexity and exquisite order found in the Universe. At speeds over 1 GigaFlop, we prolonged the experiment, doing iterations for an equivalent of 4000 million years of evolution, resulting in no evident surgence of any appreciable order.
        The phenomena was TOTALLY different when we introduced minimal rules (laws of generation) within the system. Then we could obtain growing patterns of order and even exquisite results, but we must remember this were the actual expressions of the programmer's intentions.

        I really would like to see a clear demonstration of a significant "local order" from a pure and clean thermodynamic process, WITHOUT any admissible and indentifiable external influence
        • thumb
          Aug 16 2013: You both have very good points but I have to point out I used evolution to replace revolution because revolution implies a revolving cycle. Evolution seems to be a better word for how serious the change would be. It wouldn't be something we could reverse after it happens. I'm glad people are getting so into this!!
          Thank you both and keep the passion.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 15 2013: This idea would be so huge if i knew everything that needed to happen but I do not and I don't mind that. If the whole change was only my ideas and what i wanted it would be unfair to some. This is an idea that everyone must contribute to and strive to achieve. I do believe everyone can make this change even though you do not. Society, as we know it, has taught us that there is not enough for everyone whether it be food, land, housing, power, control, ect. The list is endless yet everyday we see that there is more than enough for everyone. Why are people suffering if we can help them? They don't have money to pay for the help. Why do empty houses outnumber the homeless 5 to 1? Because they don't have money. Yes, money is a big cause of this but if we as people place it above other people than that is our own mistake. We have been molded into this as you said but that does not mean we cannot change. If history has taught us anything, it is that we constantly change. The change has been so little in the past century its astonishing. Our technology improved and we did not. We do have the power to make a better world. I, personally would start by putting the homeless in these empty houses. Think of all the shelters that could be helping other people or the people that work at the shelters that could do other things. Most of the homeless are not crazy, they just fell and no one reached out to help them up. I don't want to be left there and I doubt anyone would. Everyone needs help from time to time but when they are capable they will help someone else. It's the new circle. The circle of kindness or love or just karma. The second thing I would worry about is stopping outsourcing. How many people are jobless because a company wants to raise profits? I couldn't even imagine. I understand it helps those countries we outsource to, but at what cost to us. I hate money. I see the evil.

      This is my ideal world.
      http://thevenusproject.com/
      Thank you Carolyn. My brains warm now :D
  • thumb
    Aug 12 2013: It's pretty simple, "You can accept the world for what it is and allows those in control to stay in control or you can stand up for things you believe need to change and maybe change the world." If this isn't in you already than I can only hope you see one day but if you believe everything is fine and we are doing the best we can, please go hang out with the other sheep.
  • thumb
    Aug 11 2013: There's not a solitary idea, insight, or even an opinion put forward in this post. It's just one long, emotional felling expressed really really hard, and with lots of CAPS.

    It's not enough to want something, to WEALLY WEALLY want something. You still have to have some sort of intellectual plan with specific points or germane examples to make it happen.
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2013: I believe the emotional/spiritual change i spoke of is a solid and intellectual idea, even thought is not the theory of relativity. It is also something we need that would change the world. Is it dumb to help another with a hope they will help you one day? I don't believe it is. I think that would be genius because it would be like an eye for an eye except in a good way. Yeah me and my idealistic thoughts. Hear this first, without idealistic people we would not live how we live today. So I will be idealistic and I will always think we can improve and I will never give up that idea and will pass it on to whoever will listen.
      • Aug 15 2013: You believe the emotional is a solid and intellectual idea? So does my two-year-old grandson. Feeling something very strongly means nothing. It does not make it just, virtuous, or even sensible, only felt. I have come across people who believe all sorts of things, contradicting each other, each feeling their beliefs so very strongly. Didn't make any of them right or give any of them useful ways to get their goals accomplished.
        • thumb
          Aug 18 2013: You're the type of person that is always doubtful, it seems. And you didn't even quote me right but good try. I have a hopeful mentality, I believe there is a better tomorrow if we aim to achieve it. I believe that if we just wait we are going to follow people that have no concern for most of us. I will not follow people who do things I don't agree with like killing people, bombing civilians, lying to citizens of their country, promising things they never aimed to achieve, selling your opinion to corporations, take advantage of millions of people, ect. The list goes on and on and on. I won't agree with it so I will try to change it or die trying to change it. History has proven the way things are now was achieved by violence and war not cooperation. Where has the violence and war lead us... to more violence and war. You live with this every day and don't try to change it? So you find todays world virtuous, just, and sensible?
  • thumb
    Aug 11 2013: You got it Jah.
    The call is in the air. I know it is. The days of the league of big corporations are over. The media you are using to speak your mind is one proof of it.
  • thumb
    Aug 11 2013: Can't agree more.
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2013: .

    Yes!
    “Peace and prosperity” “can only be achieved by UNDERSTANDING.”

    Understanding:
    (1) Invalid (harmful) happiness makes greed.
    (2) Greed makes all evil.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2013: I use to think this but if you look at the last 500 years there has been nothing but constant change. My kids will see in their future changes from this era disappear like that of my parents and their parents saw in their time, like you will see in yours.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2013: It is time to end the “Change!” We all known this to be self-evident and true.
    It is government has killed the America dream, not its citizens.
    And by citizens I include those who run businesses.
    Yes, America should be grateful to the world, for we are a blend the world. Every culture and country is a part of America, thus America is part of them.
    It is because we know all humans are created equal, we know all of mankind most be free from oppression. (Isolation is not a option)

    If you’re tired of working for others, then start our own business. But no wait!
    It is the government that punishes small businesses owners with over taxation and costly rules.
    Like I said “It is time to end the “Change!” and return to WE The People!
    and Have a nice weekend everyone! :)
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: Exactly what I'm saying and that is a change. We have lost control of our own country to bought politicians and billion dollar corporations. We The People need to take control once again and put things the way they need to be for ALL not the way they are to benefit a very select FEW. We do need change, just not the typical change I believe you're speaking of.
      You have a nice weekend too, I appreciate the input Don.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2013: How is it that when you make a company richer, you don't become richer, too? Aren't you part of the company?
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: Exactly right. Every time their stock rises, the employees should be paid more as well or receive a real percentage of the bonus. CEO's get bonus' that rise above the millions while the thousands and thousands of workers they employ get nothing or close to nothing. They will say we give you insurance the work conditions are good, how are you complaining? To which i ask the question, If i do more work than you AND and a effective part of the company, such as yourself, do you or do you not believe I deserve the same bonus as you?
      • thumb
        Aug 9 2013: Well, I don't know much about that, Jah, it would seem you'd need sustained rise. I would think it'd be smart for an employee to pay attention to their company's stock, and if they see a sustained rise, use it as leverage to negotiate for more salary. I don't believe the average worker works as hard as the CEO, but they deserve to benefit if they are helping the company succeed.
    • thumb
      Aug 11 2013: The problem is that we choose democracy only for our political system, yet didn't install it within our economy.

      As the majority of people are employees, there is simply no choice for them on the job market to join a company in which they become joint partners. Companies, in which each worker has one vote and who have a say in the decision making process within. There are only a view companies I know of, who have this democratic system installed, but all of those workers are very much involved in the well being of THEIR company and do not 'innerly' resign or detach from their jobs .

      Throughout my whole professional life I only met a view people who really loved what they were doing. All the others, me included, more or less just arranged with it, or got trough with it waiting for the next weekend to come.

      Having heard all of this 'efficiency chatter' of McKinsey and alike, no one ever tackled this 'core problem', because they knew they couldn't fix it, even though most of the 'efficiency problems' are related to it.

      Any company I worked for was constantly 're-arranging' their internal processes to optimize the overall efficiency. None of them listened to their people, their workers. Of course those external consulting agencies tapped into the knowledge of 'the workforce', but not to listen to the real 'problems', but to fill their PowerPoint slides with valid company numbers to support their prepackaged 'solution plan', which always boiled down to the simple rule: Less people do the same and more than more people did before...

      If 'the people' had a vote in this, they would not have allowed the benefits to rise on their costs ...

      So I think that democracy@work has a lot potential to not only stabilize 'hyper nervous markets', but to eradicate those 'bubble creating mechanisms' and to bring economy 'down to earth', to ensure solid foundations for domestic markets.

      Shipping jobs to China for profit maximization would not happen in a democratically run company.
      • thumb
        Aug 11 2013: Well, I appreciate your reply, Lejan ., you are talking about a field I don't know much about. Offhand it seems to me you cannot give everybody an equal vote, because some people know more about the work being done and thus their opinion counts for more and is worth more, what do you think? It seems to me in a good company that if a worker at the bottom had a good idea, the company would listen, I know I worked parking cars for a while and the company encouraged all the employees to submit ideas, if the company used the idea the company would pay the employee. Would this make you happier at your company?

        I somewhat follow the Masai way, the Masai people of Kenya, is there much awareness of Masai in Germany? In Masai there are no company, no variety of job, every man is a dairy farmer herding some cows and living on milk and beef, and every woman is a dairy wife.
        • thumb
          Aug 11 2013: Transferring your argument into political democracy, anyone who has a university degree in politics then has more voting power than someone who doesn't, just because he knows more about it? No, I don't see any reasonable argument why that should be.

          Transferring your argument into todays reality, the decision power would then be turned upside down, if it was about the knowledge of the making. Because as 'higher' you look, as less knowledge is expected and usually to be found. Very complex and detailed process knowledge gets reduced further and further until if finally fits on a single PowerPoint slide, of which the largest part is a colorful picture. That is why many CEO's can swop industry sectors in a heartbeat. Today they are leading a shipyard, tomorrow they run an internet service provider. And this not because they are that smart, but because they run both companies on numbers only. In my opinion, this is not enough to make the right decisions for a specific company in a certain business area.

          Knowledge is not a good indicator to describe someones 'voting percentage', as knowledge is often willingly withhold by some towards many, for base motives, such as becoming 'indispensable' for a company or simply out of false pride.

          I had to learn that the hard way, and I was simply speechless when I found out about it.

          My view on any company is pretty simple. As long as there are not more people employed than needed, anyone is necessary to anyone else to get the job done and to earn at least all the salaries needed at the end of the month. And all jobs are to be appreciated to the same degree and respected, because only a good working team is able to sustain.

          Maybe I see it this way, because I worked most of my time within R&D and have been connected with all departments of the company to guide the whole process towards the final product of even our customers.

          Knowledge is manifold and spread across all people of a company who should all have equal votes.
        • thumb
          Aug 11 2013: I would say that there is not much awareness in 'average' Germany about the Masai. Many here know them as tall, elegant and beautifully build people. Others have Kenya on their 'vacation to do list' or already been there. The last thing I remember to have learned about the Masai was a short documentary in which was reported, that cellphones have already reached their circles... I remember that I felt stupid about my reaction that it felt strange to me to picture a Masai with a cellphone. But why should they be any different from us? :o)
      • thumb
        Aug 12 2013: Doubt you can transfer the argument into the political sphere, Lejan.. It seems like our societies agree that everyone has an equal right to, and interest in, certain extremely basic services, such as clean water. These very basic services are what politicians concern themselves with, thus we give everyone an equal vote.

        The things that companies produce we seem to think different people deserve different levels of quality. For instance, everybody deserves transportation, but not everybody deserves a Rolls-Royce. Only some people will know how to produce the high quality of a Rolls-Royce, and they will form the Rolls-Royce company; and within that group some will know more than others, thus they will be the leaders of the company.

        I would say a smart company listens to every employee, if a low-level employee has a good idea the superiors should pick up on it and utilize it.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2013: We may never agree on this.

          In my view no one 'deserves' any Rolls-Royce, as it is not about 'deserving' at all and just about who can 'afford' it.

          And those who actually know how to produce the quality of such a car, the craftsmen, are those who get paid the least in the chain of hierarchy within that company. The truly big bonuses and incentives are given not to those who actually make the car! This is a fundamental rule of any capitalistic system, which society keeps accepting still...

          My personal experience with 'smart companies' who should listen to every employee didn't turn out well, repeatedly and this for a simple rule: profit maximization.

          I have seen systems being installed to collect and evaluate 'good ideas' of all employees and even to guarantee a short response and feedback loop, so that no one would get the feeling, that their ideas would get lost within the process. The results didn't match the expectations and this for several reasons.

          First of all was, that those higher ranked experts who had to evaluate those ideas simply didn't have the time to deal with this 'extra work' loaded on them to do it thoroughly and right. Which resulted in standardized 'response letters' and quick and superficial evaluations, often without any calculation whatsoever. Also most of this experts were personally responsible for a certain field of production, standing by their rule of survival 'never to change a working process', as anything else bares the risk of failure.

          So whenever there comes an idea, lets say, to exchange this highly expensive lubricant of this machine by a way more cheaper one, the personal interest of the one in charge of that process overruled the possibility, that this idea might have worked out well. And by the given tight time schedules within production, there never is a window of opportunity for trial and error.

          And because most employees aren't stupid, they'll sens any pleaded excuse for not trying their idea, so the next ideas are
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2013: either not given at all, because it doesn't make any sense anyway, or they start censoring themselves under the same restrictions of 'reality', which will have the same result in not naming any new ideas which might work ...

          Second problem always turned out to be the 'reward' mechanism for a good idea, as here it always becomes a conflict of interest between the employer and his employees, and also there is a dis-balance of knowledge about the 'true numbers'. Lets say you named an idea which could save the company 2 million dollar a year, so the question becomes, how much of this saving should be shared and for how long? If you didn't name the idea, the company would loose millions year after year after year, but do you think any employee would ever get 50% in reward? And if so, do you think he or she would get it for as long his of her idea was applied? The company would still save 1 million a year, but I have never ever experienced any willingness to reward any employee that much ever, because this could mean, that a simple machine worker would make more a year than the CEO does, and that seems to be out of question in the given system. This isn't logical at all, but this is the way it is.

          And third is the underestimation of the intelligence of the employees. To often is assumed, that 'they' will be just fine and happy if you give them some 'small crumb' of the cake the employer just got - but this is a false conclusion! And because of this fine senses of just being 'ripped off', hundreds of valuable ideas will never be named and spoken, as why should an 'employee' care about the 'losses' his employer makes? This isn't logical as well, but the way it usually is...
      • thumb
        Aug 12 2013: well, my sense is that the people who can afford it are the people who work the hardest, thus they do deserve it.

        I don't know much about auto executives, Lejan .. My sense is that many or most have risen through the ranks and do in fact know the nuts and bolts of car assembly, car design, and so on. But also we must note that producing a Rolls-Royce is not only about assembly, there are a million tasks, there are the materials buyers, there is the choice and purchasing of assembly equipment, there are employee relations, there is hiring, there is publicity and advertising, there is organizing of labor, delegation of tasks. I would say executives are involved with all these fields and have specialized knowledge of some of them that the average assembly line worker does not have. And they are difficult, the company largely rises or falls on how well they are done.

        Your take on what happens with employee ideas is a little pessimistic, I think. First off, isn't it rare that a low-level employee produces an idea that saves a company a million dollars a year?
      • thumb
        Aug 12 2013: Lejan ., you might be interested in a kind of decision-making I encountered at a dormitory at Stanford called consensus decision-making. Consensus decision-making means that when a group makes a decision they keep working and reworking the decision until everybody agrees with it. Thus in a dorm of 60 people they will keep discussing any decision the dorm has to make until all 60 agree with the decision. Sometimes this goes very quickly, sometimes takes longer, but it is stronger than one person/one vote, because in that system 31 people could be happy with a decision, and 29 unhappy, under consensus all 60 are happy.

        By the way, if you are unhappy with the way companies operate, why don't you emulate the Masai and get yourself a dairy farm and be self-sufficient, then you won't have to deal with the company structure you dislike.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2013: Thats what I am doing, Greg, building my own 'dairy farm'. And consensus decision-making is even better!
    • thumb
      Aug 11 2013: One of the outcomes of the 'American Civil War' was, that no one was allowed by law, to have slaves.

      So why don't we just make a law, that no one is allowed to have employees?

      This way, democracy@work would not just be a rare option, it became the rule. And wouldn't the majority of the people benefit from that? I think, they would!

      And as we did manage to install democracy for our political systems, we may make good use of it next time and for us, as that is what democracy stands for, doesn't it?
      • thumb
        Aug 12 2013: and what is the dairy farm, Lejan ., a business of your own, or literally a dairy? Personally I would like to have a few cows, but I feel stopped by not having a wife, I believe that the Masai consider that having a spouse, being married, is essential to having cattle. For example, if I need to go into town for supplies, who is going to watch the cows? Or if I am too tired to milk them at the end of the day, who will milk? If you are creating a business, it might not hurt to be married, are you married or have you been?
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2013: No, I am not married and never have been, which, as you say, makes things a bit more complicated. At the moment I am freeing myself from as many dependencies as possible while reducing my standard of living to a more self-sustainable level. At the right place, which I haven't found yet, and which will most likely not be in Germany, I am planning for a small farm like place which will allow me to produce anything I need for myself,including food, water and energy supply. So far I have not enough capital to get the project started and I am also recovering still from a medical condition I had some while ago. So once I am back on track, things hopefully turn out the way I imagine them.
      • thumb
        Aug 14 2013: Lejan ., realize that consensus decision-making is quite different from giving everyone at a company an equal vote. Let us say a company has 60 employees. 40 are laboring class, 20 are executives. If the company has to make a decision by a straight vote, the 40 may vote and constitute a majority and win the vote, but then the 20 will be unhappy. Under consensus, there is no vote, the group as a whole continues working on the decision until all 60 can agree with the final decision. This process may take five minutes, or it may take five days. In this process people who know more about the matter at hand will probably have more influence, but they can't control the process through the sheer numbers of the vote, everyone will get to have input into the decision, perhaps the people who don't know as much about the topic still have important points to make that will affect the final decision, ultimately all 60 must agree with the decision.
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2013: Consensus decision-making can work fine in five minutes, as you say, but it can also lead into recursive infinite discussion loops with paralyzing results. Depending on a given subject, there is often and simply just not the time for 'infinity', especially on urgent matters, so a combination of democratic and consensus decisions would probably form practically.

          And if I had to choose, I rather go for a happy majority, than just a view happy individuals in cases a consensus can not be found or not be found fast enough than a situation demands it.

          'People who know more about the matter at hand will probably have more influence'. Of course, yet to the extend of 'giving input' and to 'inform' all the others. And if this 'knowledge' makes sense, it then will have its influence. Knowledge becomes only an instrument of domination if its kept secret in 'ruling circles', yet if openly shared, it becomes an instrument of empowerment to make decisions of which more people could agree and benefit from. In terms of a positive evolution of societies over time, this is what I consider to step forward.

          Of course there is no guarantee that those decisions are always better. But if they not turn out as intended, expected or hoped, the acceptance of unfavorable consequences however, will be carried differently if one had a say in them. Because this way people are enabled to learn from their mistakes, and are not doomed to just endure the mistakes of a view other... which, to often and miraculously, manage to escape the downsides of their failures...
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2013: Thanks, Lejan .. I don't know, I've only used it (consensus) in family decision-making, and it never seems to lead to paralysis, it seems like everyone emerges from it happier. I tend to think it would not lead to paralysis as long as eveyone has good will and wants to advance the aims of the group and group members.

        I think sometimes people don't withhold information to be secretive or dominating, they only do it because it takes time to share information, and they may have greater priorities for their time, and also it takes effort to share information, and people may not want to go to that effort if they don't think the other person will put the information to good use.