The Next Evolution of Networks?

[Bruce LaDuke]

Imagine for a moment that the entire world is ubiquitously connected through rigid communication networks. These have solidified into overlapping interest groups and all audiences are formalized. What would happen after the whole world finds itself in networks? What is the next evolution of human networks? I tend to think this is where we will see that knowledge is at the core of all of our efforts and that we will begin to cooperatively work knowledge in a very conscious way. What are your thoughts?

[Joseph Higginbotham]

Bruce:
I don't share your optimism that all this connectivity and "networking" is actually bringing us closer to that point where "the whole world finds itself in networks".
Whether you mean by the word "networks" you mean the "wiring" or technology that theoretically connects us (internet, phones) or the "social networks" (LinkedIn, Community Transformer) I just don't see us getting that much closer to the day when "e will begin to cooperatively work knowledge in a very conscious way". First of all, misanthropy and isolation seem to be on the rise even as both technology and social networking theoretically facilitate better cooperation. A lot of people hate a lot of other people and want nothing to do with them. I see some people "going off the grid" and moving to rural areas precisely because they want as little contact with other people as possible.

Second, even a lot of non misanthropic people don't have "the networking gene". They seem unable to really connect to other people. They don't even do the obvious things. Case in point, I have a successful architect friend who pays outrageous sums of money to rent a booth or sponsor a trade show then shows up without business cards to pass out and no business cards from others. I recently told him "Here are instructions for the meeting you're about to attend: 1. Smile and extend your hand. 2. Reach into your coat pocket for a business card and offer it. 3. Accept the other person's business card and put it in the opposite coat pocket. 4. Repeat this simple networking activity over andover as long as there is another human in the room."

Finally, we are socialized to be COMPETITIVE all the time, no matter the situation. I saw this very clearly when the Fortune 500 company I used to work for made me attend a mandatory class where the instructor was leading us in a classroom exercise CLEARLY intended to show us how to consider cooperation as an option. 25 of the 30 people in the class chose aggressive, competitive, zero sum activity versus the cooperative activity the facilitator was trying to teach. I led my team to seek cooperation. We were called "socialists" and "communists". It was only at the end of the exercise that the rattled and shaken instructor announced to the class that my team seemed to be the only team in the room that "got it". In our culture, we default to aggressive, uncooperative, competitive behavior and don't even consider cooperation as an option.

You know that overused job interview question, "Would you call yourself 'competitive'?" Just once I'd like to hear a job candidate say "I'm competitive when the situation calls for it but when the best results can be achieved by cooperation, then I'm cooperative." And just once I'd like to see an employer HIRE the candidate who answers that way.

[e-mail]
www.linkedin.com/in/josephhigginbotham

[Bruce LaDuke]

You make several good points Joseph.

One, the word networks is used to mean a lot of things...e.g., physical wiring, computer networks, human networks, knowledge networks the connections between people, etc. To fully understand networks I think we need to break all of these apart and understand exactly what is being discussed.

And then you're making the case that networks are devolving, not evolving. Someone wrote a book once called something like 'The Death of the Front Porch.' I could never find the book, but remember reading parts of it once. Anyway, the thought was that it used to be people would walk down the road or street and wave to neighbors on their front porches. That the fundamental architecture was open and social. Today, you can barely find a place to meet in public for free, or even at a reasonable cost, and homes are designed for privacy and exclusion, not interaction. The civic space overall in many communities is deteriorating or non-existent.

Your comments remind me of an online discussion I was in with a small group of AI researchers. They were basically tearing each other apart on their respecitve ideas, theories and opinions and everyone left the discussion angry. I remember thinking to myself, "I hope these guys don't actually figure out how to create a machine that thinks and acts like them."

Anyway, I would definitely agree with you that humanity is going to have to go down before it goes up. The only thing that changes people's values is a significant emotional event. Even the people who say they are altruistic and really are only pushing some personal agenda or starving for a legacy at the expense of others. All of these things are really spiritual immaturity. In my opinion, networking cannot evolve without spiritual maturity.

We are much more likely to entirely implode society and then build it up more thoughtfully than we are to straightway evolve into a higher state of networked society.

But I do think that the highest state of society is networked and cooperative, even though I'm doubtful that humanity will get there anytime soon without a significant emotional event. ....Something like an economic implosion.

[e. lee henderson]

Sounds like a fun discussion. I'll be back later.

Lee