@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 We want to initially describe all these impressions as culture. Of course, these impressions will vary for every reader, but this experiment provides a great foundation for discussing the following categories that apply to all of us:
-Interior design. Furniture. Design. Architecture. Fashion. Music. Literature. Painting. Art. Communication. Narrative. Urban design.
+[[Interior design]]. [[Furniture]]. [[Design]]. [[Architecture]]. [[Fashion]]. [[Music]]. [[Literature]]. [[Painting]]. [[Art]]. [[Communication]]. [[Narrative]]. [[Urban design]].
 So it's time to turn on our stage lighting and ask the first questions:
@@ Line 163: / Line 163: @@
 We can do it!
 == For our markets ==
@@ Line 468: / Line 467: @@
 We will manage that!
+== For our strengths ==
+In the contemporary world of work, strength is mentioned everywhere. The strength of an employee wants to be recognized, as well as the strength of the entire organization. Once this is recognized, it's crucial to focus on the strength. The model of strength that today's economy and its players like to describe themselves with, comes from the military. This has been the case for more than 2,500 years as can be read in colleague Sun Tzu.
+It is thus all the more interesting to observe that the imperative to concentrate on the strength has not found its way into politics and our society as a whole. Politics, since its origin in ancient Athens, inherently possesses the quality to steer. Interesting then, that the cybernetic discipline of politics deals so ignorantly with strength.
+The reason for this riddle lies extremely deep, but we can quickly clarify this without going into detail.
+Strength is the comparison of traits. The fastest person in the world runs 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. A frail elder lays this distance in an hour.
+For politics as the ringmaster of equalization and even worse as the representative and leader of our society, strength is like a minefield that one prefers to avoid as much as possible.
+Our ideas are hidden in and especially behind the following questions:
+How do we measure the strength of individuals?
+How do we measure strength in politics and society?
+How do politics and society allow focus on strengths?
+How does politics and society promotes the strengths of individuals?
+One of our ideas is to rethink the promotion of highly gifted individuals. Our society defines such giftedness with successes that far exceed the average in social institutions like the university. But in doing so, we lose a hitherto unquantifiable amount of highly gifted individuals who don't even make it to this special institution. Think of Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan who, despite adverse circumstances, made it from the simplest conditions in India to Cambridge and who has gifted our society with nearly 4,000 innovations in mathematics like no other mathematician. Thus, our idea is to shed light on this under-investigated area, not by demanding education worldwide for everyone, but by making everyone and each individual develop a greater sensitivity for the extraordinary instead of an appreciation for the ordinary.
+Another idea is to promote general physical and mental enhancement. This political idea is based on three topics that are generally known, but which we want to completely redesign.
+Sport for physical endurance. Strategy games for mental fitness, like chess and Go. Nutrition - that is, balanced nutrition.
+We are interested in the meaningful combination. Hence, we promote outdoor sports and joint walks instead of indoor meetings. City centers without noisy cars and with cycle paths, to promote meaningful movement, which offers a multitude of benefits simultaneously.
+How can it be that in industrialized countries millions liters of sugar water are sold and several billions are spent each year on junk food, while consumption of local fruits has been declining for years?
+,000 years ago, our humanity put the idea into practice to be able to affect certain plants and animals by pairing them. This made humanity capable of suffering less hunger and eating more proteins. Today, we have developed research fields such as synthetic biology from this idea, but also created new possibilities for our species in other fields such as robotics and brain-computer interfaces. Developments like the exact prediction of protein folding by artificial intelligence suggest at first glance that these research fields are developing rapidly and therefore everything is fine. Here again, necessary care is required. We want to illustrate this with an example: In 2018, a Chinese scientist managed to deactivate the CCR5 receptor in several human embryos through genome editing to make the then born children immune to HIV. However, this contradicts international ethical guidelines. Worldwide, over half a million people die of HIV. A political and economic idea is to create the conditions so that technology can more quickly and purposefully lift the limitations of our species. We are concerned about healing diseases as well as using technology to build our strengths. Already in cattle breeding, a greater heat resistance of Holstein cows has been achieved through genome editing.
+Recognizing strengths anew and building strengths afresh.
+We will make it!
+== For our weaknesses ==
+Although our primary task is to recognise and build upon our strengths at all levels, this dualistic model also contains weakness. The insidious thing about strength is that we are hardly aware of it because when we utilise our strengths, things run smoothly and we achieve more than we ever assumed possible. But when a weakness appears, everything becomes difficult and we become aware of the deficit.
+Let us now look at three cases of how we as a society deal with our weaknesses.
+For all those who have landed roughly at the bottom of our society, we have planned social security systems. But anyone who now already perceives government interventions, even without being in these systems, as patronising like an annoying kindergarten teacher, should take a closer look at these social security systems. Instead of teaching the basic principles of money, wealth and investment, the state takes care of all the needs of its recipients, as long as they are properly articulated, from TV sets to gaming consoles. Just not money. This also deprives people of the very last competence in dealing with money.
+For all those who abuse criminal law beyond measure, our society has built large prisons, locks up offenders and then collectively looks away. We do not measure the success of the prison idea, nor do we have ideas on how to improve this whole system.
+Every year, nearly 8 million people die from tobacco worldwide and 3 million from alcohol. Thus, every year a city the size of New York dies. The damage from alcohol to our economy amounts to an incredible 60 billion euros per year just in Germany - 1000 euros for each citizen per year, or to draw another comparison, 3% of all state expenditures.
+In our eyes, however, the damage is far greater: the economic damage only takes into account sick days and accidents at work caused by alcohol. But as we know, alcohol is a poison, and as such, it reduces the ability to learn in the long term after consumption. If this damage were also taken into account, the damage would amount to several trillion euros per year.
+These three cases once again show a surprising degree of political incompetence. It doesn't seem like politics has the ability to deal with the weaknesses of our society. So what path should our species take to better handle our weaknesses than politics does?
+We believe that a strong society neither needs paternalism, punishment, nor drugs. Therefore, our idea is to rely on education and consistent action.
+Since we obviously do not have a strong society, but one that is diluted in its values, the idea that leads to a fundamental change is a cultural shift. Only when we pursue a large and common goal, and understand ourselves as one species, can we successively, i.e., with each strengthening of society, adjust the criminal law accordingly. This could also introduce a Universal Basic Income, which you can live on and, as the name suggests, no conditions are attached.
+This cultural shift is the process leading to a post-culture, as we have described in our vision.
+We will succeed!
+== For our economy ==
+The best idea for politics to boost the economy is to stay out of the way as much as possible. The less the state interferes in the workings of the economy through bureaucracy, regulation, and subsidies, the less resistance there is and the more the economy can flow.
+Good companies will grow and create solutions for problems, just like they have been doing for the last 200 years, and thus solve important problems of our species, such as the food crisis at the beginning of the 20th century through the invention of fertilisers.
+We will succeed!
+== For our environment ==
+In the last 50 years, environmental protection has become increasingly important. Other terms such as sustainability, ecology and climate have grown behind this term and are now omnipresent.
+Our first idea is - what else could it be - to question the term 'environmental protection'.
+Many of the political demands and many of the measures imply a restriction on freedoms. But this disproportionate attention and the one-dimensional view of the restriction is ultimately not successful.
+Loud cars still disturb in recreational areas, major cities still have no plan for dealing with extreme heat, and people's initiative against species extinction still lead nowhere despite electoral success.
+The idea following this analysis is, on the one hand, a new configuration of what we call the 'environment' and, on the other hand, new objectives for the value and protection of this environment.
+Environment, in the political discourse on environmental protection, refers to the surroundings as they present themselves without human intervention. Examples of this are National Parks, where nature evolves without human intervention.
+This concept of the environment and today's environmental protection artificially excludes humans and implicitly assumes that the goal must be nature without humans. The result of this careless consideration is that attention to climate change is focused exclusively on reducing carbon dioxide, but not on adapting to a new climate.
+Another result is that attention focuses on species protection, not animal protection. While one tries with immense effort - among other things the halting of construction of life-essential projects - to protect an extremely rare species of bat, an animal abuser who shot a cat with an air gun is acquitted.
+Our idea is a new environmental doctrine, focusing attention away from environmental protection - which is a pointless protection - towards environmental value, i.e., increasing the value of our environment.
+Environmental value is actually what we want to achieve with environmental protection. Just as a shareholder strives to increase the value of their portfolio, it is also our actual goal to increase the value of our environment. The question is not how can we protect the environment. The environment is not a museum. The environment is our living room. So the question is, how can we increase the value of the environment?
+In considering the value, it becomes obvious that there is an effort, which results in a result. The difference between effort and result is important.
+If we improve the quality of our air, the quality of day and night, and the quality of our water, then we can achieve great results with little effort.
+We think in terms of generations and want to increase the value of our environment so that many hundreds of generations will find a more valuable environment than it is today.
+We will also achieve this!
+== For our politics ==
+Politics is a tight-laced corset, significantly influenced by a multitude of unwritten rules that have proven to be effective over the last hundred years. This code of conduct is largely dictated by a politician's incentive to get re-elected in the next election. We know it all too well: drab fashion, empty phrases, feeble smiles, and handshaking. In general, an aesthetic that mocks any healthy taste. But do not misunderstand us superficially. It is this aesthetic of drabness that can be found in all political decisions. That's just how it’s done. Otherwise, what would voters think and say?
+Our idea for politics now includes much more colorful ties and suits. Please forgive us for the humor, but we are just having a bit of fun. On to our real idea.
+Our idea is to put ideas at the center of politics!
+Every political idea has roots, can be evaluated according to different criteria, and we can make predictions according to different standards. This should be at the center of politics. In short: What are the best ideas? Politics is an organization based on cybernetic principles. The leaders of the most successful companies and nations step back from their organization, letting the best ideas win.
+The best idea is not the one that is loudly promoted. Hence, there is a need to establish a new format to present political ideas, one that is not based on short-term thinking, but instead presents the effects of political ideas in a holistic and long-term way.
+Our democracies have a recognized means of presenting ideas, which can be used immediately. Petitions. Many laws also firmly establish that petitions do not have to follow a fixed format and can be submitted by anyone. Furthermore, politicians are legally obligated to respond to these petitions, even if they come from individuals. Petitions can thus be translated into political ideas, and it is important to make better use of them.
+Another idea is to start parties. The barriers to do this are low, and founding a party gives you a number of privileges that make it more efficient to work in politics.
+We can do this!
+== For our philosophy ==
+We have to cite the good old saying here again. It teaches us that philosophy is an art that doesn't feed us. From this, we can infer two things. First, bread is important to the people. This is, of course, a metaphor and in our society, it can be universally translated into money.
+Even representatives of philosophy have in recent years despairingly slapped their hands over their smoking heads and proclaimed the end of philosophy.
+Contemporary representatives of philosophy with their white bushy beards, like a Jürgen Habermas, who do not believe in the end of their discipline, write books that are out of touch with reality, thousands of pages long which no one reads, and they throw around *-isms, produce complex sentences and thus write in a way for self-protection that the average reader, even after the third attempt cannot grasp, as there is nothing to grasp except bad breath.
+In summary, this appraisal is also a justification. Philosophy is an essential driving force of our culture. The absence of appreciation and role models leads to a drying up of newcomers and thus to a drying up of philosophical ideas.
+We believe that the debacle in philosophy is partly responsible for the Great Stagnation that we have already described.
+Our idea for philosophy is now to go beyond philosophy. Philosophy is one of the most exciting adventures that one can undertake today, and that from the comfort of one's armchair. So why not revive philosophy and like the stand-up comedians, also celebrate it in public again? Philosophy needs a forum again, and every city needs a place where philosophers meet daily to discuss questions that move them.
+Philosophy can also be reimagined content-wise. We can try things out in an experimental philosophy. We can make philosophy great again in today's topics, think about cognitive science, which already connects psychology and artificial intelligence with philosophy.
+Philosophy. Art. Craftsmanship. Technology. Spirituality. It's about combining more and staying less in a silo.
+We can do this!
+== For our science ==
+We want to pick up on the last sentence from the ideas for philosophy here. We want to combine more.
+As soon as science descends from its shaky ivory tower and finally admits its guilt of doing nothing more than describing models that all carry an expiration date with the note that it is already clear that each of these models is wrong; when this cow is finally slaughtered and the fertile ground is offered to courage again to observe and think controversially, then new things can also emerge in science.
+We can do this!
+== For our medicine ==
+Our idea for medicine is:
+Observe more and prescribe less.
+When you tell a doctor your symptom, they mentally flip through a thick book, which is a complete list of medications and their associated symptoms, and then essentially says “400 mg daily of X”.
+Why not 280 mg and why not hourly and when will I no longer notice it?
+You can no longer ask all these questions because they are already making money with the next patient.
+We can do this!
+== For our trends ==
+Trends, and especially so-called megatrends, are essentially labyrinths that everyone can see. Everyone knows that artificial intelligence is a trend. Unless they have been taking a nap under a heavy rock for the last 60 years.
+The question is not what the trends are, but the better question is, how, as a founder and an established entrepreneur within the trend – or to stay with the image, within the maze, can one discover a secret door or treasure chest.
+This is particularly successful when you also know the developments that led to the trend. So, in the case of artificial intelligence: What brought us to where we are today? What led to symbolic systems being inferior to neural networks? How far can neural networks be scaled?
+We enter the snow line here and that's a good thing. The art is not only to create innovations by finding a treasure chest in a maze that everyone knows, but the art is, and above all, what really advances our species, to create so-called key innovations.
+Key innovations are keys to pull many more innovations behind them. Think of the World Wide Web, which has enabled many innovations.
+Such key innovations are easy in theory and hard in practice. First, choose a problem, then look for two areas of knowledge that touch the problem and look for a connection that was not obvious until now.
+Sir Tim Berners-Lee gave nothing else advice. When he wrote software at the CERN research center in Switzerland in the late 1980s, which was supposed to help frequently changing researchers find their way around the heterogeneous software environment of this research center. The answer was a protocol that is not an implementation and was therefore flexible enough. He then took this and combined it with a trend carried to him by researchers from the USA: the internet. The result was the World Wide Web. It took a good half year to convince the first 8 users to use it. Today, more than half of all people - almost 6 billion - use this protocol.
+Our idea for trends is, therefore, to courageously and proudly raise our eyes. Because there is so much more. Every founder can achieve much more than just creating a copy or an incremental improvement on something existing.
+We can do that too!
 == For our planet ==
@@ Line 510: / Line 694: @@
 Question. Verify. Understand. Improve. With these ideas, we do not want to convince you. We want to use these ideas to show how our vision takes shape in various areas of life and what we want to achieve.
+[[Category: Ideas]]

Ideas: Difference between revisions

Ideas (view source)

Revision as of 06:15, 17 November 2023