Perceiving the power of projection widens our world


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“My guiding principles in life
are to be honest, genuine,
thoughtful and caring.”
Prince William

When you look in a mirror, what do you see?

th-58

No, you don’t see yourself. You inhabit a body—not a mirror. No, you see a projection of yourself. Similarly, we often project ourselves upon others.

Are you diligent and honest? Then you tend to trust others easily: You project on them the traits of diligence and honesty which come naturally to you. If you are a private person, you likely believe others also keep secrets. Or if you often tell small lies, you may readily conclude others are deceiving you.

Name the trait or motivation. We tend to project these on others. This is familiar and natural. The opposite attributes are foreign to us, so we find these more difficult to believe.

The consequences of these beliefs can be disastrous, for ourselves and others. As a landlord, for example, I lost several thousand dollars when I rented to a few tenants despite signs they were untrustworthy. We all need to widen our vision—to see reality—or our mistakes will multiply.

How can we apply this wisdom? How can we challenge our mistaken projections?

Shortly after graduating college in 1977, I discussed farm subsidies with Mark, a church friend. I had just completed a study of economist Milton Freedman, agreeing with his tenet that the free market alone should determine a person’s income. So I opposed farm subsidies.

th-59

Mark was shocked. Why would an otherwise caring Christian approve of farmers going bankrupt when farm prices crash? My friend thought I was heartless, having lost both compassion and common sense.

Mark was right.

Why did I fail to care? Despite my business degree, I was ignorant. I knew nothing about farming. Even more pertinent: I had adopted an ideology which shut out the experiences of others.

I also projected on to bankrupted farmers my history of obtaining work easily. I did not consider the hardship of bankruptcy, the trauma of families losing their homes, nor farmers’ ordeals when seeking another profession.

I needed to widen my world. I needed to listen to others’ experiences. I needed to be thoughtful.

Similarly, many leaders project their limited experiences upon others. One politician, “Edward,” laments that so many receive food stamps. Why not? His family never needed food stamps. Why should anyone else?

Instead of projecting his economic abilities upon others, however, Edward could consider their experiences. What about the millions who earn a living yet, due to low wages, experience the continuing agony of poverty? What about the many millions of seniors dependent upon social security and food stamps for survival? What about the many children who, due to food stamp cuts, have some days each month with little or no food?

th-60

Edward projects his economic strengths on others. He concludes the US needs to spend more on the military, so our nation should spend less on food stamps. This is a false choice. One does not exclude the other.

Those in need should not be denigrated or starved. Moreover, the US military currently spends as much as China and Russia—as well as the next ten countries combined.

“Supporting our troops” instead of supporting those needing food stamps is ironic: The pay of low-ranking service people requires $100 million in food stamps and $1 billion in subsidies at military grocery stores in 2014. Severe reduction of commissary subsidies brings hardship to many military families. For many, food stamps remain a necessity.

Edward is not alone in projecting his food prosperity on others: A plethora of political leaders hold a variety of heartless viewpoints.

Sometimes, due to our own projections, we too have uncaring positions. What is true for these heartless politicians is also true for you and me: We need to widen our world; we need to listen to others’ experiences; we need to be thoughtful.

Economic Intersections report, meet coastal resilience necessity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

gear-grabOn first reading, I give Economic Intersections, the Make it Happen Rhode Island report from the RI Foundation and Commerce RI a B.

It’s mostly things we’ve heard before like tech transfer, support for manufacturing and regulatory reform. It has some very good, new areas of focus, and it has an interesting idea that doesn’t quite make the grade. But I’m writing this short piece because there is one, glaring, horrifying and totally irresponsible part that defies any kind of logic whatsoever, at least as it is presented in this executive summary.

Good

The best part of this is the new focus on food production. There is a clear understanding that this burgeoning sector represents an important part of our next economy, and the report recognizes many important factors in building out the industry. Farms and farmland now have much better visibility within the state’s economic apparatus.

Even better, there is a section focused on the “food-health nexus.” Simply having those two words together in a state-level economics report represents a giant step forward. Medical technologies, neuroscience and bioscience all still hold their places at the top of the economy the report envisions, but actual health and what makes it possible—good, fresh food—is in the mix. Yay!

Not So Good

The report devotes a section to making Rhode Island “stronger and more resilient.” In this area, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of expertise at the table, as evidenced by the goal of creating “scalable approaches to economic development through resiliency.”

Resilience doesn’t scale. Lack-of-scale is the essence of resilience. As I’ve written here many times, resilience is based on redundancy, which is inherently inefficient and therefore not scalable. Many small things within redundant networks so that when some of them experience catastrophic failures—as will certainly happen with greater frequency—the system continues to function through alternate paths. The only thing that scales is the network.

The intention is to spawn companies that develop approaches and technologies around community resilience, as if resiliency were a product. I think what they really mean is “protection from catastrophe,” which is different from resilience. And, certainly, there’s a market to be made in protection from catastrophe, because there will be no shortage of global warming-driven catastrophes.

Some might hold out hope that once the economic apparatus starts to examine resilience and systems-oriented approaches to the impacts of climate change, they may actually/accidentally start to pursue genuine resilience.

But don’t hold your breath. Here’s why.

Blind, Stupid, Irresponsible

I like the top-line idea here: promote access to water and marine-based businesses. When you’re the Ocean State, it’s kind of a no-brainer. But this section of the report has a glaring blind spot, a miss so incredibly stupid that it might be more irresponsible than the 38 Studios deal.

Nowhere in this section—even in this section of the full report—does one find the terms “climate change,” “global warming” or “rising sea levels.” It’s true that they throw a bone to the Coastal Resource Management Council’s current role in this area, but CRMC is conspicuously absent from the list of public entities in the plan moving forward.

The plan is heavy on access to the water and marketing. Which means, of course, building right at the water’s edge. Think “marina access to a mini-resort”.

This represents an irresponsibly short-sighted approach. Coastal properties already have almost no choice but the federal insurance pool, and these costs will certainly only go higher. It is only a matter of time before any coastal infrastructure gets destroyed.

To add insult to injury, the full report refers to New York City’s 2011 Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, and the last of its eight goals is “Increase Climate Resilience.” I mean…right?

This is the kind of pull-your-hair-out stupid that still permeates our econo-think. It’s possible that they never put two and two together to make four. Or it’s possible that “certain powers” deliberately excluded the TOTALLY FRICKIN’ OBVIOUS, SIMPLE LIKE FALLING DOWN CONNECTION HERE!

(As background, Gov. Carcieri’s administration actively worked to suppress any mention of solar power in the RIEDC’s 2009/2010 Green Economy Roadmap authored by yours truly. So this kind of move is nothing new.)

CONNECT. THE. DOTS!

I know this is complicated, so I’ll go step by step.

1. The report is called Economic Intersections, so it’s about connecting things that might be complementary.

2. One idea in the report is to develop marine-based businesses, following New York’s waterfront plan.

3. New York’s waterfront plan includes increasing the waterfront’s resilience.

4. Another idea in the report is to develop resilience.

It seems so elementary, so obvious that I’m embarrassed to have to spell it out like this, but…here goes:

Focus your resiliency efforts on the coastal impacts of global warming-driven sea level rise and catastrophic weather events so that your marine-based businesses can be, oh, I don’t know…resilient.