Sense and Sustainability

In an earlier post I wrote: “I would advocate Responsibility over Opportunity, Assimilation over Growth, Pace over Expediency, Sustainability over Efficiency, Quality over Quantity, Wisdom over Knowledge / Intelligence.” I did not specifically elaborate on this then (I had already written too much, and knew I was going to be writing more in that post), and that left me with the feeling of a job half-done. Also, the more I thought about it, the more I felt the need to document these values and principles as the basis for a framework for development of a doctrine of professional ethics that we could teach in our B-schools (refer my post below) and within which, in a broader context, we could build a better life. 

As I propose these value and principles, I do not have the audacity to believe that this is a radically new stream of thought, nor that this will create a new world order. Yes, there is always the 'audacity of hope', but I do not have the audacity to compare myself with the author of that phrase and the eponymous book. At the very least, however, I will say this - I plan to follow these principles more consciously (and conscientiously) going forward (not that I haven't been doing that till now, but a framework provides structure and improves the quality of implementation). If I am lucky, I will be able to impart these values and principles to my children and/or others who seek my counsel. To the rest of the world, I can only hope to share these thoughts and offer them, modestly, for discussion and debate.

So here goes …. (a summary is posted at my mini-blog)

Note:  The principles, as appear in the heading of each paragraph below in the format "(x) over (y)", are to be read as "Value and prioritize (x) over (y)" and "Let (x) govern (y)". It does not mean that per se (y) is bad and undesirable, but that there is a higher good over (y) and that is (x), and that (y) should not be pursued at the cost of (x). Business schools today are mostly focused on encouraging (y) and seldom, if at all, even mention (x) as a priority. And never as a governing principle over (y).

Responsibility over Opportunity – We value opportunity and that's nice. We want to seize opportunity, and that's OK too. But up to a point. Beyond that point, we need to have a sense of responsibility that would govern the impulse to exploit opportunity.  The irresponsible exploitation of opportunity can never be a good principle to embrace. Sir Edmund Hillary, when asked what motivated him to climb Mt. Everest, responded with the famous epigram - "Because it is there". We cannot afford to apply the same idea to opportunity, however. Let us learn to be responsible in seizing opportunities and not exploit them recklessly just because they are there, and just because we can.

Assimilation over Growth - We are always looking for growth, and that's a good thing. We want to grow, and fast. Very soon, we find ourselves chasing 'Big Hairy Audacious Growth', and at that point, we have already started to go downhill, from a long term perspective, though we may not realize it immediately. We need to pause a bit, and assimilate the growth that we have already undergone, just as while eating our favourite food, we learn to eat moderately sized morsels, chew on them, and pause every once in a while. Gorging recklessly on food can only cause indigestion. A wise friend of my father-in-law (and a famous film personality) once told him (in Hindi, which I am translating here): "Eat less, eat more. Eat more, eat less". When asked, he explained this as follows - if you eat less, you can live longer and thus eat more. But if you eat more, you will fall sick and die a premature death and therefore you would have eaten less. Let us spend adequate time to assimilate the fruits of growth, as we grow towards a better world.

Pace over Expediency - Speed is good, and I love it. But speed can kill, as we realize soon. We tend to glamourize speed and impatience. There's a commercial on TV these days for a telecom carrier, that glorifies the 'impatient generation', which is constantly hankering for more speed and better response time. While better response time is a good thing in telecom and technology, the general glorification of speed and impatience sends the wrong message to an already misguided mind-set. There is a certain pace which works best for moving things along. Go any faster and you're already sowing the seeds of failure and destruction. We must learn to find the 'right' pace at which to do things. Einstein, when he was repeatedly called upon to explain his complex theories in plain English, said he could only try to "make things as simple as possible, but not simpler". If he simplified it beyond a point, then it wouldn't be the same thing. Oversimplification runs the risk of distorting the meaning of a truth till it becomes a falsehood. Let's apply the same principle to speed, albeit with some paraphrasing - do things at the 'right' pace, not faster. As to the question of what is the 'right' pace, there is no single answer, and life is too complex for us to create a heuristic that is universally applicable for all activities and all initiatives. Here's where we need to embrace the principle in spirit rather than letter. I can only suggest a broad guideline and that is - the right pace is the slowest speed at which something can get done. Any slower than that will not meet your goals. So, do things as slowly as possible but not slower. This is the polar opposite of what we tend to do - we look for the fastest speed at which we can get things done as per the dictum 'don't put off for tomorrow what you can do today and don't put off for later what you can do now'. I disagree. Do not clutter up your 'now' with things that can wait for later. There is already too much happening in the 'now'. Let 'right pacing' govern speed, for a better world. The 'slow' movement is a good initiative in this regard and I support it wholeheartedly. 

Sustainability over Efficiency - Efficiency is great and we all seek it in everything we do, and especially so in everything others do, to which we become customers or users or beneficiaries of. We pursue efficiency relentlessly: 'cheaper, faster, better' and other synonymous mantras, chanted increasingly unthinkingly, have become de facto standard goals of business processes for any organisation - profit oriented or not. But the 'better' in that mantra does not always keep long-term sustainability in mind. And even if it did, the question I have is - sustainability of what, exactly, were you thinking about? I bet in most cases (of the few cases where 'better' includes sustainability) the answer (if it is honest) would be sustainability of the business. The scope would end there, and not extend to sustainability of life on the planet. Quite often, these would be in conflict. The most efficient engine in the most efficient car made by the most efficient automobile manufacturer through the most efficient production line in the most efficient plant, and supported by the most efficient supply chain and other processes, is not necessarily also the most sustainable. Let the principle of sustainability govern the quest for efficiency, for a better world.

Quality over Quantity - Thanks to science and mathematics, and the methodologies of sciences, we live in a world of numbers. Because management purports to be a science, it aligns itself with the compelling argument of measurement. If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage or control it. This is OK, since it is true to a large extent. But the pressure of this truth pushes minds to believe that if you cannot measure it, it doesn't exist! It is inconvenient for the sciences (including social sciences) to deal with stuff that cannot be measured. Pundits invent systems of measurement to support systems of management. They create scales for calibration, benchmarks for evaluation, etc., where the subject at hand does not intrinsically provide for a quantified analysis. They use proxies where parameters do not easily lend themselves for quantification. The weaker minds, unfortunately, confuse this with the truth. In a bureaucracy, if something is not backed by documentation and records, it does not exist. In the bureaucracy of modern management, the same is the case. While this may work in engineering, it doesn't work in education (e.g., grading systems). Or in management, beyond a point (e.g., performance measurement, balanced scorecard, etc.). Let us not confuse metrics for reality. Just as we have learned to value substance over form (in GAAP, for instance), we must learn to let qualitative aspects govern our quantitative anlayses.

Synthesis over Analysis (just added this) - taking the argument of quality vs quantity forward, and in the same vein, we have grown to value analytical skills highly, and are only now learning to value creativity and other 'synthetic' skills. Analysis is synonymous with breaking down; synthesis with putting together patterns and creating new stuff. That's where innovation and 'out-of-the-box' thinking comes from. But alas, innovation has become a buzz-word - copied and pasted on corporate web-sites from top tier to start-up. While analytical skills are good, and necessary in several fields and professions, we need to start focusing on other skills as well. Life and life's problems are not linear and simple. While our immediate spacetime appears to be Euclidean and our immediate physical world seems to be Newtonian, the real world is far more complex and chaotic. We can teach machines to be analytical, but we cannot teach them to be imaginative or creative or innovative. Experiments with computer-generated poetry or music (or other art) are instances of using arbitrariness (not to be confused with randomness - true randomness is beyond the realm of computers), to make sense. This cannot really be called creativity. Edward de Bono demonstrated the need for, and utility of, lateral thinking. But how many schools focus on developing minds in this area? Most schools and education systems teach students to solve problems (using analytical techniques) that are readily articulated and put before them. How many schools or education systems teach students to recognize and define problems in a given situation which offers no clues whatsoever as to what the underlying problem(s) may be? Let us increase our focus on the development of more creative skills, alongside analytical ones. (Here's a fascinating example of a completely 'out-of-the-box' solution to a known problem in health care. I don't think one could arrive at a solution like this through analysis.)

Contribution over Achievement (just added this too) - The single most prominent characteristic of modern man is his ever increasing need for achievement. While this is a good thing, going overboard with it is harmful. In earlier posts I have dwelt on the perils of over-achievement, and lamented that fact that we seem to have created a culture that worships overachievers by making them not just our heroes but our gods. We have yet to learn to ask what we have contributed, before we credit ourselves for what we have achieved. Contribution towards a better world is the biggest achievement any caring global citizen can ever aspire for. As opposed to achievements aimed at fame, glory and personal aggrandisement. We have to learn to care before we seek to achieve. Let the urge to care for, and contribute to, the world around us govern our impulse to achieve greatness.

Wisdom over Knowledge and Intelligence - Knowledge, they say, is Power. They also say that Power corrupts. However, they don't usually sequence these two sayings in the manner that I just did. To me, the second might as well be a corollary of the first. They also say, in jest, that specialization involves knowing more and more about less and less till finally we know everything about nothing. To me, this is the opposite of wisdom: wisdom is the discovery that there is more and more that we know less and less about, till finally we realize that we know nothing about anything. Our education systems are aimed at sifting the most intelligent minds, honing their analytical capability, bombarding them with knowledge and letting them loose on an unsuspecting world. Well, actually, a conniving world. Where is wisdom in all this? Where do we teach students the importance of insight and understanding? Again, the voice of the soft / subtle / qualitative is lost in the din of the hard / tangible / quantitative. If knowledge is power, let wisdom govern the use of knowledge and save us from abuse of the power that comes from knowledge and intelligence.

This is a rough draft, as a framework. I would love to know what you think, and would request your indulgence in leaving a comment.

Teaching the Ethics of Sustainability

Yesterday, one of my twitter feeds brought me an interesting article posted at the Harvard Business blog, with the controversial title of "MBAs Cheat. But why?" I read the blog post with great interest, agreeing with most of what was being said there. Scrolling down a bit, I was intrigued by a comment made by Jim Champy, which essentially held the opposite view: that MBAs are less likely to cheat in business as compared to non-MBAs, and further suggesting that the global financial crisis was triggered by the indiscriminate unethical actions of sales professionals with different backgrounds, mostly non-MBAs. I commented on that comment, wondering where Mr Champy got that from, if indeed it was based on hard data, and speculating that his theory probably arose more out of personal prejudice than fact-based intelligent opinion. This morning I went back to see if my comment was posted and how it looked on the blog page (vanity!) and found several additional comments on various aspects of the original posts and its key submissions, as also comments on other comments. There seemed to be a fairly interesting debate on whether MBAs cheated more than other professionals, set in the context of what B-schools could or should do about this. While the original blog post made some hard-hitting observations, I thought that most of the commentators were dragging the debate down into anecdotes and statistics about which class of professionals cheated more, and this inspired me to post my second comment, which I reproduce here with some minor changes.

For a moment, let's park the debate on whether MBAs cheat more than non-MBAs do, together with all the anecdotal and statistical evidence within our collective body of knowledge that points one way or another. (I know this is a key element of Donald McCabe's blog post to begin with, but let's keep that aside for now, take a look at the bigger picture and then come right back to the role of B-schools in this context.) The trigger to this discussion, and various related discussions (here and elsewhere on the web and other forums) on ethical practices / behavior, has undoubtedly been the global economic crisis. So let's look at the big picture for a moment. I know that several root cause analyses have been carried out and various observations and recommendations propounded by various analysts, economists, industry experts, political pundits, academics and scholars, practitioners, financial / business journalists and bloggers. However, to my mind, one thing stands out clearly as the key driver to this situation, which I hereby name as the 'causal smoking gun' as one reader has dubbed it.

Over the years, we have created a culture of over-achievement in business and that has extended to everything else (including sports which is now big business). And we're proud of it: we worship over-achievers in every sphere and every walk of life. Over-achievement by definition means going beyond current benchmarks of achievement, beyond even 'stretch targets', to attain the impossible. Every era has a myth that drives leaders and star performers of that era, and in this era it is the myth of over-achievement. A close corollary (though not an intrinsic pre-condition) which is subtly understated (if at all) but well understood is that you can over-achieve at any cost if you're smart enough to get away with it. You then become a hero, who everyone will idolize. (Even athletes cheat, these days - if not for financial gain then to break records.)

If we think over-achievement is a good thing then so be it - there's no need for reform, in B-schools or elsewhere, and let's agree to live in a world where crises like these will happen repeatedly over time like all other cyclical phenomena. If on the other hand we think this is not a good thing, then let management thinkers and B-schools take the lead in determining how to change it. Clearly, I would throw my mite with the latter. I propose two key words to focus on: ethics (obviously) and sustainability (which is not necessarily derived from an ethical perspective). Ethics and morality tend to be deontological in nature i.e. they preach the doctrine of 'be good, do good' as an end in itself. This works best side-by-side with an accompanying culture of self-regulation, and if that is a successful dynamic then there is no need for hard external regulation. Sustainability is a bit different in the sense that it does not directly deal with 'goodness' in itself or by itself. Sustainability as a value or principle is teleological in nature i.e. it focuses on outcomes and advocates aiming at the larger and longer term desirable scenario. In extreme situations, sustainability may even require a temporary suspension of the ethical, when one is challenged to transcend the smaller / short-term definition of 'good' in deference to a larger / long-term 'good'. It is precisely because these ideas and concepts are soft and nebulous, if not vague, that such subjects need to be taught to students, and not just in B-schools.

The pursuit of sustainability as a guiding principle (the "North Star" in Mr McCabe's post) would deal with creating a normative framework where guidelines / norms / rules etc., are defined in the context of one simple question that must govern every strategic, tactical, operational plan and/or activity in business, and that question is - "Would this lead to a better, longer and more prosperous life for all of us on planet earth?" It is not necessarily about ethics alone - it is about survival and longevity. Teaching ethics is a good way to catalyze the process and inculcate the culture of responsibility and self-regulation. Clearly if we don't behave ourselves, someone (an authority) or something (a disaster) will make sure that we do, eventually. But a focus on sustainability as a broader idea (i.e., a concept much wider in scope than just the word might suggest - there's an ecological, a social and a financial aspect to it) in B-school curricula would certainly go a long way in avoiding disasters in the future.

Where The Mind is Without Fear - Rabindranath Tagore

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high 
Where knowledge is free 
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments 
By narrow domestic walls 
Where words come out from the depth of truth 
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection 
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way 
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit 
Where the mind is led forward by thee 
Into ever-widening thought and action 
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake 

My 25 Things

I got this viral note from a friend on Facebook recently, which asks you to list 25 things about yourself - essentially factoids / trivia / minutiae, including aspirations, hobbies, habits, etc. You are then expected to post this on your Facebook page and tag 25 other friends. At first I ignored it but then one fine day I thought I'd give it a shot and see what comes out of it. So here're my 25 things - for the benefit of my non-Facebook friends.

1. My life is an open book, but that doesn’t automatically mean that I will let you read it.

2. I am still trying to understand the meaning of the complex number “i” (the square root of minus one). Frankly, I’m still trying to understand the meaning of “meaning”.

3. Five things I can’t live without – love, music, work (not to be confused with 'job' or 'career'), good food & fine wine, conversation.

4. I started blogging so that I could hone my writing skills but with every post, I become increasingly disappointed with the way it turns out. I have a long way to go, it seems, before I learn the art of crafting extraordinary poetry from ordinary words. Prose lends itself to the proclivity to be bombastic (I could have said tendency but I said proclivity – see what I mean?), and while I try to desist, I find it hard to resist.

5. I grapple with my ability to tolerate intolerance … and rarely succeed.

6. As a kid, I used to make model airplanes, ships etc. Some of my airplanes actually flew. My favourites were the gliders I made out of thermocole sheets – I enjoyed launching them from a height and watching them glide gracefully. Few things give you more joy than seeing something that you have created, actually work the way it was supposed to.

7. Some time ago I propounded my own version of the Uncertainty Principle – “It is impossible to simultaneously and precisely eat your cake and have it too, but you can come pretty darn close to doing so, if you’re lucky”.

8. I don’t drive. But strangely, I have implicit faith in the person sitting behind the wheel (though quite often, they are complete strangers), as I do in the nameless pilots who fly the aircrafts I travel in. This is perhaps the only real manifestation of faith that I have. When my son jumps down into my arms from a tree, he has the same faith in me. This is awesome!

9. I am always looking for opportunities to do absolutely nothing. This is not as easy as it sounds. Try it some time!

10. I learn a lot from everyone, especially from the ones I teach. Quite often, my most intense learning comes from trying to teach something I believe I know, to someone who doesn’t seem to understand. Some of my most momentous moments of epiphany have been in such situations.

11. One of my favourite quotes is from Tunda Kababwalla (a famous kabab chef in Lucknow). In a TV interview, he was asked why he had not started a franchise to expand his business. His reply: “Munafa utna hi ho jitna khane mein namak”. I understood that as: “Target only as much return (in business), as you would have salt in your food”. (I hope my Urdu is accurate!) To me, this was a lesson in moderation.

12. I am fascinated by the universe and everything in it. Especially women. (Kidding! Just thought I’d add that last part to make it funny in a Woody Allen-esque way)

13. Though I do not purport to be a believer, I pray often, because it teaches me humility.

14. My paradoxes don’t bother me as much as they used to: I’d rather be complete than consistent. Then again, I’m not a fan of inconsistency either.

15. Speaking of which, I’d rather be consistent and reliable than inconsistent and unpredictable. It is only those who are truly and intrinsically boring that are afraid of being predictable.

16. My paradoxes don’t bother me as much as my convictions do. But, over time, they turn into paradoxes, and then I am a bit more comfortable with them.

17. Some day I hope to be able to form a band that will play my favourite music and let me play along too!

18. Anyone with strong and deep-rooted beliefs (even if it is belief in the doctrine of faithlessness), scares me. However, I must admit that the zealously devout scare me more than staunch atheists do. It is only with the uncertain sceptics that I am comfortable, though I doubt I am one of them. (A wise wag once said – Always trust a seeker, but only till he finds the Truth.)

19. I have great respect for a few people – some for their vision, some for their character, some for their talent (as manifested in their work) and others for various combinations of these three great qualities. I am not so impressed with personality or charisma as an attribute by itself – if it comes along with vision or skill or character, then so be it, but stand-alone, it represents insignificant value to me.

20. Unlike John Stuart Mill, I’d rather be a contented pig than a dissatisfied Socrates. While Socrates is among the few people I have the greatest respect for, I’d rather not be him, if I have a choice. Ah to be a contented pig!!

21. I would love to travel the world (not on business, like I’ve been doing all these years, but as a carefree nomad). Places, people, cuisines, cultures, music, dance, art, architecture, tools, technologies, history … a vast ocean of enchantment.

22. I’ve always considered Invention to be easier than Discovery; Innovation easier than Insight; Building easier than Understanding. Which is probably why scientists are more intelligent than engineers!

23. My learning from relationships – Give more, expect less. But don’t give more than what you have and don’t expect less than what you deserve. (Works at the personal level as well as in business.) The toughest part is learning to deal with expectations – your own as well as your counterparty’s. Master that and your relationships will be successful.

24. I enjoy getting away from the hustle and bustle of the city to the open and wide country. I can actually hear the absence of the ‘white noise’ in the background of all urban spaces, and it is the most beautiful sound. It feels like a load has been lifted off of you, and you are light and alive. (To those who don’t know what I am talking about – I can only liken this to the fragrance of the first rain on dry earth, which I am sure you can relate to.) Now ... if only those places had broadband!

25. I’ve always empathized more with Hector than with Achilles, and more with Karn than with Arjun. It is easy to be brave when you have been blessed with the protection of gods, which makes you almost invincible. Be a mere mortal and fight your battles yourself! Here’s a quote on bravery from the movie “Kate and Leopold” (yup, the chick flick with Meg Ryan et al.): “The brave are simply those with the clearest vision of what is before them – glory and danger alike, and notwithstanding, go out to meet it.”

26. (Bonus) I didn’t realize I had 25 ... correction 26 ... things to say about myself till I started with this list.

Slow Down! Quick - Before It Is Too Late!

A few months ago, I was visiting a friend who lives abroad and over the weekend that we spent at his place, we got into several interesting debates about a wide range of subjects. On one such occasion (I can't recall the context or the trigger for this discussion) my friend - a man of great erudition, experience and intelligence - talked about the progress made by Man, passionately asserting that it was all good in the final analysis, and that we need more of the same, and faster. I argued that the history as well as the current state of the world is not something one could be proud of, since several bad things have happened too, over the last several millennia, more so in the last couple of centuries. While he agreed with that, my friend predicted with conviction that at some point in the near future, mature change agents - in the form of individuals or institutions, will initiate and lead transformation programs on a global scale that would wipe out (or at least mitigate) the bad stuff and enhance the good parts. I, on the other hand, had a different view. 

First, I was clear that I would not use the word progress in a general and context-independent sense while describing Man's journey to date - I believe it would be accurate to say that we have made progress in some areas (as long as we confine ourselves to the narrow boundaries of those specific areas, in isolation, without looking at them in totality) but we have been increasingly destructive in others. In my view, the net effect of all Man has done so far is value zero. And I do not share the optimism that the force of human goodness (even if quite plainly, it may boil down to nothing but the survival instinct) would be strong enough to correct our mistakes, solve global problems and set life on the planet on a happy and positive course. I would like to think and hope that it is true, but I do not share the conviction that it will happen. Not that I am a pessimistic doomsday pundit either - just that I choose not to speculate about how and where the world might end-up, given the way things are going and at the speed with which they are rushing there. That said, my main point of issue was not about whether good would triumph over evil. Instead, it was about whether more / faster 'progress' as currently defined and understood - was indeed a solution. My view was that explosive growth is not progress - only responsible growth could aspire to deliver progress in the true sense, and this cannot be hastened beyond a point. Responsibility towards the larger interests of Mankind requires consideration and contemplation on the part of actors before they act, and that requires time. I would advocate Responsibility over Opportunity, Assimilation over Growth, Pace over Expediency, Sustainability over Efficiency, Quality over Quantity, Wisdom over Knowledge / Intelligence. However, our value systems (as evident through actions, not words) are exactly the opposite. Sadly we have created a culture that rewards "Big Hairy Audacious Growth" and worships the over-achievers who deliver it, as heroes. How many of these heroes, beating their own narrow (but seldom straight) paths to profitability, have stopped to think whether they were creating toxic assets? or toxic pollutants? Or, having thought, have they cared? The few soft voices that call for socially and environmentally responsible behaviour through regulation and moderation are drowned in the melee of quarterly results and market up-ticks.

Later, as I pondered over this particular discussion, I was increasingly convinced that the 3 biggest crises threatening the world today: (1) the global economic meltdown (2) the global environmental deterioration and (3) the world-wide breakdown in security - have but a few common root causes, all of which have to do with what we have been taught to call 'progress'. All 3 of them have, in some way shape or form, arisen out of an unbridled need, of some 'rogue' individuals / groups / organisations / nations, for achievement of their own self-interests and 'progress' of their cause, which in turn is nothing but complete surrender to the gods of "More / Faster". But this is not new - the history of human life on earth is full of stories of such behaviour on the part of a few who were either wealthy or powerful or both. What is new is the empowerment of common people, thanks to which small groups or even lone individuals, anywhere in the world (and a far more populous world, at that, compared to even a century ago) can perpetrate such actions; what is new is the scope of the impact their actions can have in terms of geography and number of people affected; what is new is the speed with which these actions can trigger chain reactions across the world. This is new because of the extreme inter-connected-ness that exists today, unprecedented in the history of human civilization. And this is because of technology - the same technology that we keep inventing and putting to much good use in other areas. Where there once was the knife (which, even then, could be used to chop vegetables or to kill people), there is now nuclear power (which could be harnessed to provide electricity or to make weapons of mass destruction). Knife to Nukes - the story of evolution of tools is also the story of evolution of weapons of destruction. So much for "More / Faster"! These mantras, chanted by almost each and every one of us, almost every day of our lives, have overheated the world's engine - the milk of human kindness has begun to turn sour. In each case, of the 3 crises, just one single idea - the idea of Moderation - could have averted our headlong plunge into disaster. The argument that self-interest in its purest form is adequate to ensure that we will not destroy ourselves, is very weak in the face of the overwhelming evidence of greed, apathy and intolerance underlying these 3 big crises. This argument is predicated on a sense of maturity and responsibility, leading to self-regulation that should go along with self-interest, but which is conspicuously absent in the various actors that have precipitated and are continuing to exacerbate each of these 3 crises, even as you read this. 

I was reminded of this discussion with my friend and my post-discussion pondering, as I watched the news on BBC this afternoon. It featured an interesting story about a new note that was played just today, in a concert that has been playing continuously since 2001 and will continue playing non-stop till 2640. Yes, you got that right - its a 639 year long concert, composed by the late John Cage in the late 1980's. The John Cage Organ Project in Halberstadt, Germany set out, on September 5, 2001 (his birthday) to play his composition "As Slow As Possible". Apparently, when he composed it, he did not specify as to over what period of time it should be played. So the folks in Halberstadt decided to play it, on an organ that was built in the year 1361 (which happens to be 639 years before the year 2000, at the time they were planning this project), for another 639 years. I was intrigued when I learned about this and was also reminded of a related idea, called the Long Now, that I came across some time ago as I was aimlessly surfing the web. It encourages people to think in the very long term, and The Long Now Foundation has built a clock that measures time over a much larger scale than, lets say one year per year. In a sense, the Halberstadt project is an excellent example of a "Long Now" concert - playing a composition called "As Slow As Possible" on a 648 year old organ, over the next 630 years. The Foundation, in their own words, "hopes to provide counterpoint to today's faster/cheaper mind set and promote slower/better thinking". A little more research led me to the Slow Society, whose key message is - eschew speed and embrace slowness, for sustainability. And then on to In Praise of Slow by Carl Honore, who inspired Oprah Winfrey to experiment with living without e-mail for a month, according to a recent news item on CNN which also, by a strange coincidence, I came upon today! 

(In the interests of brevity, I have resisted the urge to elaborate further on the virtues of 'Slow' and 'Long Now' thinking, and would therefore encourage you to click on the links above and read a little more about the 'Slow Movement'. Yet another site worth a visit is The World Institute of Slowness and its connected site Slow Planet. You will find more links to related resources at some of these sites.)

Self-interest is good - it is also all we have by way of a valid, legitimate motive to seek a better life. But it must be tempered by self-regulation, based on responsibility (if not duty), moderation (if not restraint) and pace (if not slowness). Unregulated and immature self-interest will only lead to excesses, extremism and blind speed, which could be catastrophic not just to those who act out of it, but to the whole world. It is time we woke up to the realization that the human race is currently set-up to go nowhere, really fast. Speed kills - in more ways than one. It makes far more sense to lead a richer life at a slower pace than a dangerous one really fast! For one, it will ensure longevity for all of us, as also for our planet.