Rob's Flash Messages
Rob's Stories
Future transportation
While stuck again in a huge traffic jam on our way to the airport, there was plenty of time to think about that something really has to change in our ways to move ourselves from A to B. Our transport systems for longer than walk or bike travels by train, car or airplane are already 1 or 2 centuries of age without any change except better trains, cars and airplanes. The philosophy and systems remained the same.
The main problem is that the infrastructure for this kind of transportation is costly to build and maintain, highly inflexible, a waste of a devastating portion of our environment and economy in terms of time and money. Parked cars all over the place, asphalt and concrete everywhere, long waiting times in traffic, train stations and airports, air pollution and more. It's a long list of concerns we obviously just accept. Additionally the fact that humans are still the drivers of vehicles which nowadays serve as a major killing factor for people and animals and is even used as terrorist weapon, needs to be re-evaluated. Yearly in traffic 1 1/4 million people are killed worldwide and that number will more than triple in the next 15 years.
Elon Musk proposes an alternative for mainly long distance with trains and airplanes with his Hyperloop. Impressive concept and technology but it needs a massive infrastructure change which will be again costly and inflexible. It's comparable to bullet, TGV or Maglev trains and similar, just a few steps beyond.
Industrialization
People keep asking me about industrialization with its means and its goals. Where it starts and where it ends. Whether it's a good or a bad thing and of course, what the consequences for our IT profession would be.
Well you know, I just have an opinion about it like anyone else so I don't have a clear scientific underpinned definition of true industrialization of IT but I'll give you a few angles to look at it. The first lines on Wikipedia about industrialization start like this: "Industrialization is the period of social and economic change that transforms a human group from an agrarian society into an industrial one. It is a part of a wider modernization process, where social change and economic development are closely related with technological innovation…”
Projected onto my IT-profession, it means that industrialization of IT changes the way we are producing software and delivering IT-services in general from “hand-craftsmanship” towards an automated, outsourced and off-shored production-line. In other words, it changes the delivery model and in some circumstances even the business model dramatically.
Some people might argue that it is mainly about standardization and achieving more efficient, cost-reducing processes to create and sell products or services for a lower price. Well, the answer would be both a yes and a no. Efficiency is just the means but usually not the goal. The money freed by lower-cost production should be re-invested to deliver better and more innovative products or services to the clients. Why? Because unless you want to be the “cheapest-product-seller-of-the-world”, market and competitive distinction will come from continuous innovation of products and services with a decent price to deliver the margin.
I am scared
Some people might wonder why I target Trump so much as I am not even American. Well, to some extend I have surprised myself with it too. I guess the main reason is that the direct and personal influence of the biggest economic and military nation on this planet now hits me too hard in a bad way. The turmoil in the US (and UK) directly affects my savings and investments and furthermore it disturbs the political landscape I felt reasonable safe in with topics like climate, NATO, ICC, UN, Russia, Iran, North Korea and a few more.
So after some long thoughts and digging deep into myself, something popped up I thought a had stashed away thoroughly but obviously not. I am just scared. I got more scared about my life and my future because I thought there was a trutsworthy and unbreakable bond between the old allies US, UK and (the rest of the) EU. Obviously not. I know, in any relationship some sacrifices have to be made but today I only hear the US and UK talk about their own priorities. On top of that, any decency and respect seem to be lost. When I hear Donald Trump or Boris Johnson talking, recently quite a few American senators, the speech of Brett Kavanaugh and of course in Europe Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and Recep Tayyip Erdogan I believe humanity has taken quite a few steps backwards.
New leadership
With Brexit and Trump as the US president, countries like the UK and US have obviously chosen to go their own way. They don't want the consequences of globalization: free movement of goods, capital, services and people and most importantly like in case of the US, commit to global agreements like the Paris Accord. Instead, they want to make their "countries great again" whatever the consequences are for the rest of the world. Well, they believe that their greatness is automatically beneficial for the rest of the world.
At this very moment, the "rest of the world" does not agree. Leadership of Theresa May and Donald Trump in- and outside of their own countries is challenged by "the rest of the world" with awesome examples of Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel. May and Trump have shred the prime leadership positions of their countries in just a few months after hundreds of years of dominance and they will never get it back in this new world order with a strengthening EU, China, India and a few others. How foolish can anyone be?
Democracy is a high good. People from a country can vote for a leader or in a referendum demand a certain policy. The rest of the world can't vote for it which is OK by itself. After all, the people of the said countries build their own environments and therefore their own democracies. It would be a mess when people from all over can vote anywhere.
However, those people (from the rest of the world) would still have to live with these globalization-fobic countries. Fortunately there is a simple solution: if you can't vote in a booth, you can still vote with your wallet. It's exactly the same as the sanctions countries punish other countries with. Only on a personal scale. The concept of "Buy American" can be easily reversed.
Personally I already had a shortlist of countries I tried to avoid. Not going on vacation to them, avoid buying their goods or services, avoid advertising their qualities. On my list far far away countries like North Korea, Syria and South Sudan do not do much harm, either way. I would not know any product I would like to buy from them and I certainly would not go there anyway. Russia and Suriname are already a bit more difficult. Should I not buy Russian vodka anymore? Start to ignore my friends and colleagues from Suriname?
Now the UK and the US not only are moving away from my personal "good world" vision but more explicitly, ruining my pension savings severely, ruining the ecological future for the planet, ruining the ideals i've been standing for all my life, it gets more nasty. Maybe it's time to stop admiring Apple iPhones, using Amazon and Google services, watching BBC and Netflix, shopping in London or New York, playing golf in Scotland, buying Levi's, Coca Cola, Ford, Jaguar or even fuel from Exxon for my car. Instead of a blacklist I at least can have a whitelist of countries where I would spend my money preferably: Netherlands, Spain, Germany, France, India, China, Japan and a few more. Not that they are perfect but at least they don't insult my ideals that much or harm me personally.
I was wondering by myself, is this disappointment, bitterness, revenge? Not really. Brexit and Trump just opened my eyes that this world obviously still is too complex too have equal multi-lateral cooperation between large economic and military powers with too big ego's. Although I do believe that we should never stop putting in energy in multi-lateral unity, for the time being "focus" is the key-word. Focus on simplicity, strength and growth. Smaller countries (say smaller than 250 MIO people or a GDP less than 2.000 B$) are irrelevant in this game and better unite with others. It's like the old G5, G7, G10, G20 or whatever Gxx from the "old ages" still try to show their leadership and willingness to cooperate. Unfortunately these G's are all history because they hang on to the old "world leadership positions" instead of what is actual today.
I suggest a maximum of 10 conglomerates in which every country has its place. Those who do not want to join one of the 10 conglomerates, give up their votes in the global play. This new BIG-10 replaces the security council too. If there are changes in power (= volume in GDP), the BIG-10 changes too accordingly. No more fuzz with smaller countries without significant power. "Participation" is the key-word for them as focus was for the conglomerates. It will hurt the smaller ego's a bit but that's the price for "great together" as opposed to "small alone".
So to the EU I would say: Stop the hassle and let's make Europe (finally) great (again). Forget NATO, TTIP and more. Go your own way, create a "Make and Buy European" culture (which does not mean to close down all other business relationships), invest in security in all levels and stop relying on the UN/US/UK, create a strong if not avoidable even federal coalition. Borders in Europe have changed in the last 200 years frequently and more often than anywhere in the world! So what's the point? Unite, invest, protect, forget the differences and focus on the strengths. (and try to avoid the bureaucracy a bit).
By the way, above advice is alike for any to build conglomerate, whether that's in Africa, South America or Asia.
And for the people who still have to vote for their own future this year: Happy voting :)))
(many thanks to Martin Sutovec and Ingram Pinn for their awesome cartoons)
Page 3 of 7