alan wells

Last night I finished reading The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. I’m humbled by Carl Sagan’s capacity for insight and clarity of thought. As someone with a strong background in science but an interest in spirituality, I enjoyed hearing the thoughts of Carl Sagan as he tried to reconcile his thoughts on religion with his expertise in the sciences. A few choice words from Carl:

On questioning the value of ancient tenets passed down through the generations:

“So I claim that there are very different ways of thinking for these two circumstances: when change is slow compared to a generation time and when change is fast compared to a generation time. There are different survival strategies. And I would also like to suggest that there has never been a moment in the history of the human species in which so much change has happened as in our time. In fact, it can be argued that in many respects there never will be a time when the change can be so rapid as it has been in our generation… Very major changes, and therefore not a circumstance where the wisdom of, say, the sixth century B.C. is necessarily relevant. It might be, but it might not be. And therefore, for this reason as well – for this reason especially – wisdom may lie not in simply the blind adherence to ancient tenets but in the vigorous and skeptical and creative imagination of a wide variety of alternatives.”

On the Earth as a lifeboat:

“When you look at Earth from space, it is striking. There are no national boundaries visible. They have been put there, like the equator and the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, by humans. The planet is real. The life on it is real, and the political separations that have placed the planet in danger are of human manufacture. They have not been handed down from Mount Sinai. All the beings on this little world are mutually dependent. It’s like living in a lifeboat. We breath the air that Russians have breathed, and Zambians and Tasmanians and people all over the planet. Whatever the causes that divide us, as I said before, it is clear that the Earth will be here a thousand or a million years from now. The question, the key question, the central question – in a certain sense the only question – is, will we?”

On why our planet is in conflict over ideologies:

“We kill each other, or threaten to kill each other, in part, I think, because we are afraid we might not ourselves know the truth, that someone else with a different doctrine might have a closer approximation to the truth. Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths. If I can’t convince you, I must kill you. That will change your mind. You are a threat to my version of the truth, especially the truth about who I am and what my nature is. The thought that I may have dedicated my life to a lie, that I might have accepted a conventional wisdom that no longer, if it ever did, corresponds to the external reality, that is a very painful realization. I will tend to resist it to the last. I will go to almost any lengths to prevent myself from seeing that the worldview I have dedicated my life to is inadequate. I’m putting this in personal terms so that I don’t say “you,” so that I’m not accusing anyone of an attitude, but you understand that this is not a mea culpa. I’m trying to describe a psychological dynamic that I think exists, and it’s important and worrisome.

“Instead of this, what we need is a honing of the skills of explication, of dialogue, of what used to be called logic and rhetoric and what used to be essential to every college education, a honing of the skills of compassion, which, just like intellectual abilities, need practice to be perfected. If we are to understand another’s belief, then we must also understand the deficiencies an inadequacies of our own. And those deficiencies and inadequacies are very major. This is true whichever political or ideological or ethnic or cultural tradition we come from. In a complex universe, in a society undergoing unprecedented change, how can we find the truth if we are not willing to question everything and to give a fair hearing to everything?”

On the impression we give to the universe through our transmissions:

“Very nearby civilizations can detect our presence, and that is because television gets out. Not just television but radar. Radar and television get out. Most of AM radio, for example, doesn’t. So let’s just look at the television for a moment. Large-scale commercial television broadcasting on Earth begins when? In the late 1940s, mainly in the United States.

“So forty years ago there’s a spherical wave of radio signals that spreads out at the speed of light, getting bigger and bigger as time goes on. Every year it’s an additional light year away from the Earth. Now, lets say that it’s forty years later, so that expanding spherical wave front is forty light-years from Earth, containing the harbingers of a civilization newly arrived in the galaxy. And I don’t know if you know about 1940s television in the United States, but it would contain Howdy Doody and Milton Bearle and the Army-McCarthy Hearings and other signs of high intelligence on the planet Earth. So I’m sometimes asked, if there are so many intelligent beings in space, why haven’t they come. (I’m just joking.) But it’s a sobering fact that our mainly mindless television transmissions are our principal emissaries to the stars. There is an aspect of self-knowledge that this implies that I think would be very good for us to come to grips with.”

After reading “Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative” by Ken Robinson on and off for the last year, I finally finished the book on a plane flight home from San Diego tonight. Since I’ve spent so long finishing the book, my thoughts on it are biased toward the last few chapters:

“Creativity often comes about by making unusual connections, seeing, analogies, identifying relationships between ideas and processes that were previously not related. This is precisely why some of the most effective creative teams are interdisciplinary.” (pg 188)

This bit comes to me at an interesting time, as two weeks ago I was reading a post on Futuristic Play that discussed models of viral growth in Facebook applications. I was surprised to find graphs and models that were similar to those I worked with when I studied ecology. One important component of the post I was reading about viral growth discussed the difference between growth in an unlimited vs limited market – when growth models account for the 60 million or so user population of Facebook, they change from looking very healthy to showing a scary looking crash. Interesting to me, as these look eerily similar to the concept in ecology known as carrying capacity, and the crash idea similar to what happens when a species or ecosystem surpasses the carrying capacity of it’s environment. The similarities between these two ideas lead me to believe that there might be some useful overlap in models I studied in school as an ecology major and my current interest in social networks and web apps. Hopefully more to come on this in the near future (by hopefully I mean two things: 1) hopefully I’ll make more interesting connections and 2) that I’ll be able to write them down and post the them here). 

One more bit from Out of Our Minds, this time a bit that is applicable to challenges I’m working with at Affinity Labs as we grow from a small startup into a bigger division of Monster Worldwide:

“The most creative periods in the lives of organizations are often in the early stages of its work where there is a rush of excitement about the possibilities to be explored and before the organization itself has settled into fixed institutional structures and routines. Stimulating or reviving the creative impulse in organizations often requires that existing borders be perforated or dissolved so that ides can flow freely between different specialists who are too often kept apart from each other. The point of these collaborations is not for different specialists to impose their own ways of working on each other. It is to benefit from the stimulation of each other’s expertise” (pg 188)

It’s also worth noting that the reason that I started reading this book in the first place was because I watched Ken Robinson’s TEDtalk, which I found to be both entertaining and thought provoking. I include it here for convenience, but I recommend downloading the higher quality MP4 file from TED.

If you don’t know who E.O. Wilson is, you probably should, especially if you study anything involving life sciences. He’s a biologist and a long time advocate for the natural world. He received a TED Prize last year, and his TED wish was to create The Encyclopedia of Life. Here’s what its gonna look like. Anyone who’s ever struggled with phylogeny or taxonomy in a bio class has got to love the visualizations they’re showing, and I love the idea of citizen biologist being able to help compile this, where ever they are.

Louis Pasteur, the scientist famous for confirming the germ theory of disease said once said:
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

I’ve been thinking about this idea a lot lately, mostly because I’ve recently acknowledged that the only thing I’m lacking in my aspirations to run my own business is that great idea to base it around. I feel confident with the idea of running my own company, and would start doing so tomorrow, if I had an idea that I felt was worthy of that commitment. Knowing this, the next question is naturally: how do I find this great idea? Perhaps it is just chance, and great ideas are things that wake you at night with a start and force you to write them down before they slip down into the subconscious again. But I’m inclined to agree with Pasteur, and I think that there might be a method.

A few months back, I watched Ray Kurzweil’s TEDTalk. A few days ago, I read an article by Kurzweil in Inc Magazine, and I was reminded of his lecture. Kurzweils’ point that interested me was that certain things in the technology world are very predictable. You may not be able to predict what Google’s stock price will be in two years, but you can very accurately predict how expensive computer processing power is, or how cheap bandwith will be, or how much a gigabyte of storage will be. Furthermore, these trends increase not in a linear way, but in an exponential way.

The implication of this is that things that today seem impossible, prohibitively expensive, or too far ahead of the technology will be possible in the future – and the future is coming sooner than you think. In his words, "With the doubling of price performance each year in every kind of
information technology, you just need to wait a short while to find
that you can have your cake and eat it too."

OK, so what does this have to do with the next big thing? The way I figure it is that the secret to finding the next big thing is being able to recognize what is theoretically possible in today’s world but unfeasible due to financial or technological constraints. Take that idea, look down the road after 2-3 years of exponential growth, and try to see where the idea stands. Since data about bandwidth, processing power, and storage are so accurately predictable, the secret to the next big thing is being able to figure out what we can’t do today but can do three years from now – and then be the first one to do it, and do it well. I think this applies particularly to disruptive technologies – things that really change the rules of the game. In these cases, a certain market application is made possible when the growth of those predictable trends reaches a level that suddenly makes something possible that wasn’t before, in a critical point/threshold kind of model

Examples of this:

- Declining prices, increasing availability of broadband internet, digital camcorders, and consumer-level video editing lead to the YouTube explosion of user generated video content.

- Declining price of computer hard drives and digital video hardware allows the creation of a reasonably priced digital video recorder – say hello to TiVo!

- Decrease in bandwidth costs and increase in processing power make Vonage and other internet telephone services possible.

I’m not saying that coming up  with a great idea is easy – the conceptual connection between recognizing the predictable trends and realizing what (successful) products those trends will make feasible in the future is no small feat. But it’s one step closer to a methodology for identifying these ideas. And I’m convinced that the time I invest in keeping current with tech trends and learning about the bleeding edge of technology is worth the effort for the insight it may give me into the future.