Zero to one, by Peter Thiel

This book was a real surprise. I think it is the first simple “how to think like an entrepreneur”-book that I have recommended people to read. There are a lot of very interesting thinking in this short book that I think everyone who tries to make the world a better place, and realise that more than incremental change is needed, should read. I have found Peter interesting, but did not expect him to cover so many of the most important challenges in this short book. But maybe is was Blake Masters that helped him?

It is written without any references/footnotes and in this case I think that is perfectly OK as, for most of it, Peter writes about things he has knowledge about and expericne of.

What I find frustrating is his simplified view of technology as the only driver of change. It is as if values and structures don’t exist. In many ways, the ideas are very close to a simplified version of Marx, but a mirror image. If the books would have included a more nuanced approach to change I think it could have been a classic.

One of the big surprises for me was that Peter spend so much time on our generation’s major challenges from a global perspective. He does this in a way where it is natural, as it should be. This is such a stark contrast to books who claim to have a global approach and about important things, but then basically just focus on American trivial ideas/innovations (a good example of a book that fails in those areas is Bold by Peter Diamandis http://www.pamlin.net/new/?p=2282)

The following could be from any UN sustainability study or progressive international NGO:

“Without technological change, if China doubles its energy production over the next two decades, it will also double its air pollution. If every one of India’s hundreds of millions of households were to live the way Americans already do—using only today’s tools—the result would be environmentally catastrophic. Spreading old ways to create wealth around the world will result in devastation, not riches. In a world of scarce resources, globalization without new technology is unsustainable.”

He also brings up some of the most important and forgotten aspects in today’s society:

“we have inherited a richer society than any previous generation would have been able to imagine.

Any generation excepting our parents’ and grandparents’, that is: in the late 1960s, they expected this progress to continue. They looked forward to a four-day workweek, energy too cheap to meter, and vacations on the moon. But it didn’t happen. The smartphones that distract us from our surroundings also distract us from the fact that our surroundings are strangely old: only computers and communications have improved dramatically since midcentury.”

His urge to get people to think beyond the incremental is very refreshing and all organisations working with global challenges could benefit from his comparison between old and new ideas

Old ideas that still dominate

1. Make incremental advances
   Grand visions inflated the bubble, so they should not be indulged. Anyone who claims to be able to do something great is suspect, and anyone who wants to change the world should be more humble. Small, incremental steps are the only safe path forward.
2. Stay lean and flexible
   All companies must be “lean,” which is code for “unplanned.” You should not know what your business will do; planning is arrogant and inflexible. Instead you should try things out, “iterate,” and treat entrepreneurship as agnostic experimentation.
3. Improve on the competition
   Don’t try to create a new market prematurely. The only way to know you have a real business is to start with an already existing customer, so you should build your company by improving on recognizable products already offered by successful competitors.
4. Focus on product, not sales”
   “If your product requires advertising or salespeople to sell it, it’s not good enough: technology is primarily about product development, not distribution. Bubble-era advertising was obviously wasteful, so the only sustainable growth is viral growth.”

New ideas that are needed, and more fit for the 21st century, but that are still seen as radical

1. It is better to risk boldness than triviality.
2. A bad plan is better than no plan.
3. Competitive markets destroy profits.
4. Sales matters just as much as product.”

I was also surprised that he makes similar observation as I have done about higher elite education.

“Elite students climb confidently until they reach a level of competition sufficiently intense to beat their dreams out of them. Higher education is the place where people who had big plans in high school get stuck in fierce rivalries with equally smart peers over conventional careers like management consulting and investment banking. For the privilege of being turned into conformists, students (or their families) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in skyrocketing tuition that continues to outpace inflation. Why are we doing this to ourselves?”

The contribution from different groups in society is also very much spot-on.

“Bankers make money by rearranging the capital structures of already existing companies. Lawyers resolve disputes over old things or help other people structure their affairs. And private equity investors and management consultants don’t start new businesses; they squeeze extra efficiency from old ones with incessant procedural optimizations. It’s no surprise that these fields all attract disproportionate numbers of high-achieving Ivy League optionality chasers; what could be a more appropriate reward for two decades of résumé-building than a seemingly elite, process-oriented career that promises to “keep options open”?”

He is also seem rightfully frustrated by how short-sighted we are.

“We are more fascinated today by statistical predictions of what the country will be thinking in a few weeks’ time than by visionary predictions of what the country will look like 10 or 20 years from now.”

And how we simplify things in dangerous ways.

"meaningful progress requires that we think about the future for more than 140 characters or 15 minutes at a time."

His approach to change and what the obstacles are is also interesting.

“We have to find our way back to a definite future, and the Western world needs nothing short of a cultural revolution to do it. Where to start? John Rawls will need to be displaced in philosophy departments. Malcolm Gladwell must be persuaded to change his theories. And pollsters have to be driven from politics. But the philosophy professors and the Gladwells of the world are set in their ways, to say nothing of our politicians. It’s extremely hard to make changes in those crowded fields, even with brains and good intentions.”

His urge to focus on important issues combined with a frustration that we fiddle around the margins is very refreshing.

“We are within reach not just of marginal goals set at the competitive edge of today’s conventional disciplines, but of ambitions so great that even the boldest minds of the Scientific Revolution hesitated to announce them directly. We could cure cancer, dementia, and all the diseases of age and metabolic decay. We can find new ways to generate energy that free the world from conflict over fossil fuels. We can invent faster ways to travel from place to place over the surface of the planet; we can even learn how to escape it entirely and settle new frontiers.”

His frustration that many entrepreneurs make vague bold claims is also easy to relate to.

“Here are some bad answers: “Your stock options will be worth more here than elsewhere.” “You’ll get to work with the smartest people in the world.” “You can help solve the world’s most challenging problems.” What’s wrong with valuable stock, smart people, or pressing problems? Nothing—but every company makes these same claims, so they won’t help you stand out.”

But I would argue that the problem with “You can help solve the world’s most challenging problems.” Is not that too many make such claims, but that those who do tend to define those claims do so in very trivial ways and thereby undermine the idea of working with the word’s most challenging problems. For those who are serious here is a good list to start with: http://www.pamlin.net/new/?publication=12-risks-that-threaten-human-civilisation-full-report

When it comes to the market for sustainable technologies (those making it possible for 11 billion or more to have a great life without destroying the planet) Peter’s observations should be discussed more:

“At the start of the 21st century, everyone agreed that the next big thing was clean technology”… “Could successful energy start-ups be founded after the clench crash just as Web 2.0 start-ups successfully launched amid the debris of the dot-coms? The macro need for energy solutions is still real. But a valuable business must start by finding a niche and dominating a small market.”

“Cleantech gave people a way to be optimistic about the future of energy. But when indefinitely optimistic investors betting on the general idea of green energy funded cleantech companies that lacked specific business plans, the result was a bubble.”

“Our task today is to find singular ways to create the new things that will make the future not just different, but better”

Interestingly his own contributions to something significant are hardly discussed at all. But he does mention a few things.

“In addition to helping find terrorists, analysts using Palantir’s software have been able to predict where insurgents plant IEDs in Afghanistan; prosecute high-profile insider trading cases; take down the largest child pornography ring in the world; support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in fighting foodborne disease outbreaks; and save both commercial banks and the government hundreds of millions of dollars annually through advanced fraud detection.”

There are no discussions about these “contributions”. Compared to his clarity and logical approach to different aspects in society it is strange to see Peter suddenly list controversial methods in important areas without any discussion about pros and cons.

The Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation (BRF)

This is such an important text and as many people have asked for it here is the full text of the keynote speech given by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the opening ceremony of the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation: Work Together to Build the Silk Road Economic Belt and The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. 

+++++++++++
Distinguished Heads of State and Government, 

Heads of International Organizations, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 

In this lovely season of early Summer when every living thing is full of energy, I wish to welcome all of you, distinguished guests representing over 100 countries, to attend this important forum on the Belt and Road Initiative held in Beijing. This is indeed a gathering of great minds. In the coming two days, I hope that by engaging in full exchanges of views, we will contribute to pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, a project of the century, so that it will benefit people across the world. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 

Over 2,000 years ago, our ancestors, trekking across vast steppes and deserts, opened the transcontinental passage connecting Asia, Europe and Africa, known today as the Silk Road. Our ancestors, navigating rough seas, created sea routes linking the East with the West, namely, the maritime Silk Road. These ancient silk routes opened windows of friendly engagement among nations, adding a splendid chapter to the history of human progress. The thousand-year-old "gilt bronze silkworm" displayed at China's Shaanxi History Museum and the Belitung shipwreck discovered in Indonesia bear witness to this exciting period of history. 

Spanning thousands of miles and years, the ancient silk routes embody the spirit of peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit. The Silk Road spirit has become a great heritage of human civilization. 

-- Peace and cooperation. In China's Han Dynasty around 140 B.C., Zhang Qian, a royal emissary, left Chang'an, capital of the Han Dynasty. He traveled westward on a mission of peace and opened an overland route linking the East and the West, a daring undertaking which came to be known as Zhang Qian's journey to the Western regions. Centuries later, in the years of Tang, Song and Yuan Dynasties, such silk routes, both over land and at sea, boomed. Great adventurers, including Du Huan of China, Marco Polo of Italy and ibn Batutah of Morocco, left their footprints along these ancient routes. In the early 15th century, Zheng He, the famous Chinese navigator in the Ming Dynasty, made seven voyages to the Western Seas, a feat which still is remembered today. These pioneers won their place in history not as conquerors with warships, guns or swords. Rather, they are remembered as friendly emissaries leading camel caravans and sailing treasure-loaded ships. Generation after generation, the silk routes travelers have built a bridge for peace and East-West cooperation. 

-- Openness and inclusiveness. The ancient silk routes spanned the valleys of the Nile, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Indus and Ganges and the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers. They connected the birthplaces of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian and Chinese civilizations as well as the lands of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam and homes of people of different nationalities and races. These routes enabled people of various civilizations, religions and races to interact with and embrace each other with open mind. In the course of exchange, they fostered a spirit of mutual respect and were engaged in a common endeavor to pursue prosperity. Today, ancient cities of Jiuquan, Dunhuang, Tulufan, Kashi, Samarkand, Baghdad and Constantinople as well as ancient ports of Ningbo, Quanzhou, Guangzhou, Beihai, Colombo, Jeddah and Alexandria stand as living monuments to these past interactions. This part of history shows that civilization thrives with openness and nations prosper through exchange. 

-- Mutual learning. The ancient silk routes were not for trade only, they boosted flow of knowledge as well. Through these routes, Chinese silk, porcelain, lacquerwork and ironware were shipped to the West, while pepper, flax, spices, grape and pomegranate entered China. Through these routes, Buddhism, Islam and Arab astronomy, calendar and medicine found their way to China, while China's four great inventions and silkworm breeding spread to other parts of the world. More importantly, the exchange of goods and know-how spurred new ideas. For example, Buddhism originated in India, blossomed in China and was enriched in Southeast Asia. Confucianism, which was born in China, gained appreciation by European thinkers such as Leibniz and Voltaire. Herein lies the appeal of mutual learning. 

-- Mutual benefit. The ancient silk routes witnessed the bustling scenes of visits and trade over land and ships calling at ports. Along these major arteries of interaction, capital, technology and people flowed freely, and goods, resources and benefits were widely shared. The ancient prosperous cities of Alma-Ata, Samarkand and Chang'an and ports of Sur and Guangzhou thrived, so did the Roman Empire as well as Parthia and Kushan Kingdoms. The Han and Tang Dynasties of China entered the golden age. The ancient silk routes brought prosperity to these regions and boosted their development. 

History is our best teacher. The glory of the ancient silk routes shows that geographical distance is not insurmountable. If we take the first courageous step towards each other, we can embark on a path leading to friendship, shared development, peace, harmony and a better future. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 

From the historical perspective, humankind has reached an age of great progress, great transformation and profound changes. In this increasingly multi-polar, economically globalized, digitized and culturally diversified world, the trend toward peace and development becomes stronger, and reform and innovation are gaining momentum. Never have we seen such close interdependence among countries as today, such fervent desire of people for a better life, and never have we had so many means to prevail over difficulties. 

In terms of reality, we find ourselves in a world fraught with challenges. Global growth requires new drivers, development needs to be more inclusive and balanced, and the gap between the rich and the poor needs to be narrowed. Hotspots in some regions are causing instability and terrorism is rampant. Deficit in peace, development and governance poses a daunting challenge to mankind. This is the issue that has always been on my mind. 

In the autumn of 2013, respectively in Kazakhstan and Indonesia, I proposed the building of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, which I call the Belt and Road Initiative. As a Chinese saying goes, "Peaches and plums do not speak, but they are so attractive that a path is formed below the trees." Four years on, over 100 countries and international organizations have supported and got involved in this initiative. Important resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and Security Council contain reference to it. Thanks to our efforts, the vision of the Belt and Road Initiative is becoming a reality and bearing rich fruit. 

-- These four years have seen deepened policy connectivity. I have said on many occasions that the pursuit of the Belt and Road Initiative is not meant to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it aims to complement the development strategies of countries involved by leveraging their comparative strengths. We have enhanced coordination with the policy initiatives of relevant countries, such as the Eurasian Economic Union of Russia, the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity, the Bright Road initiative of Kazakhstan, the Middle Corridor initiative of Turkey, the Development Road initiative of Mongolia, the Two Corridors, One Economic Circle initiative of Viet Nam, the Northern Powerhouse initiative of the UK and the Amber Road initiative of Poland. We are also promoting complementarity between China's development plan and those of Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Hungary and other countries. China has signed cooperation agreements with over 40 countries and international organizations and carried out framework cooperation on production capacity with more than 30 countries. During the forum, a number of cooperation agreements on policy connectivity and action plans will be signed. We will also launch Belt and Road cooperation initiative on trade connectivity together with some 60 countries and international organizations. Such policy connectivity will produce a multiplying effect on cooperation among the parties involved. 

-- These four years have seen enhanced infrastructure connectivity. Building roads and railways creates prosperity in all sectors. We have accelerated the building of Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, China-Laos railway, Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway and Hungary-Serbia railway, and upgraded Gwadar and Piraeus ports in cooperation with relevant countries. A large number of connectivity projects are also in the pipeline. Today, a multi-dimensional infrastructure network is taking shape, one that is underpinned by economic corridors such as China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor and the New Eurasian Continental Bridge, featuring land-sea-air transportation routes and information expressway and supported by major railway, port and pipeline projects.

-- These four years have seen increased trade connectivity. China has worked with other countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative to promote trade and investment facilitation and improve business environment. I was told that for Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries alone, customs clearance time for agricultural produce exporting to China is cut by 90%. Total trade between China and other Belt and Road countries in 2014-2016 has exceeded US$3 trillion, and China's investment in these countries has surpassed US$50 billion. Chinese companies have set up 56 economic cooperation zones in over 20 countries, generating some US$1.1 billion of tax revenue and 180,000 jobs for them. 

-- These four years have seen expanded financial connectivity. Financing bottleneck is a key challenge to realizing connectivity. China has engaged in multiple forms of financial cooperation with countries and organizations involved in the Belt and Road Initiative. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has provided US$1.7 billion of loans for 9 projects in Belt and Road participating countries. The Silk Road Fund has made US$4 billion of investment, and the 16+1 financial holding company between China and Central and Eastern European countries has been inaugurated. With distinctive focus, these new financial mechanisms and traditional multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank complement each other. A multi-tiered Belt and Road financial cooperation network has taken an initial shape. 

-- These four years have seen strengthened people-to-people connectivity. Friendship, which derives from close contact between the people, holds the key to sound state-to-state relations. Guided by the Silk Road spirit, we the Belt and Road Initiative participating countries have pulled our efforts to build the educational Silk Road and the health Silk Road, and carried out cooperation in science, education, culture, health and people-to-people exchange. Such cooperation has helped lay a solid popular and social foundation for pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative. Every year, the Chinese government provides 10,000 government scholarships to the relevant countries. China's local governments have also set up special Silk Road scholarships to encourage international cultural and educational exchanges. Projects of people-to-people cooperation such as Silk Road culture year, tourism year, art festival, film and TV project, seminar and think tank dialogue are flourishing. These interactions have brought our people increasingly closer. 

These fruitful outcomes show that the Belt and Road Initiative responds to the trend of the times, conforms to the law of development, and meets the people's interests. It surely has broad prospects. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 

As we often say in China, "The beginning is the most difficult part." A solid first step has been taken in pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative. We should build on the sound momentum generated to steer the Belt and Road Initiative toward greater success. In pursuing this endeavor, we should be guided by the following principles: 

First, we should build the Belt and Road into a road for peace. The ancient silk routes thrived in times of peace, but lost vigor in times of war. The pursuit of the Belt and Road Initiative requires a peaceful and stable environment. We should foster a new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation; and we should forge partnerships of dialogue with no confrontation and of friendship rather than alliance. All countries should respect each other's sovereignty, dignity and territorial integrity, each other's development paths and social systems, and each other's core interests and major concerns. 

Some regions along the ancient Silk Road used to be a land of milk and honey. Yet today, these places are often associated with conflict, turbulence, crisis and challenge. Such state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. We should foster the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security, and create a security environment built and shared by all. We should work to resolve hotspot issues through political means, and promote mediation in the spirit of justice. We should intensify counter-terrorism efforts, address both its symptoms and root causes, and strive to eradicate poverty, backwardness and social injustice. 

Second, we should build the Belt and Road into a road of prosperity. Development holds the master key to solving all problems. In pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, we should focus on the fundamental issue of development, release the growth potential of various countries and achieve economic integration and interconnected development and deliver benefits to all.

Industries are the foundation of economy. We should deepen industrial cooperation so that industrial development plans of different countries will complement and reinforce each other. Focus should be put on launching major projects. We should strengthen international cooperation on production capacity and equipment manufacturing, and seize new development opportunities presented by the new industrial revolution to foster new businesses and maintain dynamic growth. 

Finance is the lifeblood of modern economy. Only when the blood circulates smoothly can one grow. We should establish a stable and sustainable financial safeguard system that keeps risks under control, create new models of investment and financing, encourage greater cooperation between government and private capital and build a diversified financing system and a multi-tiered capital market. We should also develop inclusive finance and improve financial services networks. 

Infrastructure connectivity is the foundation of development through cooperation. We should promote land, maritime, air and cyberspace connectivity, concentrate our efforts on key passageways, cities and projects and connect networks of highways, railways and sea ports. The goal of building six major economic corridors under the Belt and Road Initiative has been set, and we should endeavor to meet it. We need to seize opportunities presented by the new round of change in energy mix and the revolution in energy technologies to develop global energy interconnection and achieve green and low-carbon development. We should improve trans-regional logistics network and promote connectivity of policies, rules and standards so as to provide institutional safeguards for enhancing connectivity. 

Third, we should build the Belt and Road into a road of opening up. Opening up brings progress while isolation results in backwardness. For a country, opening up is like the struggle of a chrysalis breaking free from its cacoon. There will be short-term pains, but such pains will create a new life. The Belt and Road Initiative should be an open one that will achieve both economic growth and balanced development. 

We should build an open platform of cooperation and uphold and grow an open world economy. We should jointly create an environment that will facilitate opening up and development, establish a fair, equitable and transparent system of international trade and investment rules and boost the orderly flow of production factors, efficient resources allocation and full market integration. We welcome efforts made by other countries to grow open economies based on their national conditions, participate in global governance and provide public goods. Together, we can build a broad community of shared interests. 

Trade is an important engine driving growth. We should embrace the outside world with an open mind, uphold the multilateral trading regime, advance the building of free trade areas and promote liberalization and facilitation of trade and investment. Of course, we should also focus on resolving issues such as imbalances in development, difficulties in governance, digital divide and income disparity and make economic globalization open, inclusive, balanced and beneficial to all. 

Fourth, we should build the Belt and Road into a road of innovation. Innovation is an important force powering development. The Belt and Road Initiative is new by nature and we need to encourage innovation in pursuing this initiative. 

We should pursue innovation-driven development and intensify cooperation in frontier areas such as digital economy, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and quantum computing, and advance the development of big data, cloud computing and smart cities so as to turn them into a digital silk road of the 21st century. We should spur the full integration of science and technology into industries and finance, improve the environment for innovation and pool resources for innovation. We should create space and build workshops for young people of various countries to cultivate entrepreneurship in this age of the internet and help realize their dreams. 

We should pursue the new vision of green development and a way of life and work that is green, low-carbon, circular and sustainable. Efforts should be made to strengthen cooperation in ecological and environmental protection and build a sound ecosystem so as to realize the goals set by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 

Fifth, we should build the Belt and Road into a road connecting different civilizations. In pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, we should ensure that when it comes to different civilizations, exchange will replace estrangement, mutual learning will replace clashes, and coexistence will replace a sense of superiority. This will boost mutual understanding, mutual respect and mutual trust among different countries. 

We should establish a multi-tiered mechanism for cultural and people-to-people exchanges, build more cooperation platforms and open more cooperation channels. Educational cooperation should be boosted, more exchange students should be encouraged and the performance of cooperatively run schools should be enhanced. Think tanks should play a better role and efforts should be made to establish think tank networks and partnerships. In the cultural, sports and health sectors, new cooperation models should be created to facilitate projects with concrete benefits. Historical and cultural heritage should be fully tapped to jointly develop tourist products and protect heritage in ways that preserve the distinctive features of the Silk Road. We should strengthen exchanges between parliaments, political parties and non-governmental organizations of different countries as well as between women, youths and people with disabilities with a view to achieving inclusive development. We should also strengthen international counter-corruption cooperation so that the Belt and Road will be a road with high ethical standards. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 

China has reached a new starting point in its development endeavors. Guided by the vision of innovative, coordinated, green, open and inclusive development, we will adapt to and steer the new normal of economic development and seize opportunities it presents. We will actively promote supply-side structural reform to achieve sustainable development, inject strong impetus into the Belt and Road Initiative and create new opportunities for global development. 

-- China will enhance friendship and cooperation with all countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. We are ready to share practices of development with other countries, but we have no intention to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, export our own social system and model of development, or impose our own will on others. In pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, we will not resort to outdated geopolitical maneuvering. What we hope to achieve is a new model of win-win cooperation. We have no intention to form a small group detrimental to stability, what we hope to create is a big family of harmonious co-existence. 

-- China has reached practical cooperation agreements with many countries on pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative. These agreements cover not only projects of hardware connectivity, like transport, infrastructure and energy, but also software connectivity, involving telecommunications, customs and quarantine inspection. The agreements also include plans and projects for cooperation in economy and trade, industry, e-commerce, marine and green economy. The Chinese railway authorities will sign agreements with their counterparts of related countries to deepen cooperation on China-Europe regular railway cargo service. We will work to launch these cooperation projects at an early date and see that they deliver early benefits. 

-- China will scale up financing support for the Belt and Road Initiative by contributing an additional RMB 100 billion to the Silk Road Fund, and we encourage financial institutions to conduct overseas RMB fund business with an estimated amount of about RMB 300 billion. The China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China will set up special lending schemes respectively worth RMB 250 billion equivalent and RMB 130 billion equivalent to support Belt and Road cooperation on infrastructure, industrial capacity and financing. We will also work with the AIIB, the BRICS New Development Bank, the World Bank and other multilateral development institutions to support Belt and Road related projects. We will work with other parties concerned to jointly formulate guidelines for financing the Belt and Road related development projects. 

-- China will endeavor to build a win-win business partnership with other countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, enhance trade and investment facilitation with them, and build a Belt and Road free trade network. These efforts are designed to promote growth both in our respective regions and globally. During this forum, China will sign business and trade cooperation agreements with over 30 countries and enter into consultation on free trade agreements with related countries. China will host the China International Import Expo starting from 2018. 

-- China will enhance cooperation on innovation with other countries. We will launch the Belt and Road Science, Technology and Innovation Cooperation Action Plan, which consists of the Science and Technology People-to-People Exchange Initiative, the Joint Laboratory Initiative, the Science Park Cooperation Initiative and the Technology Transfer Initiative. In the coming five years, we will offer 2,500 short-term research visits to China for young foreign scientists, train 5,000 foreign scientists, engineers and managers, and set up 50 joint laboratories. We will set up a big data service platform on ecological and environmental protection. We propose the establishment of an international coalition for green development on the Belt and Road, and we will provide support to related countries in adapting to climate change. 

-- In the coming three years, China will provide assistance worth RMB 60 billion to developing countries and international organizations participating in the Belt and Road Initiative to launch more projects to improve people's well-being. We will provide emergency food aid worth RMB 2 billion to developing countries along the Belt and Road and make an additional contribution of US$1 billion to the Assistance Fund for South-South Cooperation. China will launch 100 "happy home" projects, 100 poverty alleviation projects and 100 health care and rehabilitation projects in countries along the Belt and Road. China will provide relevant international organizations with US$1 billion to implement cooperation projects that will benefit the countries along the Belt and Road. 

-- China will put in place the following mechanisms to boost Belt and Road cooperation: a liaison office for the Forum's follow-up activities, the Research Center for the Belt and Road Financial and Economic Development, the Facilitating Center for Building the Belt and Road, the Multilateral Development Financial Cooperation Center in cooperation with multilateral development banks, and an IMF-China Capacity Building Center. We will also develop a network for cooperation among the NGOs in countries along the Belt and Road as well as new people-to-people exchange platforms such as a Belt and Road news alliance and a music education alliance. 

The Belt and Road Initiative is rooted in the ancient Silk Road. It focuses on the Asian, European and African continents, but is also open to all other countries. All countries, from either Asia, Europe, Africa or the Americas, can be international cooperation partners of the Belt and Road Initiative. The pursuit of this initiative is based on extensive consultation and its benefits will be shared by us all. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Dear Friends, 

An ancient Chinese saying goes, "A long journey can be covered only by taking one step at a time". Similarly, there is an Arab proverb which says that the Pyramid was built by piling one stone on another. In Europe, there is also the saying that "Rome wasn't built in a day." The Belt and Road Initiative is a great undertaking which requires dedicated efforts. Let us pursue this initiative step by step and deliver outcome one by one. By doing so, we will bring true benefit to both the world and all our people! 

In conclusion, I wish the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation a full success! 

Thank you!

Click here to save everything, by Evgeny, Morozov

This book is such a refreshing and frustrating read at the same time. In a time where few who criticize the current digital development actually know what they are talking about (most criticism related to “connectivity” are just standard conservative reactions towards anything that is new), this is a breath of fresh air.

Evgeny is well read and have thought about most of the issues he writes about. His “extreme position” is interesting to take a moment to reflect on. I think it is easy to imagine his position (not style) being mainstream in a world where we had a more educated discussion (and had less trust in people discussing a system they are making billions from and helped create).

The book is an interesting example of how a simplistic polarization can deliver some fruitful, and much needed, insights. As someone who does not like polarization as a general rule, this book is a good example why such rules tend to always have exceptions.

The title is telling, as the book is ironic, but also has very few ideas about what needs to be done and no concrete suggestions for action. This lack of a solution perspective is also something that I usually have as a filter when I read books. I especially like to read books with solutions that I don’t agree with, much more so than books with solutions that I agree with, but I tend to ignore books that are not able to take the (difficult) step from conceptual ideas to practical suggestions. While the book itself is lacking in concrete ideas my more than twelve pages of notes after reading the book include quite a few.

It was really hard to decide what I should include in this reflection as there are so many ideas on so many levels. My recommendation to anyone interested in technology is to read it from cover to cover and not skip the more boring parts, as I think those are important as well.

After all the praise, it might be necessary to stress the obvious; the books in far from perfect and it is very sloppy in parts, but even when it is sloppy, and written in anger, it is written in an entertaining way.

Perhaps the best parts of the book are when he discusses those with similar values as himself, such as Larry Lessig. This results in discussions like this:

“As someone who shares many of the ends of Lessig’s agenda, I take little pleasure in criticizing his means, but I do think they are intellectually unsustainable and probably misleading to the technologically unsavvy. Internet-centrism, like all religions, might have its productive uses, but it makes for a truly awful guide to solving complex problems, be they the future of journalism or the unwanted effects of transparency.”

His main point is:

“Instead of answering each and every digital challenge by measuring just how well it responds to the needs of the “network,” we need to learn how to engage in narrow, empirically grounded arguments about the individual technologies and platforms that compose “the Internet.”

If, in some cases, this would mean going after the sacred cows of transparency or openness, so be it. Before the idea of “the Internet” hijacked our imaginations, we made such trade-offs all the time. No serious philosopher would ever proclaim that either transparency or openness is an unquestionable good or absolute value to which human societies should aspire. There is no good reason why we should suddenly accept the totalizing philosophy of “the Internet” and embrace the supremacy of its associated values just because its cheerleaders believe that “the network is not going away.” Digital technologies contain no ready-made answers to the social and political dilemmas they create, even if “the Internet” convinces us otherwise.”

One of the issues that I find particularly lacking in discussions today is the questions related to who has access to data, and what format that is required for different groups to process the data?

It can be tiresome to hear him go on and on about how everyone is simplifying things without providing any examples of how these difficult issues can be discussed without simplifying them.  All books, reports, articles, blog posts, etc. are filled with simplifications and assumptions that frames the texts. What key assumptions that we must challenge and how that can be done is an important task in our society, as it is in any society.

Even if Evgeny does not say it himself, I think this paragraph capture much of the essence of the book and his criticism:

“Solutions are not assessed based on their merits but rather on how well they sit with the idea of a free, open, transparent “network” and its “architecture.” This is the other, darker side of epochalism: while new solutions are generated because we think that we are living in unique and exceptional times and anything Internet-incompatible ought to be swept away, we also believe that whatever problems “the Internet” presents ought to be dealt with in a manner that won’t affect “the Internet.”

Another thing that I appreciate is Evgeny’s focus on what happens when different kinds of connectivity and transparency are introduced by taking very concrete examples such as:

“While better crime statistics might help some people avoid buying properties in dodgy neighborhoods, they would also make it harder for other people to sell those properties. As a result, those who already live in these dodgy neighborhoods might be less willing to report crimes in the first place. In fact, in a 2011 survey by an insurance company, 11 percent of respondents claimed to have seen an incident but chose not to report it, worried that higher crime statistics for their neighborhood would significantly reduce the value of their properties. David Hand, a professor of mathematics at Imperial College, notes that “the open data initiative ignores such feedback effects—[that is,] that the very act of publishing the data will influence the quality of future data.” Perhaps we want data to be open—but not too open”

But sometimes he falls for the same simplicity that he criticises, such as:  

“The claim that going after Megaupload is an attack on “Internet freedom” makes as much sense as saying that going after people who steal books from libraries is an attack on “literary freedom.” Today, the notion of “Internet freedom” mobilizes Anonymous activists to launch cyberattacks, ensuring good press coverage for their heroes, like Dotcom.”

I don’t have much positive to say about Megaupload, or Kim Dotcom, but the way this situation (and many other so-called pirate cases) have been dealt with leaves a lot of room for improvements. Evgeny could have chosen Aaron Swartz instead of Kim and it would have been a much more interesting discussion.

It is a simplification, but many of those in power seem to do almost everything they can to create a divide between those who don’t see any need or potential in free information and those who see an opportunity to use the new connectivity in a way where most of the data can and should be free.

I don’t understand why Evgeny write in ways that makes him look like he is living under a stone (or in an ivory tower) to anyone who has been involved in copyright discussions:

“There’s a good chance that today’s copyright laws are unjust and inadequate—but this needs to be empirically demonstrated, not simply assumed from their supposed incompatibility with the spirit of “the Internet.”

He writes this as if there is a lack of empiric evidence that the copyright laws of today are outdated. Everyone (well almost everyone) agrees that this is the case, the question is if we should totally rethink these laws, or slightly update the old, but still based on a pre-digital logic.

Sometimes he is also so frustrated that I think he misses the point that creative people are trying to address important challenges with new tools:

“Solutionists do not understand that politicians are not like inflatable mattresses or hair dryers that can be easily ranked on a five-star scale, as we are wont to do with our Amazon purchases. It’s not that we do not evaluate them at all—we do—but such evaluations boil down to a binary choice, which we express, every few years, at the voting booth.”

1.     I don't know of anyone who do not understand that politicians are not like inflatable mattresses.
2.     Few things can be easily ranked on a five-star scale.
3.     Few evaluate politicians
4.     There are seldom binary choices. Only a Sith (or simplistic academics or other pundits) think in absolutes.
5.     That political choice is something that is exercised every few years at the voting booth is a sad perspective. Most people working with these issues want to see something more.

“Adam Michnik was onto something when he defined democracy as “eternal imperfection, a mixture of sinfulness, saintliness, and monkey business.” Try marketing a hair dryer with that slogan.”

I’m not sure if he is just in love with his own words, or is just plain ignorant when it comes to how most people engaged in politics think. Why keep discussing as if hair dryers and democracy belong to the same category. There are stupid PR people in politics, but perhaps even more of them among journalists, pundits and special interests. Almost all of the policy makers I know and have met acknowledges that there are significant problems with the current media situation, but very few leading editors/journalists/experts (perhaps not surprising as many of these are part of the problem) admits this.

I think he could have contributed to a more interesting discussion if he spent some more time actually assessing the people and ideas behind different tools. Then I think he would not say things like:

“Politwoops, a project of the Sunlight Foundation, collects and highlights tweets deleted by politicians, as if they should never be granted an opportunity to regret what they say. Perhaps the Sunlight Foundation would prefer that politicians say nothing at all.”

Instead he could also discuss "Ad hawk" from the same organization. I don’t think their tools are without problems, but I think it is not very honest to simplify initiatives from people who have spent a long time thinking about the challenges in politics/media. There are important challenges, but they are more complex that Evgeny’s soundbites indicates.

It would also have been interesting if Evgeny discussed people like Wael Ghonim from the Egyptian revolution who went from a very simplistic perspective on how internet could save everything, to a more nuanced perspective.

I often quote his TED introduction (ironic as I often criticize TED for its simplicity, but as a bridge from extreme simplicity to some reflection I think TEDT can play a role):

Five years ago, I said, "If you want to liberate society, all you need is the Internet." Today, I believe if we want to liberate society, we first need to liberate the Internet.

https://www.ted.com/talks/wael_ghonim_let_s_design_social_media_that_drives_real_change/transcript?language=en

 I want to end with one very important, but simplified, observation by Evgeny.

“We must stop thinking of the new filters and algorithmic practices promoted by the new digital intermediaries (and their digerati cheerleaders) as unproblematic, objective, and naturally superior to the filters and practices that preceded them. These new filters might be faster, cheaper, and more efficient, but speed, cost, and efficiency are only peripherally related to the civic roles that these filters and algorithms will be playing in our lives.”

“The main problem here is that the hidden initial manipulations of the PR industry are only made worse by the business incentives of platforms like YouTube and Facebook, which have their own reasons to promote memes: they create some shared culture and, more importantly, lead to more page views, more user interaction (i.e., users reveal more about their interests to the company), and, eventually, more and better advertising. Memes, then, are what happens when one greedy industry meets another.”

After reading this book, or at the same time, I would recommend also reading Eric Schmidt’s book “The New Digital Age” https://www.pamlin.net/reflections/2097?rq=The%20New%20Digital%20Age

 I was very surprised to see how unintelligent that book was, and many of the simplistic assumptions made by Eric in that book are discussed by Evgeny. But where there are 1000’s books like “the new digital age”, and magnitudes more articles and blog posts and are very few “Click here to save everything”.

I just realized that if I use “the new digital age” as an example I should mention “When google met wikileaks”, by Assange. This is an interesting book that I think everyone that read the “The New Digital Age” should read. However, where Assanges books provides a well needed perspective on Schmidt’s book in particular, Evgeny provides a critique of one of the most dominate ideas in the current tech zeitgeist, the idea that any problem can be solved (and should be solved) with more technology.

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, by Yuval Noah Harari

This is a different kind of book reflection. It is about a book I normally do not write anything about, not because I find over simplified discussions about important issues boring and uninteresting (I sometime find it interesting to understand what simplification that are TED materials), but increasingly I find them dangerously stupefying. I read the book and wrote this reflection as I have seen politicians that I consider reasonably intelligent (including Obama), friends and artists I respect praise the book. 

I should clarify that I agree with very much in the book and I’m happy that Yuval brings up a number of interesting and important issues, e.g. how western countries have used “free trade” to push drugs (the opium war) and how our society is ignoring animal rights.

What I find frightening, is that this kind of rhetoric is becoming so popular, and even considered knowledge. I have no problem with Yuval writing a book like this. He is a good writer and it is easy to read to book. I even think you can recommend people reading this book instead of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci code or Harry Potter (both well written books that are entertaining). Some people like this kind of entertainment and I think almost all books can be used as inspiration to explore important issues (including the books by Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling that many criticize for their simplicity). But for me the way people have reacted to “Sapiens” reflect the dangerous disrespect for science and knowledge. They refer to this book as a source of knowledge in ways that differs from how people refer to Dan Brown.

It is as if Yuval set out to write the longest tweet ever, filled with “fun” “facts” that are easily quotable.

The book is filled with entertaining, but sloppy, provocations (at least that is what I think it is), e.g. he groups ideologies together with religion without a proper discussion about the differences. The simple fact that ideologies tend to be built on some rational ground and assumptions that can be discussed, compared with religion that are based on faith. Obviously, there are similarities that are interesting to discuss, but to book never moves in to complex questions.

I think Yuval makes a number of important observations, but the book has a tendency to erode the meaning of words that I find deeply disturbing and dangerous. Add to this the lack of serious references and it is hard to see this as anything more than fiction. I would even argue that the “edutainment” focus, where knowledge is simplified, statements are provided without proper backing and always presented in a personal and fun way, is one if the key contributions to the situation we have in society where facts, science and dialogue are under threats.

This kind of material is a lot more dangerous than what is usually regarded a “fake news” as few people actually think they are true, but rather sympathise with the general message.

When mainstream media, politicians that are seen as thinking people, talk about books like this as if it provides some kind of insight we are on a very slippery slope as exactly the same book can be written with very different values that are equally entertaining.

I think Yuval is in love with his fantastic capacity to write in a captivating way, providing us with small nuggets that fits perfect in a dinner conversations when someone want to sound interesting without thinking for themselves.  

There are so many contradictions and hyperbole does not begin to describe many of the statements.

“But the single most remarkable and defining moment of the past 500 years came at 05:29:45 on 16 July 1945. At that precise second, American scientists detonated the first atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico. From that point onward, humankind had the capability not only to change the course of history, but to end it.”

There are many moments that can be used to highlight different aspects of our society. Humans have always had the opportunity to change history, that is what we do. But even more important we did not get the chance to end human civilisation at that moment. What is true is that Edward Teller’s back of the envelope calculations that indicated that the earth atmosphere. What moment the Russians and US had enough nuclear weapons so that a full nuclear world result in such a catastrophic chain event that there was a probability that human civilisation would end, is hard to estimate, but it was long after 1945.

“The leading project of the Scientific Revolution is to give humankind eternal life. Even if killing death seems a distant goal, we have already achieved things that were inconceivable a few centuries ago.”

Who have ever said that? Is there even one (1) leading project for the scientific revolution, and if such a thing could be established it would probably be something vague like “improve things”?

“The Scientific Revolution has not been a revolution of knowledge. It has been above all a revolution of ignorance. The great discovery that launched the Scientific Revolution was the discovery that humans do not know the answers to their most important questions.”

Again an interesting statement, and I’m curious to learn more about such a statement. But as always these general statements are not backed up in any way.

“Just as the Atlantic slave trade did not stem from hatred towards Africans, so the modern animal industry is not motivated by animosity. Again, it is fuelled by indifference.”

Who have said that the slave trade steamed from hatred, or that our current animal industry is based on hatred?

The book is filled with random, half-true statement that backs up a liberal view on the world. If people that consider themselves to be critical thinkers and supporters of the enlightenment embrace this kind of level of intelligence (or more correct, lack thereof) I think we are in serious trouble. This is not to say that Noah is unintelligent, I assume that he is smart (perhaps even very smart), but he has bought into the simplification narrative that is so dominating today and so have many of his readers I guess.

I know that it is easier for most people to be upset at racist webpages, anti-scientific attacks on climate change, and hateful trolls on Twitter, but such things will always exist. The real problem is when people who consider themselves educated and moderate use books like this as the bases for any kind of discussion about something important. As long as facts are less important than entertainment we will get Trump, Lomborg and other experts who are “sceptic” towards climate change, immigrants, science, etc.

Hopefully a number of people in media and politics (including lobbyists and PR/marketing people) are asking what kind of responsibility they have for the current situation.

I want to write a separate text about the need to protect democracy and the open society later.

The Rest Is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, by Alex Ross

This book is fantastic. I have read it for more than a year and I’m still not done. First I read it at the same speed as I do with most books, but realised that I only had scratched the surface. I then read it over a long time where I streamed/downloaded all music that was mentioned in to book and listened to that while reading and thinking about the corresponding parts. After that, I went back and I’m now currently reading the parts where I think Ross has captured interesting transitions in society, from the perspective of music, and listened to the music related to the transitions mentioned in the book. I’m not sure when I will put this book to the side, but I’ve been asked about my reflections for a long time and I thought I could share some reflections while still reading it.

As a disclosure I should confess that I have read very little about classical music, especially modern. So, part of my passion for this book is probably due to the fact that so much in this book is new to me. I have been afraid that my emotional experience will be “tainted” and I would lose the emotional connection to the music if I add knowledge and theories about the music I listen to. With this book I can say that this  is not the case, the fact that I have read about most of the events Ross discusses from many different angles (political, economic, philosophic, etc.) meant that I have now added a flavour that I have missed so far. For me this book has already made so much of what I have read earlier richer and the music has not changed.

The book is so well written that I on occasions I took a step back and wondered if Ross would pull me down a rabbit hole to show the danger of being swept away by a book. Especially the parts about music and politics were interesting, and I do not think they would survive in mass media that tend to simplify and polarize.

I appreciate that the book does not really have a structure beyond a rough chronological order. In most chapters it is a small group of composers that we follow, with particular focus on one, and how they evolve as individuals as they struggle/enjoy/fight for/doubt some of their most well-known work. In other chapters Ross takes a step back and show how different composers fit into a broader historic context.

The Rest is Noise is so filled with interesting observations, fascinating knowledge, inspirational stories, and fantastic quotes that I feel that a proper reflection would be many times longer than the actual book.

I’ll just include one (random) observation about the relation between music and art that I found very interesting and it is a discussion about the contrast between Vassily Kandinsky’s “Impression III (Concert)” and Schoenberg’s “Five Pieces for Orchestra”, the third to be specific.

“Looking at a painting in a gallery is fundamentally different from listening to a new work in a concert hall. Picture yourself in a room with, say, Kandinsky’s Impression III (Concert), painted in 1911. Kandinsky and Schoenberg knew each other, and shared common aims; Impression III was inspired by one of Schoenberg’s concerts. If visual abstraction and musical dissonance were precisely equivalent, Impression III and the third of the Five Pieces for Orchestra would present the same degree of difficulty. But the Kandinsky is a different experience for the uninitiated. If at first you have trouble understanding it, you can walk on and return to it later, or step back to give it another glance, or lean if for a closer look (is that a piano in the foreground?). At a performance, listeners experience a new work collectively, at the same rate and approximately from the same distance. They cannot stop to consider the implications of a half-lovely chord or concealed waltz rhythm. They are a crowd, and crowds tend to align themselves as one mind.”

For those who do not have them fresh in mind here are two links: Kandinsky’s “Impression III (Concert)” Schoenberg’s “Five Pieces for Orchestra”

Curious to understand the full context for the experience I tried to find information about the full concert. Then I found an article by Zachary Woolfe, Painting Music, and Listening to Art where he wrote “The concert opened with the String Quartet No. 2 […] and moved on to the Three Piano Pieces, then to five of his songs and the String Quartet No. 1.

String Quartet No. 2 String Quartet No. 1

But as I write this I feel that this is not fair to the book, as the part above will take up such a large part of this reflection, but was only one of hundreds equally interesting observations that inspired new thoughts and knowledge.

There are also short nuggets that makes you wonder how you could have missed them (perhaps it has been my resistance to read about classical music that has resulted in a blindness for patterns) like this observation about the movie 2001:

“Among other things, the film neatly brackets the entire arc of twentieth-century musical history. It begins with Strauss’s Thus Spake Zarathustra , the music of nature’s original majesty. In the final section, the movie is subsumed into Ligeti’s alternate universe, spiraling through the outer limits of expression before returning to the point of origin. As the august Zarathustra chords sound again at the end, the cycle is ready to begin anew.”

Ross also makes some very chilling observations on how music during parts of history seemed to live in a separate universe (like to many people at that time). E.g. this observation “On August 3, 1941, the day that Capriccio was finished, 682 Jews were killed in Chernovtsy, Romania; 1,500 in Jelgava, Latvia; and several hundred in Stanisl ⁄ awów, Ukraine. On October 28, 1942, the day of the opera’s premiere in Munich, the first convoy of Jews from Theresienstadt arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and 90 percent of them went to the gas chamber.”

One aspect, of what I think describes Ross view, on the relation between art and politics is beautifully described in the following quote: “Although there is no point in trying to restore Schopenhauer’s separation of art and state, it is equally false to claim the opposite, that art can somehow be swallowed up in history or irreparably damaged by it. Music may not be inviolable, but it is infinitely variable, acquiring a new identity in the mind of every new listener. It is always in the world, neither guilty nor innocent, subject to the ever-changing human landscape in which it moves.”

There are also condensed parts, such as this about Metamorphosen by Strauss, where a number of threads are pulled together in ways that forever link a number of iconic musical and historical events: “In the final section a new element enters: a quotation from the funeral march of Beethoven’s Eroica. As the story goes, Beethoven had planned to dedicate the Eroica to Napoleon, but when Napoleon crowned himself emperor the composer crossed out the dedication and wrote instead, “To the memory of a great man.” It has long been thought that Strauss was saying the same about Hitler, burying a man in whom he once believed. In light of the hidden citation of Goethe’s line “No one can know himself,” it is more likely that the hero being laid to rest is Strauss himself. There are anguished dissonances as Strauss’s own funereal anthem falls in and out of sync with Beethoven’s. Having seemingly reached bottom, it goes two more long steps down—a low G, then an even lower C. It is like the sunrise fanfare of Thus Spoke Zarathustra moving in retrograde, the harmonic series rewinding to the fundamental. There is no “light in the night,” only night.”

There is also a discussion about the current lack of beauty in classical music that helped me feel less frustrated with, what I consider, so much uninteresting music these days. I still have a hard time to appreciate much of the contemporary classical music, but feel that I understand (and in some ways respect) why we are where we are. More than anything else the book also gave me hope for the future. Below three key quotes:

"OMGUS [The U.S. Military Government in Germany] inadvertently helped to bring about a “segregation of the modern and the popular.”"

"there was, on the one hand, a classical establishment that eluded denazification, and, on the other, an avant-garde establishment that opposed itself so determinedly to the aesthetics of the Nazi period that it came close to disavowing the idea of the public concert. The middlebrow ideal of a popular modernism withered away, caught between extremes of revolution and reaction."

“The American composer Elliott Carter explained why he gave up Copland-style populism and Stravinsky-style neoclassicism: “Before the end of the Second World War, it became clear to me, partly as a result of rereading Freud and others and thinking about psychoanalysis, that we were living in a world where this physical and intellectual violence would always be a problem and that the whole conception of human nature underlying the neoclassic esthetic amounted to a sweeping under the rug of things that, it seemed to me, we had to deal with in a less oblique and resigned way.”

I would have liked to read more about what beyond God that can create an urge to write music that transcends. Nature seem to present that kind of inspiration to some, but for many the “divinity” seem to the most powerful inspiration, even if it is a mixture, e.g. this quote “These allusions suggest that Feldman is creating a divine music, appropriate to the somber spirituality of Rothko’s chapel. In a sense, he is fusing two different divinities, representative of two major strains in twentieth-century music: the remote, Hebraic God of Schoenberg’s opera and the gentle, iconic presence of Stravinsky’s symphony.”

Perhaps some of my modern favourites can be explained in a way that I had not thought about:

“It is not hard to guess why Pärt and several like-minded composers—notably Henryk Górecki and John Tavener—achieved a degree of mass appeal during the global economic booms of the eighties and nineties; they provided oases of repose in a technologically oversaturated culture. For some, Pärt’s strange spiritual purity filled a more desperate need; a nurse in a hospital ward in New York regularly played Tabula Rasa for young men who were dying of AIDS, and in their last days they asked to hear it again and again.”

This was a surprising triangle for me. I have never before linked these three composers together. But if I do, as I did find them during the nineties, I would like to add Penderecki and Bryars, this pentagram brings together a longing for the eternal beautiful, other modern composers I like, e.g. , Nyman and Glass, seem to look more into the future. Others more in new interesting directions, e.g. György Ligeti and Thomas Adés.