Posts about davos10

The Flip dance

At the Google party at Davos, I was enticed into doing the Flip dance with none less than Sir Tim Berners-Lee:

Another Sir Tim video from a session on social media. The first half of this 3:44 is him talking about the need for authority signals i social networks. In the middle, he takes pains to correct people who say that he invented the internet or created the web (no, he invented the web). The last half is his intriguing call for academic study of the web:

And, yes, it was a thrill to meet the man. I was wonderful seeing people come across him, spy his name tag, and gasp with glee and gratitude.

The disrupted of Davos

The theme of this year’s World Economic Forum meeting at Davos was “rethink, redesign, rebuild.” When a friend recited that list for me, I responded that given the institutions there, the more appropriate slogan is “replace.”

Last year when I arrived at Davos, I wondered whether we were among the problem or the solution. This year, I wondered whether we were among the future or the past. Well, actually, I don’t wonder.

We were among the disrupted. The only distinction among them is that some know it, some don’t. At Davos, I fear, most don’t.

I ran a session with international organizations about transparency and new ways they can govern themselves. I didn’t get far. “Oh, yes, we understand Twitter and all that,’ they said. “We have people who do that for us.” Don’t you want to read what your constituents and the world are saying about you? “We don’t have time.” Oy. I invited a young disrupter into the room who talked about his ability to organize efforts to help people quickly — not so much breaking rules but discovering new ones — but he didn’t get far either.

I sat in a session about the future of journalism that was set in the past. No fault of the moderator, the panel pretty much issued the same old saws: The internet is filled with trivia, sniffed one: “The stuff that goes on the web is just suffocating.” The free market will not support a free press, declared another. (How do we know that already?) Thus their conclusion: The only hope for journalism is state and foundation support, said a few. Oy again.

At the end of the week, I sat in on a session trying to brainstorm under WEF’s theme of the three re’s. They said the point of the exercise was to get soundbites (as they used to be known; tweets as they are now known) and that’s what they got: PowerPoint (actually, Tumblr) platitudes. There were good points: We need to change what we measure, said one table, for now we get what we measure (true from media to economies). But there was also insipidness: “We are what we allow to happen.” And: “Ecology means caring. Equity means sharing.” Put that on your T-shirt and wash it.

Then a 17-year-old from Iraq scolded the entire room, telling them that these were just sayings. Where’s the action, he asked? Where are the specifics? That moment gave me hope: another disrupter, this one from the future.

The World Economic Forum actually does an admirable job trying to push its members into that future. I got involved — and got my ticket into Davos — because I helped them venture into blogging to show institutions by example how to benefit from social media; that effort continues in video (YouTube is there) and Twitter (so is Ev Williams)

But one must wonder whether they can go fast enough — given this crowd’s resistance to change — and thus whether they are helping the right people. That’s why I didn’t blog during this meeting (my fourth): I simply didn’t hear much new. WEF does try to bring in new voices: its young global leaders and tech pioneers, but they are viewed by the entrenched powers as curiosities — sideshows — when they should be seen as the new bosses.

After one SOS (same old…) session, I told a WEF person that I dreamed of a new organization and event, a stepchild: the World Entrepreneurs Forum. Let’s bring together only the disrupters, only the people building the future rather than trying (desperately) to protect the past. Just as the old WEF forces its members to at least ask questions about their impact — on environment, values, trust, foresight — so should this new WEF push its participants to make sure they use their power of change responsibly, strategically, openly.

I have said of journalism that its future is entrepreneurial (not institutional). At this Davos, I come to sese the same is true of much of our world. The shift from the industrial economy to whatever follows is well underway, only the leaders of the old order are largely blind to it and in that willful ignorance, there is great risk.

Entire industries are in various stages of disruption and destruction: news, media, entertainment, advertising, automotive, manufacturing, retail, real estate, telecommunications, transportation, health care…. The same will come to institutions, including government, nongovernmental and international organizations, and the academy. One university president fretted at Davos: “Just think what the world would be like if we left what universities to the free market.” Well, yes, many companies are doing more than thinking about just that; they are building, a new and needed future for education.

The disruption is everywhere. What makes technology a model is that it is in a state of constant disruption; it disrupts and deflates and rethinks and rebuilds itself constantly. But that 1000-r.p.m. Great Mandala is now buzz-sawing through the rest of society. Only the rest of society isn’t built for change. Neither is WEF — though it tries — because the change is too profound and too fast.

There’s a clear dividing line here: Do you fear and resist this change (WEF I) or do you create and enable it (WEF II… and note that I didn’t use “2.0″!)? That’s why I think there’s a need for a new WEF. I wouldn’t suggest transforming the first into the second. I’ve learned from a decade and a half of trying — naively, I now see — to do that with newspapers that it’s rarely if ever going to succeed and for understandable reasons (the cost — in money, pain, and culture — is just too great). It is easier to build up than tear down.

We are seeing parallel worlds emerge: the disrupted and the disrupters and they are not meant to share a fondue pot. So let’s pull together the disrupters and challenge them — as WEF has its institutions — to more fully understand the impact of their work, to use their power of change to solve problems, to collaborate (as is their reflex already). Let’s encourage them to look forward, not back, and let’s support their needs (in education, governance, infrastructure). Let’s rethink our priorities around those needs (in media, for example, let’s stop defaulting to government subsidies of dying institutions and instead encourage government to provide ubiquitous broadband to enable a new future; let’s start with the market).

Is WEF the organization to bring this together? Is there a need for an organization at all? When I pulled together a conference (call) of people planning to teach entrepreneurial journalism from around the world, one participant suggested creating a body but Sree Sreenivasan of Columbia protested: “We have enough organizations.” Right. So what structure would support the disrupters? If it’s a meeting, don’t hold it in the high mountains of Switzerland or the low valley of Silicon. Hold it in a place awaiting progress. Or just hold it online. Make it open. As Dave Winer says, the people who should be there are there.

I see the value in Davos: smart people with the power to get things done (well, once upon a time) able to mix and meet and sometimes learn and even act. I see similar benefit for the people are indeed are rethinking, redesigning, and rebuilding by replacing.

Next year in India or Africa or Brazil or at an IP address to be named…

Small c update: <0.05

I just had my three-month check-up after surgery for prostate cancer and the news so far is good: My PSA (a measurement of the antigen produced by the prostate, which shouldn’t be there once the gland is gone — unless cancer cells are elsewhere causing trouble) came in at <0.05, just what it’s supposed to be, I’m told.

In the interest of continued transparency for the sake of those who follow, here are the other updates (TMI warning):

When my surgeon, Raul Parra, came into the examining room at Sloan Kettering this morning, he said, “How are you?” I said, politely, “Fine, how are you?” And he replied, “No, how are you?” It’s the one time when someone really means the question. And the answer is that I do feel fine; I feel great, in fact. I get tired still and fellow patients warned in comments under my previous posts that’d be the case. But other than that and the two items I’ll go into next, I wouldn’t know I’d had major surgery only three months ago. The wounds are healed, the pain is long gone, and I can carry on as before.

My incontinence is almost over. Almost. Every time I have a few dry days in a row and think I am about ready to throw away the pads, I am struck down as if by God punishing my hubris … with a drip. Damn. If you see me in the halls suddenly grimacing in frustration and anger, that’s what happened. I’m hopeful I’ll be rid of the pads soon. But truth be told, if this half of the condition never got any better, I’d find it livable — far better than what I’d feared. For that, I’m grateful.

The impotence is another matter. Not a bit of progress there. And it’s not just that I can’t have an erection, it’s that the poor thing is chronically deflated, like the Balloon Boy’s craft at the end of its flight. I could be assured victory in a small-penis contest with Howard Stern. Yes, you know a man is talking about his penis when juvenile jokes start. Here’s how silly a man’s mind can get: I’m going to Munich in January and enjoy going to the (co-ed) sauna in the hotel there but I’m once again feeling like George in Seinfeld’s shrinkage episode. Yes, it matters.

I can have orgasms but they’re strangely muted, as if wrapped in cotton. And they are quite strange being dry (the seminal vesicles are removed with the prostate.) I’d also been warned about that. I was prescribed Viagra but stopped taking it for a bit when I was getting palpitations and I feared an onset of afib (my heart arrhythmia; don’t I sound like an old coot, recounting my ills?). I’ll try Cialis next. The doctor said the nerves he moved out of the way and spared in surgery can begin healing anywhere from three weeks after surgery (I’m not so lucky) to two years. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

That trip to Munich comes on the way to Davos and this year I’ll be participating in a dinner about prostate cancer led by Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, and including Dr. Patrick Walsh, who, Dr. Parra explained to me, is the father of radical prostatectomy and the nerve-sparing procedure (thank you, sir) along with other leading doctors. What the hell am I doing there? I’m to bring the patient’s perspective.

I plan to say that publicness has benefitted me and that I wish the doctors would, in turn, be more public. The response I got from my posts here was helpful not only in the support I received but especially in the information I got from fellow patients who proceeded me and told me in frank and brave detail what I would experience. I owe them all. I’ve argued before that doctors should use the web to become curators of the best information they have. And together, the more we talk about this, the more we will bring it to the attention of men who should be screened and take away the mystery, fear, and stigma associated with cancer and surgery affecting our penises.

My bottom line: I am glad I was screened. I am glad I have written publicly about the experience. I’m glad I had the surgery. And I’m very glad today to see that less-than sign: <0.05.