Archive for the 'Philosophy' Category

Slow Networking

April 18, 2016

You may have heard of movements like slow money and slow food. I’ve started to apply a similar philosophy to networking and communications.

In the past month, I’ve deleted my LinkedIn and AngelList accounts due to their use of dark patterns. I’ve also downgraded from an iPhone to a simpler flip phone. With these changes, I feel less distracted and more able/engaged reading physical books and long-form blogs. At events, there’s no more excuses to be staring down at a smartphone; instead, I’m readjusting to rely on good old-fashioned face time.

At a recent meeting, everyone else brought their laptops and were busily using them during the meeting. I only had a pad of paper and a pen. It didn’t feel like people were present staring at their screens. There was no eye contact at all. What’s the point of having an in person meeting if people are that distracted?

So far, the benefits of disconnecting and slowing down seem to be outweighing the cons. Over the next year, I’m considering deleting my Twitter and Facebook accounts. I’m also experimenting with using my own email server and slowly moving off Gmail for privacy reasons.


Decoupling Society

April 8, 2015

Tight Coupling NO

In programming, we have a design principle of loose coupling, opposite of tight coupling where services are highly dependent on one another. Most of the time, tight coupling is bad practice because it reduces flexibility/reusability and increases complexity. We can use the same analogy for society. In the past, we have examples throughout history where things were once tightly coupled and later shifted to a more loosely coupled model like separation of church and state. Presently, in sustainability, I hear that we need to decouple natural resources and environmental degradation from economic growth. First off, there is a word for out-of-control growth. It’s called cancer. There are limits to growth, as Robert Kennedy once said,

“Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

I believe we need to decouple growth from the notion of progress. In the future, I believe we’ll need to decouple many more aspects of society to as we evolve to new levels of collective consciousness:

Decoupling technology from success

Humans have always been fascinated by tools. Sometimes, this leads to overconfidence that human ingenuity and newer technologies can solve the problems of today. In fact, this type of misthinking leads to a dangerous game of “our wits vs their genes” as seen in the rise of antibiotic resistance over the last few decades. Bacteria can replicate itself in under 20 minutes, evolving each time, while human generations span longer than 20 years. What would you rather place a bet on?

A less known phenomenon in economics is called the Jevons paradox. It states that as technology increases, efficiency increases, but then our consumption of the resource increases as well, negating the positive effects of that technology. From Wikipedia, “The Jevons paradox indicates that increased efficiency by itself is unlikely to reduce fuel use, and that sustainable energy policy must rely on other types of government interventions.”


Jevons Paradox

Decoupling work from income

The idea of getting paid to do an unfulfilling and unengaging job seems so Industrial Era factory thinking to me. Our societal systems of neoliberal capitalism and a gridlocked political system that seems more like a plutocracy than a democracy have wrecked havoc on our intrinsic motivations and social human nature. We know what motivates uspurpose, autonomy, and mastery. Why are we living in outdated institutional and societal structures that no longer best serves our needs, and what then can I do? I believe in a world where every human has the basic right to all levels below self-actualization in Maslow’s hierarchy, including, but not limited to (physiological needs) clean air/water, healthy food, clothing/shelter, (safety) personal/financial security, well-being, insurance/safety net, (love and belonging) family/friends/mentors/colleagues, (esteem) respect, autonomy, and mastery. This unprecedented level of equality would give everyone the real opportunity for “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In self-actualization and beyond (self-transcendence, etc) could we truly have enough energy to explore our unique individual and collective purpose, contribution, and gifts. To do so, would require radically changing our economic and political systems, which decoupling work from income for the basic human needs of physiological needs, safety, and love and belonging, would be a good step in that direction.


Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs

Becoming Butterfly

June 27, 2014


If humans are nature, and nature is life, and life is conducive to life, then climate change isn’t happening to us, it’s happening for us. Just as fever is a response to disease, climate change is feedback to systemic imbalance. Is it possible to have a good Anthropocene? Just as (I would imagine) giving birth sucks, what comes out the other end could be a more beautiful world our hearts know is possible.

“How does one become a butterfly? They have to want to learn to fly so much that you are willing to give up being a caterpillar.” ― Trina Paulus

Human, technologist or technology?

June 21, 2014

Image credit Ransom & Mitchell –

Ever since Homo came into being 2.3 million years ago, we have been fascinated by tools. Evolution increased human brain size, and we quickly learned to use fire and complex tools. A subset of technology, agriculture has only been around the last 10,000 years. Based on Taleb’s anti-fragility principle, technology is much more anti-fragile than agriculture, since it has been around for a much longer time. Now, this only applies to human technology vs human agriculture. In nature, other species have been using technology for much longer. Take leafcutter ants, for example, who have been farming fungi in an ant-fungus mutualism, which evolved over 50 million years ago. Now, we could say ants are more anti-fragile than humans.

We could consider things in nature as technology. Could bees be technology? Technology is defined as “the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems.” We use bees in agriculture (the science of farming) to provide honey and pollination as well as beeswax for consumer products. If bees serve a purpose and are a species of nature, would it go too far to say humans might serve a purpose, too? What would that purpose be? What would it mean if instead of being the technologist, we’re the technology?

At some point in time, we decided to enact a story that says, “no, we’re separate from nature. We’re smarter. Humans were evolution’s last stop.” Ever since we were little, this is the myth drilled into us. Newsflash: it isn’t true. Out of the millions of species that live on this planet, does it make sense that one would be an outlier that exists to destroy the others, thus destroying itself? Life is conducive to life. Life is resilient. Resiliency is created thru biodiversity. We are not separate from nature. As hard as we try, we can never run away from our own shadow nor can we physically pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. It is because we are nature, and we’re coming back to get ourselves.

Expression, form, self-knowledge

February 21, 2014

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a million. Here’s a couple Bruce Lee videos showcasing his art. Black magic or mastery?