Cargo Cults

I'm busy reading Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion. It's interesting, if quite opinionated and arrogant, but there are quite a few things within its pages that I was surprised to learn of.

One example is the existence of Cargo Cults in the Southwest Pacific. From wikipedia:

Cargo cults have been recorded since the 19th century. The cult participants generally do not fully understand the significance of manufacturing or commerce. They have limited purchasing ability. Their understanding of western society, religion, and economics may be rudimentary. These cults are a response to the resulting confusion and insecurity. They rationalize their situation by reference to religious and magical symbols they associate with Christianity and modern western society. Across cultural differences and large geographic areas, there have been instances of the movements independently organizing.

The most famous examples of Cargo Cult behavior have been the airstrips, airports, and radios made out of coconuts and straw. The cult members built them in the belief that the structures would attract transport aircraft full of cargo. Believers stage "drills" and "marches" with twigs for rifles and military-style insignia and "USA" painted on their bodies to make them look like soldiers.

Utterly amazing! The Cargo Cult demonstrates, in a way more real than any other, how an unexplained phenomenon can spark a religion, complete with rituals, a messiah, and miracles. And it can happen independently, again and again. Dawkins talks about one, the cult of John Frum

The cult is still active today. The followers believe that John Frum will come back on a February 15 (the year of his return isn't known), a date which is observed as "John Frum Day" in Vanuatu. The name "John Frum" is possibly derived from World War II GIs introducing themselves to the locals as "John from America".

Humans will believe anything, and rationalize to continue believing it. I can't wait until the aliens come, and we worship them.

Everyone: Cool it!

I read this interesting article the other day: Thatcher economist de-hypes climate debate

"There is no greater threat to the people of this planet than the retreat from reason we see all around us today."

I, personally, want to poke out my eyes when I read this article - but only because the author has a thesaurus stuck up his ass. What in the hell do ambit and adjure mean? But I do think he captures the subject of his article well. Nigel Lawson's article, The Economics and Politics of Climate Change: An Appeal to Reason is slightly longer at 18 pages, but well worth the read.

Several of his points (he makes others - it is well worth the read):

• the science on climate change is not conclusive
• the debate about climate change is being actively stifled
• the assertion that global warming is all bad is unfounded

I've noticed in all of my interactions with people who feel passionately about global warming that the discussion has taken on the same tone as an abortion debate: emotion rules over reason. Articles that talk about some "effect of global warming" only mention one side of the story. For example: Greenland's Ice Cap is Melting at a Frighteningly Fast Rate only briefly mentions that Antartica's ice sheet is thickening, doesn't mention that melting ice is only a secondary cause of rising sea levels, and throws out a scare about the Gulf Stream disappearing -- an idea that is controversial.

What we need is more nuanced information - The Greenland Ice is interesting - which might actually allow us to think about this. Clearly the extremist argument isn't working - not for the leaders of our nation, and not for the people who continue to buy SUVs.

It's time to sit back, think about things rationally, and cool it.

The Singularity Is Near

Could the biotech revolution finally be producing some fruit? This disease kills thousands every year - have we entered bridge two?

Diabetes Breakthrough

Results Only Work Environment

It's time for a revolution.

I've noticed this for some time: I'm expected to show up for work at 9, but often I don't get into the idea of doing work until late morning. Then I break for lunch, and it takes a couple of hours to get back into the flow.

When I've had consulting gigs, I've noticed that it's much easier to work. I sit down only when I'm ready to work, and I get up when I'm tired. Since I'm fully engaged when I'm working, I can get two hours of work done in two hours.

Contrast this with the work I get done in an average 8 hour day. I don't need to get into details, but it's lower than 8 hours of work.

Enter the Results Only Work Environment. Best Buy has recently (within the last two years) been operating (much of that time without the knowledge or permission of its CEO) under a no meetings, no schedules, no mandatory face time principle. As long as employees get their work done, it's policy not to require them to be in the office. Some of the rules are interesting, too:

No.7: Nobody talks about how many hours they work. No.9: It's O.K. to take a nap on a Tuesday afternoon, grocery shop on Wednesday morning, or catch a movie on Thursday afternoon.

Does this work? Productivity has gone up. Best Buy's stock is up over last year's. It will be interesting to see if they can make this model work for non-corporate employees (like retail salespeople).

Given my inherently lazy nature, would I be able to pull off getting all of my work done if I'm getting up at 10 and going to a movie once a week? I think there's only one way to find out.

But, how do I convince my boss?