2036_500Through my friend Thomas Michl, the call for a blog parade on #FutureVision2036
 by Yasemin Akdemir came to my attention.

I do not wish to speculate about what the world might be like in twenty years.

Because since Hans Ulrich of St. Gallen wrote his theories about “Change in Management”, we know that “the future cannot be predicted”!

And it is not at all my style to come up with courageous outlooks.

But I will gladly relate to you what I would the world to be like in 2036!

First and foremost, it would be important for me to see most people being wiser and more peace-loving all over the world.

When I say wiser, I mean that humanity should increase both in its mental concepts and behaviour and that it should push the ever-present enmity into the background, both externally and internally.

Peace in my definition means that more and more persons manage to live in harmony with their own existence, also by appreciating their own value. The only way external peace can grow and prevail is if people like and appreciate themselves and thus find their own inner peace. It is the only way to make the many beloved enemy concepts disappear and also the only way towards successfully living in peace with nature, other people and other social systems.

Apart from this, I would wish for more neutrality and less moralism, for example also when it comes to sexual prudery. On the whole, the importance of religion should dwindle. How can anybody claim something to be the absolute truth that has been constructed by humans? For example, I also would not wish that children are still injured and maimed in 2036 for “religious reasons”.

There is a great sentence by Frederick II. Of Prussia: “Let all people become happy in their own chosen fashion” and it would be nice if this sentence were still true in 2036. But not the “violation of religious feelings” should be illegal. Instead, the social discrimination of “infidels” by “believers” and the attempt of those believers to “religiously reform” those infidels should be against the law.

In 2036, we should no longer misinterpret peace as a state of affairs where all that is possible is permitted. The meaning of the word must be replaced by an understanding of peace in the sense of “being able and willing to live your life responsibly”.

It would make me very happy if, over the next twenty years, people learned how to become independent of marketing and external control. And maybe they could understand that their most valuable commodity is time. And that we can enjoy our life at the moment in joy – without having to think about it too much. How about a little more sub-consciousness and, to make up for it, less cerebellum?

In 2036, we would like to live in a “fear-free” space. Fear grows between your ears and has nothing to do with really threatening situations and a healthy respect of dangers. It would be nice if, by then, we no longer think we have to define ourselves by our looks, property, success, money….

There is actually one concern of mine for 2036: can we live our lives in harmony with our environment? I would like to be able to breathe the air in the cities even if I am a pedestrian or ride a bike. In order to achieve this, we would have to understand that “individual mobility” it not a concept of the future if it is based on heavy vehicles. Nor does it matter if said vehicles are powered by a combustion motor or an electric motor.

And, in 2036, I would like to live in a society that accepts that I am a human being of flesh and blood who has the right to enjoy his body with lust, which would mean that I am entitled to enough physical exercise in everyday life. And I mean in a way that does not just make me a means to an end. I want to be able to rollick and romp even when I am grown up.

In 2016, I no longer wish to be manipulated by marketing and ruled by lobbyism. Instead, I would like to be what we were created to be: agreeable mammals equipped with a little bit of ratio who can live their lives autonomously.

Another prevalent principle of our economic activity should be “sustainability”. This means the economic cycles would have to be organized and practiced in such a way that the principle #nowaste has highest priority. This is also true for energy – just like with everything else, this has to be done by using “smart technologies”, but also by every one of us limiting ourselves to the necessities.

We humans are not here to serve the economy – instead, the economy should serve us. Instead of a global “predator capitalism”, we need a functioning regional “common-good economy” in 2036. Even if said common-good economy might be a little less efficient – which, incidentally, I do not believe it would be.

Many of our habits have to – and, as I believe, will – change drastically. This will be true both for mobility and the production of goods. One possible solution might be the increase of „shared economy“, individually promoted by “less vanity and egoism”. The success recipe of the future will be “less is more”. “Growth as the solution to all problems” was yesterday (and even then, it was utter nonsense).
Consideration will also have to prevail whenever we actually do something. And we will permanently have to ask ourselves if we really need all the things we buy.

So what I wish for 2036 is an enlightenment 2.0 that we take seriously and develop diligently. It should also be the formative factor of all our lives. And I am and will remain optimistic that, with courage and joy, we will get there. Among other things because we support the new “digital world” and nice blog parades.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

actmobcmp_100-300x86#AktMobCmp

In the last few weeks, the topic “active mobility” suffered from too little attention by me. Instead, I was busy doing something about #FRIEDEN and DIGITALE TRANSFORMATION, seeing my grandchildren and my mentees, giving a little support to start-ups and attending to private interests such as riding my bike through Italy. And much more.

I am truly sorry about this, because I keep receiving news and new information that show how badly we need to do something:

  • The fine dust pollution in all the cities of the world is extremely high and still rising.
  • Due to the ever smaller size of pollutants through modern technology (we are talking nano dimensions), they are more unhealthy than ever.
  • The climate catastrophe gets more real, closer and ever more threatening.
  • Our autonomy in life is restricted, our way of life is more and more determined from the outside.
  • This is how, controlled from the outside, we sacrifice what is important to us, giving it to foreign institutions that manipulate us and put their own interests above ours.
  • The metrics of money and profit are onmi-present and rules the entire world and all areas of life.
  • The way how huge concerns manipulate us and rule over us gets more and more outrageous.
  • Fear becomes the determining drive of a strongly increasing irrationality in society and politics.

My conclusion:
As far as I am concerned, I am fed up with the new dishonesty and evil double morals. We need a huge transformation that begins with our cognitive perception. Mobility is an ample metaphor for the current development and the fact that transformation is absolutely necessary. It shows all the things that go wrong and how we badly need to change our opinions and habits for our own good.

The next chance to do something is in exactly one week! On May, 21st, 2016, the next Camp für active Mobility #AktMobCmp will be held in Augsburg. Since it is during the Bavarian Pentecost Holidays, the organizers cut the camp down to one day. They are happy to welcome all visitors  …

On this day, the interests and needs of all participants will be very intensely discussed in the format of a barcamp. The “part-givers” will share their knowledge and leave after a day of shared realizations, ideas and plans, not to mention all the new friends they will have found.

So here is my personal plea to all the “friendly persons” who want to take responsibility for the future: try the Augsburg.#AktMobCmp. If it is only your inertia that keeps you from attending, please overcome your “inner weak self” and come! Register here.

 

Gestiftet von VisualBrainddump (Christian Botta & Daniel Reinold) Zum Vergrößern aufs Bild klicken.

Donated by VisualBrainddump (Christian Botta & Daniel Reinold) Click on the image to enlarge.

 

Early last year, we started with a very nice camp in Unterhaching.

We will continue in 2017 – probably on January, 5th and 6th, again in the Kubiz Unterhaching.

Starting in September, our preparations will gain new momentum. We will do some massive advertising and invite many people and institutions we know well by now. And I guarantee that this barcamp will, again, bring many persons together, be extremely enjoyable and bring fundamental additional knowledge.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Klaus Hnilica
Tuesday September 22nd, 2015

Is ‘Social Justice‘ just a Misunderstanding?

Yes – if we continue to hold onto what we have been considering the definition so far! /1/

According to this definition, everybody, strangely, thinks him- or herself socially just yet at the same time laments about the growing injustice in this world.

It seems that this discrepancy is insurmountable.

ApfelpflückerWe are simply too much in love with our unclear terminologies. In fact, we actually wallow in the concept that ‘social justice‘ has to be some kind of ‘moral, egg-laying wool-milk-sow‘, rather than just a minimum standard for human behaviour consisting just a few rules even evil persons have to stick by!

If, however, we accept this definition, we soon find out that ‘social justice‘ tends to have little in common with ‘romantic equality‘. Instead, it has a lot to do with not-so romantic ‘voluntariness‘. And that this is why politics in general have an inherent structural problem when it comes to generating ‘social justice‘, even if it very industriously tries to find and remove ‘legal loopholes‘. It is easy to show this in three steps. All you have to point out is:

   A)  the common principle of ‘exchange justice‘,

   B)  the principle of ‘equal treatment and equality of results‘ and

   C)  the particularly apparent ‘distribution justice‘.

Let us take a closer look at all three of them:

   A)  After all, we basically have a very special form of ‘exchange justice’ when, in the name of ‘social justice‘, people demand fair prices and fair incomes!

For instance when it comes to: here the aromatic Alp Butter, there the ridiculous one-euro-eighty; or here the super manuscript and there the low fee. If we were to demand ‘equality of values‘, then we would need the general ‘principle of exchange justice‘! But how to objectively determine this ‘equality of values‘ for every individual exchange process?

For instance: would one ounce of gold be too much for a bucket of water in the Sahara if it means the difference between life and death? And are 50 cents too much for two litres of milk if someone has a lactose incompatibility? Or what is the adequate fee for a manuscript which, later, will only be pushed underneath the one too short table leg?

Doesn’t this mean that the ‘evaluation‘ of an exchange object is by nature a very subjective thing and that this value has nothing to do with equality? Especially since said exchange only takes place because all the parties concerned see the object of exchange differently, which is why each considers his own deal profitable.

Naturally, this ‘exchange profit‘ is just as unprovable as the ‘exchange value‘; but it is also clear that any profit can only exist and be proved if the exchange has been voluntary! Which means that an exchange is always ‘socially just‘ if none of the parties concerned has been forced to accept it!

Of course, this voluntariness in an ‘exchange‘ does not guarantee that both parties can get what they hoped to achieve. Neither is it a protection against erroneous decisions, such as for instance the imprudent purchase of low-price milk regardless of lactose incompatibility. But this is not necessary, either. Because the evaluation of the ‘exchange profit‘ is subjective, which means that it cannot later be forced into a wrong equality measurement just because someone had erroneously and intuitively assumed that this ‘equality‘ in an ‘exchange profit‘ is closely related to ‘social justice‘!

Consequently, we can conclude that prices and incomes are always socially just when they can be accepted without one of the parties having been forced to accept!

    B)  Now let us discuss the allegedly socially just ‘equal treatment and equality of results‘!

Again, our equality mania brings us into a similar logical one-way road, as can be easily shown with a simple example: If, under the aspect of equality, you ask a retired lady, a sportsman and a six-year old boy to pluck apples from a four metre high apple tree with a ladder standing at its trunk, you will get considerably different results; the help you will have to give will, indeed, be rather diverse, before all three candidates will have plucked the same amount of apples – which means they have equal results.

Since, however, there are no two identical individuals on this earth, you will never get equal results if you treat them equally, and vice versa!

And regardless of this fact being absolutely obvious, we keep demanding equality along with social justice. But if equality were really socially just, then the state of affairs where all persons are poorly off would, according to justice theory, be the best that could happen, wouldn’t it?

Luckily, nobody believes this! But still we insist that the logical consequence cannot be to stop seeing equality as a manifestation of social justice.

    C)  The tendency towards equalization is particularly apparent when it comes to discussions about ‘fair distribution’!

To distribute something means to hand out from a supply. Fair distribution demands that this has to done following certain rules. However, the fairness is most obvious when the owner does the distributing him- or herself, because then it is his or her will alone that counts. To be sure, it might be reasonable to consider the expectations of third parties, but that is not demanded by social justice! Social justice is served by the protection of ownership rights.

But it gets truly difficult when you cannot clearly define ownership, as it is the case with all political systems because the spheres of interests of the distributors and the recipients will often be identical. Conflicts are unavoidable and the ‘just solution‘ of said conflicts are not just a theoretical challenge, but mostly no more than a noble goal!

Compared to this, private persons and enterprises have a rather easy life, don’t’ they? All they have to do is not cheat, not steal, not use violence and not break contracts – and already they are just. They need not abide by more rules than that!

When all is said and done, this consideration not only generates a theory of justice, but also a surprising solution for economic and social politics: why not move as many decisions as possible to the private sector – since this is where you have clear and, according to what has been stated above, ‘socially just‘ circumstances?

Well, I assume this will remain wishful thinking, because many will still refuse to abandon the inacceptable ‘equality saturated‘ definition of justice! And they will be even less willing to forego the potential increase in power derived from this ‘usurpatory definition of equality‘!

KH

/1/ Dagmar Schulze Heuling; „Was Gerechtigkeit nicht ist“; Nomos – Verlag Baden – Baden

Roland Dürre
Tuesday March 31st, 2015

Our Civil Law and its Time of Payment for Services

EuroIn March 2012, I wrote about how it  annoyed me that huge concerns insist on the long times of payment for the suppliers of services. After all, our civil law says that services are to be paid directly after they have been rendered.

With good reason:
A supplier who delivered a product can – at least to some extent – have protection through still maintaining ownership. If things go wrong, he can take hold of his product, because as long as it has not been paid, he is still legally the owner.

Of course, someone who delivers a service does not have this option, because as soon as the service has been rendered, there is nothing to take hold of. I learned that as early as during my school days at the Business Grammar School Jakob Fugger in Augsburg in the subject Economic Studies. But it seems that the law is only taken seriously where violations of same are severely punished. Otherwise they are often ignored, as described in my last article.

What “good old times” were the years around 1984 – when we founded InterFace. Siemens was our first customer. And, of course, being a newly installed entrepreneur and managing director, I told the very nice Siemens salesperson all I knew from school. In those days, the time of payment for services was four weeks (!) at Siemens and the salesperson sounded quite convincing to me when he told me how he needs those four weeks for processing and also that Siemens was the most reliable payer in all of Germany.

A short time ago, in a supervisory board meeting, we again discussed that huge customers often have extremely long times of payment. Our business consultant then told us about the law in Poland. If a rendered and approved service is not paid within a short time, the tax benefit is no longer available. And he said that this simple regulation actually works wonders as far as paying morals are concerned.

However, if the competition from Poland delivers to Germany, then this is not much help. He will still have to wait for his money. At least that is what I assume.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
I took the picture from Wikipedia (common property; upload by Blackfish) (common property; upload by Blackfish)

Klaus Hnilica
Thursday February 26th, 2015

Fateful Siesta

Carl and Gerlinde (XLI)

ZZZVimg171Why had it had to happen at this of all occasions? Why when Carl had, at long last, taken his Gerlinde along to the lingerie and underwear fair “Five Elements”? And it was certainly no surprise that, afterwards, Gerlinde was not only disappointed, but also angry!

God, how often had she tried to persuade Carl to take her along when he went to this famous underwear fair where he organized the most bizarre exhibitions with the most crazy ideas and other shebang for TRIGA every year. And where, smiling practically at the push of a button, he always ran up to form like a yeast doughnut in hot oil between those hysterical, cold, long-legged underwear dolls.

On the other hand, you had to admit that this really outrageous thing would never have happened if Gerlinde had not been there. Because without her, he would never have siesta-ed and consequently would never have been confronted with this more than strange situation. A situation that might well have been instigated by the competition. Or by the NSA? Or the KGB? Well, you never know, you know!

But well, all those ’if’–s and ’then’–s were not going to do any good now when the ’stable door had been locked after the horse had bolted’, were they? Of course, the ’horse’ was meant in a purely metaphorical way, since there was no horse involved.

On the contrary. In fact, this entire unparalleled scandal in the famous Berlin Four-Star Hotel during the 11th Fashion Week was all about how to best prevent the activity that could cause ’possible birth’- albeit of a child, rather than a horse.

Mind you, this ’possible conception’ was, of course, only of virtual nature, since Gerlinde – thank God – was far beyond the age where such an aspect could possibly mutate into an unwelcome real surprise.

Yet there had definitely been more than enough demand on this late morning for the kinaesthetics and exchange of fluids usually preceding such a procreation process on both sides. Absolutely! And one had also seen it as the ideal prelude for the siesta urgently desired by Gerlinde on this second day of the lingerie and underwear fashion show. After all, the evening reception given to entertain the international and national customers on the previous day had lasted until early this morning, bringing with it many delicacies on the rich buffet which were consumed along with costly alcoholic beverages. The lively organiser Carl and his charming company Gerlinde had definitely partaken …

Consequently, a few quiet minutes – or even a quarter of an hour – definitely seemed like a tempting idea to both of them around noon.

And Gerlinde would not have been Gerlinde if she had not only immediately succumbed to this temptation without reservations, but also enriched them in no time by practicing a few rather exquisite fantasies every equestrienne would have been proud of. 
It seems like the dressage numbers displayed actually demanded absolute concentration from both horse and rider.

How else could you understand that neither of them noticed how suddenly, not at all far away from the ’king-size bed display parcours’, a young inconspicuous hotel employee – so it seemed – not only watched the exciting dressage artistry with a bowed upper body, a red face and fascination, but also worked most enthusiastically on his iPhone …

It seems that, somehow, Carl must have spied a shadow from the corner of his right eye, because there was an involuntary movement of his head to the right, but only so slightly that the equestrienne who was working with a lot of concentration was not distracted in any way.

And suddenly what he saw was a pair of nosy eyes over a good-natured smiling mouth. Actually, the full head of blond hair of this young gentleman sitting above a youthful, not at all fearsome face like a little crown even added another air of normality to the entire scene.

When the young man, totally fearlessly, put his right index finger to his lips in order to signal Carl to – please – please – remain entirely quiet in order not to destroy this wonderful scene by an inconsiderate move, this, too, fit perfectly into the image …

In retrospect, Carl was almost ashamed about having offered no resistance at all to the directions of the strange young man and instead having permitted Gerlinde to finish the last step of her supernatural dressage! But then, there was not really an alternative for him in this breath-taking moment, was there? Everything was such a matter of course in this harmonic procedure that he lacked not only all concept of terminating it, but also the strength to do so!

And Gerlinde’s cathartic yell of joy shortly afterwards also proved he had been right! It had been an eternity since he had last heard such a joyous outcry over several thirds that seemed like it never wanted to end, accompanied by a cascade of gurgling sounds in between! In fact, perhaps he had never ever heard it in exactly this way?

The same was obviously true for the unknown young gentleman who seemed to be sponging up everything with sparkling eyes and a face that showed the highest degree of rapture. Immediately afterwards, he disappeared just as noiselessly as he had come…

With a slight degree of surprise, Gerlinde – still breathless – registered that Carl suddenly lifted himself up from the ’shared show-riding course’ and hurried to the door, locking it with the words: it is not secured! Shortly afterwards, however, purring like a cat, she fell back into a deep, refreshing sleep in Carl’s arms. …

Only later – unfortunately before Carl – did she discover the inconspicuous warning written on yellow folio-format paper on the table: 
In case you are toying with the absurd idea of informing the hotel management, this little equestrian episode will be available on You Tube within a few minutes.

This was the time when Carl, to his huge regret, had to confront Gerlinde with the unwelcome truth – and thus make the “Five Elements” fair something she would never remember fondly. 
Basically, it was a pity, because the rest of the week, too, had been rather glorious: the underwear sector of TRIGA, which had just recently suffered serious problems, seemed to have really recovered…

KH
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Sunday November 23rd, 2014

The End of Collaboration

Today, I am writing a fictional story which in fact could have happened.

220px-Jekyll-mansfieldThe story is about two important and famous protagonists working in the same field. They both work on the same topic. It is an innovative idea with which you can earn money. Let us call the two persons Mr. Je and Mr. Hy.

Both of them write about their ideas in their blogs and develop new ideas in the sense of “sharing knowledge” and “improving wisdom by sharing it”, both by themselves and together.

Mr. Je finds some ideas in one of Mr. Hy’s posts exciting. Consequently, a dialogue between the two gets under way. The dialogue is happening in Mr. Hy’s blog in the form of comments on this post.

The result is a significant extra insight, including a valuable basis for a business model. In fact, the constructive, critical and supplementary comments by Mr. Je are to a huge extent responsible for the making said model seem realistic.
Mr. Hy utilizes the thus gained insight for his business, thereby successfully promoting his business model. However, he never tells Mr. Je any of this.

Instead, he removes the dialogue between himself and Mr. Je from his blog.

Mr. Je has no problem with the fact that Mr. Hy benefited from the shared dialogue for his business. This is quite ok. After all, it is why “sharing knowledge” and “open collaboration” have been invented. However, he would have found it nice to hear from Mry. Hy and perhaps receive a cooperation offer.

As a matter of facts, he is really annoyed about the removal of the dialogue!

Of course, the story is totally fictional. Any similarities between actual events or living or even dead persons – if they can be found – are totally coincidental

RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
I took the picture from Wikipedia:
en:Henry Van der Weyde (1838-1924; London, England) – http://www.photography-museum.com/jekyll.html / Originally from en.wikipedia;