Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell

A book that gives hope on so many levels. A book that dares to bring the basic human feelings together with the major challenges in society in a way that captures the imagination. A book that brings back story telling and not posing as the key element. There are parts that feels as if David tries to hard to find a smart solution, or to rushed to help the reader understand where they are in the story, but these are minor things and I feel reluctant to mention them. In a way they add to the human element, and when he adds the year of a bottle of wine it almost feels that he does it with a smile. The mix of stories are brilliant and more then one time I thought about the book G.E.B. (Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid), in a good way. The book is almost the opposite as the narrative is driven forward by emotions and personal stories, but there is a harmony and circular movements that few books even attempt, and even fewer manage to pull off.

I would almost call it a utopia, but an unwritten utopia. The stupidity and insensitivity of humanity is exposed in a way that is both brutal and fragile. All though history does not give us much hope, we have the opportunity to change, or is it too late. Would we have to rewind and start on a new track much earlier ? Or is it never too late if we date to look beyond the next step?

The way the book has an almost unlimited number of contrasts makes it sometime difficult to read.

One of the contrasts that I like is on the one hand the story about Adam (Ewing). It brings us back before industrialization, where choices about fundamental ways of lives existed, but was not even discussed. The book start and ends with Adam. And Adam is given the opportunity to give us some word’s of advice. “If we believe that humanity may transcend tooth & claw, if we believe divers races & creeds can share this world as peaceable as the orphans share their candlenut tree, if we believe leaders must be just, violence muzzled, power accountable & the riches of the Earth & its Oceans shared equitable, such a world will come to pass. I am not deceived. It is the hardest of worlds to make real. Torturous advances won over generations can be lost by a single stroke of a myopic president’s pen or a vainglorious general’s sword.

On the other side, and in many ways a much more interesting story as it has not been told so often is Sonmi-451 when she steps outside the story and looks beyond. “We see a game beyond the endgame… As Seneca warned Nero: No matter how many of us you kill, you will never kill your successor. Now, my narrative is over.”

It is not hard to see that this book would attract someone that wanted to tell the story visually. The fact that the Wachowski’s and Tom Tykwer got together and raised independent funding moved this book up from “to-read” to “READ”… If Aronofsky would have been involved as well I’m not sure I would have dared to watch it. Now I can only hope that the movie will have story telling that is not afraid of pauses, and that they stay away from the Nolan artificial sound track. I like it for Batman and Inception but this movie has a human side that require more of a Zbigniew Preisner or Michael Nyman.

David Mitchell is really someone I look forward to read more of, but if this was the only thing he wrote worth reading it is more than most authors can even dream of.

Update 2013-05-14 I finally came around to see the movie version of the book. Interesting take on the book as they turned the books meandering poetry into a more straight forward story and brought it together as a call for action (revolution) in a way that is very much less straight forward in the book (that is an understatement for those who have not read the book). I would say that the movie is like a good cover of a song you like. It include elements from the original but brings a totally new feeling to it in a way that makes you see the book in a new way.

Cosmopolis, by Don DeLillo

The books Cronenberg has used before are books I liked for different reasons. This time he picked a book I had not read so obviously I wanted to read it. I was not disappointed, but I wonder what I would have thought if I did not see it as part of his earlier hallucinogenic and hyper realistic journey. The fact that Cronenberg interrupted his interesting work and made commercials for the very companies that are contributing to the sickness that he portrays so well was interesting for me and maybe this influenced is book choice. Cosmopolis feels like the kind of desperation that we grasp for in a crazy world when what we find is too trivial. I guess Cronenbergs work with commercials exposed him to the lack of intelligence and innovation in the corporate sector that usually surprises people from the cultural sector.

We want the people that are speculating away fortunes and living lives in luxury to be interesting, or at least provocative in some interesting way. If the people in the financial sector were even a fraction as intelligent and reflecting as Eric Packer the financial system would be fascinating. The distance and distain Eric feels for himself and the system around him require a person to move beyond simplistic crowd behaviour. The sad thing is that most of the top people I have met in the financial sector, and in the commercial world, are not even interested in the kind of questions Eric Packer bounce around in his head. These are the things we hope they would they would wrestle with, as the meaninglessness of our current system becomes almost unbearable without this hope.

While the book can be read as a critique of our postmodern speculation economy, it feels more like a desperate wish for something interesting to be hiding among all the glitter and shallow symbols of our time.

I understand that the claustrophobic setting of a limousine is perfect for Cronenberg and I look forward to see the movie I could not help hoping for him to pick a more challenging book next time, maybe “Super Sad True Love Story”?

EU-China: And now there is a solar war...

Here is a link to article in China Daily where I highlight one key aspect. Below some more thoughts:

Unfortunately this was expected. Two years ago I launched an initiative, 21st Century Solarmap, that I hoped could mitigate this development. Did not get enough support for it at the time to stop the current development, but it might be time to re-launch it with more stakeholders?

It should be obvious to enough people that we need to move forward with accelerated deployment of solar solutions and that frameworks like those in WTO should not and can not be used when transformative change is needed. We need collaboration, not war...

My thoughts regarding 1. Is it smart of the EU to initiate anti-dumping investigation on solar panel imports from China (especially when China have asked for a dialogue to find smart ways forward)?

2. What could China do (beside what it is already is doing)?

1. Is it smart of the EU to initiate anti-dumping investigation on solar panel imports from China? No, it is not smart from EU to act in such a way. If EU is a low-carbon champion they should start from a low-carbon development goals and ask if the low process from China is helping achieve the goals in EU and the global goals. Then after they should look at how EU can ensure that they use the low process on solar panels to become leading exporter in related areas. We know that current trade rules need to show flexibility in order for us to ensure the accelerated uptake of low-carbon solutions. As the price of carbon is still zero or much to low in all around the world, including EU, we are today in reality subsidising fossil fuels.

To not address the hidden subsidies of fossil fuels and instead attack China for providing the kind of prices for solar solutions that the world needs, is not only undermining EU as a green champion it is a clear demonstration that EU look at short-term populism instead of long-term collaboration and employment. Low prices on solar panels already help EU to create new sustainable jobs in a low-carbon economy. EU is today leading in areas such as system solutions for solar panels, architects providing , buildings that are net producers of green electricity. All these depend on inexpensive solar panels and are already exported from EU. So EU is not only running the risk of punishing China and the world, it will most certainly make EU less competitive in the low carbon economy.

Taking a broader approach we also should note that low prices on solar panels is the future, and by reacting so strongly against low prices EU demonstrate that they are afraid of the future.

2. What could China do? My urge would be for China to have a two prong track when they respond to EU:

2.1. In order to avoid a destructive trade war and turn EUs destructive move into something positive it would be very good if China responded by asking for a broader review of WTO when it comes to environmental goods and services, this time with focus on climate change. It is clear that we must accelerate the uptake of low-carbon solutions. China has done this and for that China should be rewarded not punished. Current WTO legislation is designed for incremental improvements in existing systems, and this is positive in many areas, but not for low-carbon solutions. We need accelerated uptake and accelerated increase of trade in low-carbon solutions in many areas, for this WTO is not ready and a reform is needed (or WTO could be told that low-carbon trade is outside its mandate)

This case is similar to the situation where EU used WTO rules to put taxes on Chinas energy efficient light bulbs (CFLs). That time it was also clear that EU action was undermining a sustainable development, by increasing the global price on a vital low-carbon product, by making it more expensive both in EU, but also in the world by artificially keeping the prices high and attacking China .

2.2. In parallel with the WTO work it would be very helpful if China, if possible together with the BASIC block, could initiate a global dialogue on accelerated uptake of key low-carbon products and services. We are not talking about any ordinary product here, we are talking about goods that can help the world avoid a climate catastrophe. We need to discuss how the world can collaborate to reach this goal. We can not allow old legislation in WTO, that in some cases was helpful in addressing protectionism, undermine the necessary global development in the 21st century.

China will be a key country when it comes to deliver low-carbon solutions in the 21st century to the world, but have so far not been very active when it come to establishing global dialogues in key areas. This could be such an opportunity. Such a dialogue should obviously build on China's bilateral dialogues that have a very strong focus on low-carbon development and a global peaceful development. These dialogues could develop into concrete action plans for new global governance initiatives.

With the failure first in Copenhagen and later in Rio to reach any kind of meaningful agreement on a low-carbon development strategy, this trade problem with wind and solar could be turned into an opportunity for the first serious dialogue about global governance for sustainable development in the 21st century.

22nd century voices: 350+ million already today, half a billion by 2017, a billion by 2023, two billion by 2025...

Is it time to start an initiative to gather 22nd century voices? They are already more than 250 million alive today that still will be alive 2100... I put a counter on this webpage, www.22nd-century-voices.net, and hope to take this further soon. The total failure in Rio to deliver anything substantial is just the latest example of the lack of capacity for long-term thinking/action demonstrated by governments today. Unfortunately companies are, in most cases, even more shortsighted and NGOs struggle to present anything that is relevant for a 22nd century agenda. In many areas NGOs (and sustainability consultants) are actually the most shortsighted, with simplistic fundraising/labeling and attempts to offset/price nature/people without any consideration/assessment of the long-term consequences.

In order to encourage a slightly longer perspective I have begun to set up an initiative to encourage the implementation of structures that ensure that all major decisions are screened for their 22nd century impact.

As part of the preparations for this initiative I wanted to create a count-up timer that shows how many people that are alive today that still will be alive in 2100.

I was surprised when I saw that already more than 300 million people (children of course) that are alive today will still be alive in 2100. This will increase to half a billion by 2017, then exploding to a billion by 2023 and two billion by 2025 , i.e of all the people living 2017 half a billion will still be alive 2100, of all the people living in 2023 a billion will still be alive in 2100, of all the people living in 2025 two billion will still be alive in 2100. So this might be the fastest growing movement ever...

This is a group that no one listen to, but the fact that so many will still be alive in 2100 is something that makes the way politicians and business leaders behave even more unacceptable.

Below is a graph and I also pasted the actual numbers. The data is the medium scenario from the UN World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision (Updated: 28 June 2011). Available here.

Obviously these numbers are very rough estimations and if science moves ahead at the current speed we could see a lot more people living a lot longer, increasing the numbers. On the other hand if nothing is done to curb the unsustainable trends today the risk for a collapse could reduce the number significantly, there are even a risk that humanity will not make it to 2100 if we do not address the major challenges today.

Below is the data (will update in better format when I have time, but for the sake of transparency): Birth date Before 2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 2040-2045 2045-2050 2050-2055 2055-2060 2060-2065 2065-2070 2070-2075 2075-2080 2080-2085 2085-2090 2090-2095 2095-2100 Age of those alive in 2100 100+ 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 Alive in each age group 17 795 53 688 132 521 240 653 347 676 433 268 495 013 539 358 571 055 591 456 602 682 607 791 610 462 612 791 614 667 615 142 613 758 610 966 607 573 604 385 602 226 Accumulated number of people 17 795 71 484 204 004 444 658 792 333 2 017 934 2 512 947 3 052 305 3 623 360 4 214 816 4 817 498 5 425 289 6 035 751 6 648 542 7 263 209 7 878 351 8 492 108 9 103 075 9 710 648 10 315 033 10 917 259

The Wonderbox, by Roman Krznaric

I think this is a nice weekend book. While the book balances dangerously close to clichés most of the time and are not that far from the self-help books it dislikes, there is something in the tone that feels genuinely sympathetic. It is as if Roman really wants to help people to take a small step away from the commercial culture surrounding us into something with a little more quality. So while the book does not present anything particular new or challenging it is nice to see someone that writes a book because they actually cares. At the same time I feel ambivalent as it feels like this kind of book is the best that we get right now even when groups that should be able to look beyond the more simplistic approaches enter into the debate. What we get are short snippets in a YouTube culture where short lists and sound bites are for 10-minute presentations are made for entertainment without actual consequences (TED is probably the best example of simple messages in a simple format). It is all about individuals and very little about society, it is very much about the small steps everyone can take. It feels like the equivalent of environmental organizations that collect money for people to help them feel good by planting trees while the people eat so much meat and drive so big cars that there will be no planet left if they keep up what they doing.

I feel frustrated that so much is focused on the individual’s immediate needs. It is as if we have given up trying to create something more

But maybe this is what is needed to take a first step… ?

Roman is taking the self-help books he feels are shallow and try to put some substance into the personal issues that surrounds us. I admire the attempt and I hope it helps someone.

For all those that started to work, forgot to read, watch too much TV/ read mainstream media and focus on their Facebook updates this could be a great wakeup call. There is world that is out there and that is more interested than the commercial

But maybe Roman has a better understanding of what is needed than I. After I read the book I read the May 19 issue of New Scientist and realize that I hope that the editor reads the Wonderbox. The editorial in New Scientist “a new layer of intrigue”, about augmented reality, is some of the most “un-enlightened” texts I have read in a magazine that I subscribe to. It is sad to see how even bright people (I just assume that an editor at New Scientist is reasonably well educated and well read and there should be capable of thinking beyond the current situation) just take a hyper commercial reality for granted. The fact that communication addressing people only as consumers and not as citizens/humans is everywhere is not seen as a problem is disturbing for me as I think we need to discuss mental pollution. For an editor at New Scientist Roman’s perspective might help to show that cities through most of history have been without most of the PR/advertisement and that mass consumption does not have to be the default way of organizing a city.

I really think we have a problem when a large part of the population live in large “American-like” cities, something that an increasing number of people around the world, including China, India and other Asian cities are doing. This results in a situation where a generation grows up in a hyper commercial environment where everything has a price and nothing value. Adding augmented reality in this situation is not necessarily a good thing, especially when the development is led by companies that want to sell advertisement (like Google).

So while Wonderbox is not something that will change very much it is nice to spend a few hours over a weekend with someone who wants to take a few steps in a more human direction. Hopefully next Roman could look both a little further beyond the obvious as well as discuss possible options for society as well as individuals.

Please have a look at Roman's webpage also, he might have something interesting coming up... and if not you can just have a look and enjoy the fact that he is one of the few out there who is not cynical. Although I just realized that he's got a .com address, how ironic.