Toggle light / dark theme

sz5_JER_fuller_-_croatian_interview-300x199To think about the existential prospects that lie ahead for Humanity 2.0, or Homo futura, imagine yourself in 1900 faced with two investment opportunities for the future of personal human transport: on the one hand, a specially bred – that is, genetically modified – horse; on the other, a mass-produced automobile. Which prospect would you pursue?

The horse has been long a reliable mode of transport, whose strengths and weaknesses are well known. A faster horse may require greater skill to handle and more feed that produces more manure. But your society is already equipped to deal with those consequences. In contrast, the automobile is a new technology, albeit one that has already shown that it can equal and even surpass the horse in terms of speed and durability under a variety of conditions. However, the automobile brings its own distinctive cost-benefit calculus, as its future improvement would very likely involve both greater enclosure of the traveller and greater pollution of the environment. In the long term, the traveller’s relationship to nature would probably need to change quite drastically for the automobile to become dominant.

It is too bad that the state of genetic knowledge was not sufficiently advanced in 1900 to turn this into a real choice. Instead the horse easily appeared a less attractive long-term bet, as it was generally presumed that the upper limits of the creature’s performance had been already reached. In that case, the indefinite continuation of horse-drawn personal transport could only be defended by those who had a principled objection to mechanical transport, a position perhaps grounded in a nostalgic view of humanity’s oneness with nature. But even these people could not deny the proven effectiveness of ships and trains as machines of mass conveyance. In short, the horse was doomed. The market for personal transport underwent what Joseph Schumpeter called ‘creative destruction’. Henry Ford effectively made it worthwhile for consumers to reorganize their value priorities in a way that quickly resulted in the automobile, rather than the horse, setting the standard of personal transport.

The twenty-first century may offer us a choice rather like that of our hypothetical 1900 decision between horse and car. But now the choice would be between two different ways of continuing the human condition – alternative vehicles, as it were, to convey our existence. One involves genetically modifying ourselves and the other involves transcending the bodies of our birth altogether. These two options represent the two rather opposing directions in which contemporary transhumanism is heading.

In most general terms, ‘transhumanism’ says that the indefinite projection of our most distinctly human qualities is worth pursuing as a value in its own right – even if that means radically altering our material nature. This definition of transhumanism captures by implication all of those who might be against such a movement, not least those – typically ‘Greens’ – who believe that humanity’s current global crises stem from our attempts to minimize if not deny our commonality with the rest of nature.

The word ‘transhumanism’ was coined by Julian Huxley, a founder of the dominant research paradigm in biology today, which integrates Darwin’s account of natural history with the experimental principles of modern lab-based genetics. Huxley, following the lead of his grandfather, Thomas Henry Huxley, believed that Darwin fundamentally challenged anyone who wanted to uphold the superiority of Homo sapiens as a species. After all, the workings of natural selection suggest that all forms of life are limited by their largely innate capacities to adapt to a changing environment. In the end, any given species – including humans — should expect extinction, not immortality. From that standpoint, all the promises made by Christianity and Islam of an eternal ‘afterlife’ looked empty. Nevertheless, the Huxleys believed that there was something fundamentally correct about these religious intuitions.

Thomas Henry Huxley opposed those who held that ethics could be straightforwardly inferred from evolutionary history. On the contrary, he argued, we humans are unique in our capacity to push back, and ideally reverse, natural selection. He had in mind modern developments in law and medicine that effectively institutionalise forms of life that take humanity far from its Darwinian default settings. Thus, our conception of justice is more complex than ‘an eye for an eye’ and our interest in health goes beyond simply enabling people to cope with whatever life throws in their way. In this respect, modern society has been built to promote a progressive world-view, in which death becomes the ultimate enemy — not the ultimate resolution — of life.

Julian Huxley, equipped with a better scientific understanding, went one step further to argue that Homo sapiens is the only species equipped to comprehend the entire evolutionary process, in which case we incur a unique moral obligation to administer and direct its future course. This is the context in which ‘transhumanism’ was coined.

But even accepting humanity’s sense of cosmic responsibility still leaves us with many questions about how to proceed. Julian Huxley was himself a eugenicist who helped several biologists working in Nazi Germany, including the great ethologist Konrad Lorenz, to avoid charges of ‘crimes against humanity’ at the Nuremberg Trials. Huxley was also the principal author of UNESCO’s 1950 ‘Statement on Race’, which argued that the idea of fixed racial distinctions lacks a firm foundation in biological science. Taken together, these interventions suggest a deep acceptance of humanity’s adaptability and plasticity, in which the future should not be seen as a simple repetition of the past. Huxley supported eugenics not to reinforce long-standing racial prejudice but, on the contrary, to experiment with humanity’s untapped potential to surpass its current levels of achievement.

Whatever one makes of Huxley’s own enthusiasm for eugenics, which remained up to his death in 1975, it is clear that his existential horizons were rather limited by the standards of today’s transhumanists. For Huxley, humanity’s room for manoeuvre, while considerable, was ultimately confined to our evolutionary heritage in carbon. He envisaged altering and otherwise enhancing our genetic capacities, but not uploading our minds into silicon chips that would allow us to be resurrected as freestanding avatars. In this respect, Huxley is like our hypothetical 1900 entrepreneur investing in the idea of a genetically modified horse as the future of personal transport.

This means that the Henry Fords of our transhuman future are those who see our carbon-based bodies simply platforms for the realization of a set of ‘functionalities’ that may be more powerfully and more efficiently realized in another medium altogether. The original Henry Ford reckoned that while people may find it nice to be one with nature, at the end of the day what really mattered was how to get where you want to go as quickly as possible. Similarly, today’s silicon-based transhumanists regard our genetically endowed bodies as simply means to ends that in the future may be performed more effectively by some other means.

To be sure, relatively few share Ray Kurzweil’s dream that by 2050 human consciousness will be successfully uploaded into a computer that enables us to conceptualise and experience the world as if we were still carbon-based creatures. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, people are already ‘voting with their feet’. The amount of quality time spent on the internet suggests that people are beginning to locate the meaning of their lives more in virtual than actual reality. Of course, that tendency by itself does not guarantee that we shall realize Kurzweil’s dream. But it does provide an incentive for investment into research that might eventually realize it. The power of faith to overcome material obstacles should never be underestimated, especially when the believers are armed with science.

The ease with which Homo sapiens has managed to remake itself and the physical environment over a few thousand years – in many cases, undoing the work of billions of years of evolution – has been a source of great fear, but also of great hope. That hope involves a vision of human history in which after emerging as a distinct branch of the tree of life, our biology serves as a platform for launching a range of technologies that extend our natural capacities and with which we eventually merge to constitute the executive control centre of an ever expanding portion of the universe.

This is a world that Darwin did not envisage because, like so many other 19th century biologists, he could not imagine that the basic elements of life were governed by mathematical principles, let alone a ‘genetic code’. Indeed, Darwin’s contemporary, the man who we now consider the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, was largely ignored in his lifetime precisely because he claimed to have found such principles. However, the molecular revolution in genetics that began in earnest with the discovery of DNA’s function in 1953 has increasingly brought together the expertises of computer scientists and molecular geneticists in quite literal projects of ‘bioengineering’, whereby life is built according to a mathematically specified plan from basic materials.

Regardless of whether humanity continues to believe that its progress is ultimately circumscribed by its biology, transhumanism’s own progress in the general culture may be measured by the extent to which ‘nature’ is seen not as imposing a limit on the human will, but rather as raw material, untapped potential or even capital that we might leverage into new and improved states of being. To be sure, there is no reason to think that such beliefs are self-fulfilling but they do foster a climate in which people are willing to take more risks with themselves, other people and the world at large.

Further Reading

Church, G. and Regis, F. (2012). Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves. New York: Basic Books.

Fuller, S. (2011). Humanity 2.0: What It Means to Be Human Past, Present and Future. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, S. (2013). Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, S. and Lipinska, V. (2014). The Proactionary Imperative: A Foundation for Transhumanism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

More, M. and Vita-More, N., eds. (2013). The Transhumanist Reader. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

By: Eray Ozkural - h+

Computing-efficency

During writing a paper for the 100 Year Starship Symposium, I wished to convince the starship designers that they should acknowledge the dynamics of high-technology economy, which may be crucial for interstellar missions. Thus motivated, I have made a new calculation regarding infinity point, also known as the singularity. According to this most recent revision of the theory of infinity point, it turns out that we should expect Infinity Point by 2035 in the worst case. Here is how and why.

Read more

Some people become incredibly confused about the effort to eliminate aging, which they see as a nebulous, ill-defined process. I refer to the concept of radical life extension, when aging as a process has been abolished. I am not referring to simple healthy longevity (the effort to live a healthy life until the current maximum lifespan of 110–120). Here are some common misconceptions:

1. The Fallacy of words

Eliminating aging will make us ‘immortal’ and we will live forever.

No, it won’t. If we eliminate aging as a cause of death, we may be able to live for an indefinite (not infinite) period, until something else kills us. Even in a world without aging, death can happen at any time (at age 10, 65 or 1003) and for any reason (a shot in the head, malaria, drowning). If we manage to eliminate aging as a cause of death, the only certain thing would be that we will not necessarily die when we reach the currently maximum lifespan limit of around 110–120 years. We would certainly NOT live for ever, because something else will kill us sooner or later. Our organs cannot be repaired if we perish in a nuclear explosion for example, or in a fire. Some statisticians have mentioned that, without aging, we may be able to live to 1700–2000 years on average before death happens due to some other catastrophic damage. This is a long time, but it is not ‘forever’.

2. The Fallacy of numbers

Eliminating aging will result in overpopulation.

No, it won’t. This is based on spurious, even naïve, thinking. Aging happens because we need to reproduce. Or, we need to reproduce because we age. If aging is eliminated, the need to reproduce will also be broadly eliminated. It is a cyclical, reciprocal argument.

3. The Fallacy of loneliness

“I don’t want to live dramatically longer because I will have to witness the deaths of all my family and friends”.

No, you won’t. If you live longer because aging has been eliminated, then your family and friends will too. In any case, this counteracts fallacy number 2: if everybody else dies, how come we would have overpopulation? And fallacy number 2 counteracts this one: if we do have overpopulation, then it is likely that your friends and relatives will be alive too.

4. The Fallacy of the pill

Aging will be eliminated by taking a pill (or a combination of pills, injections, something physical).

No, it won’t. It will be eliminated through a change in the direction of human evolution, when billions of humans continue to engage with technology (or via other, abstract global technologically-dependent means). As the general direction of evolution is towards a more complex state which makes us better adapted to our environment, there would come a point when our hyper-technological environment would select individual longevity instead of aging and degeneration, as a more thermodynamically efficient situation.

5. The Fallacy of money

Research into the elimination of aging is not progressing fast due to lack of appropriate funding.

No, funding is not the main bottleneck. The main problem is the widespread adoption of the wrong approach. The idea that aging can be eliminate through pharmacological intervention dates back to the time of the Alchemists. It has no place in a modern, highly technological and intellectually sophisticated society, and certainly not with respect to defying such a fundamental process as aging. It is reductionist instead of integrative.
Aging may be eliminated when the cause for its presence is removed. Aging happens because within a tendency to progress from simple to complex, evolution has selected reproduction (and thus aging) as a mechanism for maximising the use of thermodynamical resources, and so to ensure the survival of the species

6. The Fallacy of the rich elite

Only a few rich people will have access to the treatment.

This is a combination of fallacies number 4 and 5, a fallacy based on fallacies. People who adapt and fit within an upwards moving technological environment will be more likely to survive. Money is irrelevant. What is relevant is intellectual effort and aggressive engagement with our environment (hyperconnectivity is an example). If a large number of humans (in the order of hundreds of millions) actively engage with their increasingly technological environment, there would be no reason to age/reproduce at the current rates, as survival can be assured through the individual rather than the species. Therefore, there could be no secrets about the process, due to the very fact that a significant section of humanity must necessarily participate.

7. The fallacy of frailty

Living dramatically longer will mean a long life with debilitating illnesses.

No, it won’t. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. A life without aging necessarily means a life without age-related degeneration. You cannot have one without the other.

image credit - Protomag.com

Technology for pain-free healing:

“Your threshold for pain is near zero”, said my dentist, as she deftly moved the extremely thin fiber optic laser head away.

“That’s why I chose to fly in here. Gum filet carving doesn’t appeal to me”, I mumbled, my lips feeling leathery from the anesthetic spray.

There was a mild tingling as the laser killed millions of enemies under my gum-line. I lay back in the chair and considered the alternative I was presented only the day before by an over enthusiastic periodontist — A scalpel and suture gum flap procedure for “deep cleaning.”

‘This is 2013′, I had thought to myself. ‘There has to be a less primitive way… a less painful solution.’

12 hours later, with 25 browser windows open and an estimated further 40 websites bookmarked, I was sure I had enough information to consider writing a thesis on pain free dentistry — The answer, I concluded, was LANAP. I delved deep into the pros and cons of laser dentistry procedures, understanding OPG xrays, doing comparisons and reading on soft tissue lasers, diode lasers, wave-lengths and even the patent wars of companies spearheading the future of medical technology.

The Transhumanist Patient:

Doctors have it hard today and I genuinely sympathize with them- to a certain degree. After all, every person has access to the internet but not everyone knows how to distill this ‘open source knowledge’ effectively. So doctors stand to lose patients and patience, when catering to the whims of clients walking into their clinics.

Yet, we are in the midst of an information and knowledge explosion and if doctors rely only on a degree earned about a decade ago or even 3 years ago, while not immersing themselves in the accelerating changes in technology and discoveries in their field, they will encounter a patient who will challenge or at the very least — question such a doctor’s line of diagnosis and treatment.

I learned the following:

  • Ask for a 3rd opinion — That second-opinion should be one’s own obligation, using the internet as an interactive medical encyclopedia to thoroughly understand the ailment.
  • A medical practitioner who does not have access to the latest in medical technology and/or has not updated their skill-set in the usage of such, will lose out.
  • Tele-medicine is the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUKVV_JyVUE

Services such as Medcarelive, that offer a flavor of tele-medicine is just the start. Competition will soon catch-up and there is no doubt, the smart phone will truly become ubiquitous with personal healthcare. Devices such as Google Glass are already providing healthcare professionals with real time updates of patients vital information.

A smart phone coupled to such wearable technology could transform such a visor — into a Wizer — the fictional device from the story Memories with Maya.

Apps for the Smart phone, running sophisticated software and processing algorithms can harness common sensors in the device such as a Microphone, to analyze or transmit a patient’s cough or voice. There’s even a possibility to do ultra-sound imaging with an add-on peripheral. High resolution cameras can transmit detailed imagery and videos for remote diagnostics — and possibly in real-time in some scenarios with tele-medicine.

alivecor-iphone-ecg
(Above: AliveCore Smart-phone device)

The Transhumanist Doctor:

A medical professional who has a genuine love for learning and keeping abreast with technology in his/her field of practice is by very definition — a Transhumanist. Such professionals may not even know of their transhumanist leanings, but by putting into practice what some Transhumanist fashionistas only preach about, a transhumanist doctor is doing actual ground work to better a patients condition, using science and technology. One such (highly respected) person is Dr. Eric Topol and the strides he’s made with his contribution to Wireless Medicine

To be true to the medical profession in this age, one needs to be highly trained and competent in the use of advanced medical technology — Simply attending a 101 or a couple of seminars and training sessions on use of robotic surgery equipment for instance, can lead to severe accidents and can stall the progress of the very technology that we seek to make mainstream.

There are downsides to be aware of if medical practitioners are not thorough in their training and in their own follow-up research in related fields. For example: Should a dentist or surgeon be studying more about lasers in-depth than the system and controls that are present on the console they are using? I would argue yes they should. Learning as much as possible about types of laser, pulse duration, power and even the very type of laser to use for different soft/hard tissue procedures is an important factor that should not be ignored. In robotic surgery systems, should surgeons understand the degree of motion scaling and tremor reduction systems? Just as a true camera professional might learn how much his/her camera lens ‘breathes’, so too should a surgeon be keen on in-depth learning about the technology and tools they are using.

In keeping with the ethics of such emerging technology, it is only appropriate to mention the many ‘accidents’ that have occurred with even the very advanced minimally invasive DaVinci Robotic Surgery system. The video in the link below is worth the approx 10 minutes viewing time. Full link to report :here:

The home of 2025 — Kitchen, living-room, bedroom and the MedPod room:

med-pod3000_armadyne_Elysium_home_medicine (1)

Medical technology has to become affordable, if our quest to better the human condition is to succeed. Pain free or minimally invasive medicine should not only be for the rich. While it is true that private corporations are investing in the manufacture of these systems and thus earn the right to profit from their deployment, access to advanced medicine should be the right of every person - else we run the risk of an Elysium like future.

With smart phones already being deployed in medical diagnostics, it won’t be long before personal health pods find a place in homes. Such systems might allow for remote tele-medicine or even remote human assisted surgery to become reality. After all, in the DaVinci Robotic Surgery system, it does not matter if the surgeon is sitting a few feet away at his master console or… across town.

Desktop 3D printed Pharmacies:

Desktop 3D Printing Pharmacies could print out capsules / pills on-demand, or drones could deliver a prescription from a local pharmacy right to one’s door-step.

The future looks good for pain free healing of the human body — and it is up to us to make such technology accessible and affordable.

The Future of Management Wargaming, Now! By Mr. Andres Agostini
WarGaming
This is an excerpt from the conclusion section of, “…The Future of Management Wargaming , Now…!” that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article:

In addition to being aware and adaptable and resilient before the driving forces reshaping the current present and the as-of-now future, there are some extra management suggestions that I concurrently practice:

a) “…human knowledge is doubling every ten years [as per the 1998 standards]…”

b) “…computer power is doubling every eighteen months. the internet is doubling every year. the number of dna sequences we can analyze is doubling every two years…”

c) “…beginning with the amount of knowledge in the known world at the time of Christ, studies have estimated that the first doubling of that knowledge took place about 1700 A.D. the second doubling occurred around the year 1900. it is estimated today that the world’s knowledge base will double again by 2010 and again after that by 2013…”

d) “…knowledge is doubling by every fourteen months…”

e) “…more than the doubling of computational power [is taking place] every year…”

f) “…The flattening of the world is going to be hugely disruptive to both traditional and developed societies. The weak will fall further behind faster. The traditional will feel the force of modernization much more profoundly. The new will get turned into old quicker. The developed will be challenged by the underdeveloped much more profoundly. I worry, because so much political stability is built on economic stability, and economic stability is not going to be a feature of the flat world. Add it all up and you can see that the disruptions and going to come faster and harder. No one is immune ─ not me, not you, not Microsoft. WE ARE ENTERING AN ERA OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION ON STEROIDS. Dealing with flatism is going to be a challenge of a whole new dimension even if your country has a strategy. But if you don’t have a strategy at all, well, again, you’ve warned…”

DYNAMICS

Accordingly, Andres likewise indicates, “…Transformative and Integrative Risk Management (TAIRM) is also implemented in order to prevent technological surprises to the savvy organization seeking this advice and service by TAIRM, but also to create disruptively technological surprises (managerial ‘…Sputnik Moments…’) for the enterprise’s competitors…”

Please see the full presentation at http://goo.gl/SUg18r and at http://goo.gl/8fdwUP

The Future of Skunkworks Management, Now! By Mr. Andres Agostini
SIMPLICITY
This is an excerpt from the conclusion section of, “…The Future of Skunkworks Management, Now!…” that discusses some management theories and practices and strategies. To view the entire piece, just click the link at the end of this post:
SOLUTION
Peter Drucker asserted, “…In a few hundred years, when the story of our [current] time is written from a long-term perspective, it is likely that the most important event those historians will see is not technology, not the Internet, not e-commerce [not so-called ‘social media’]. IT is an unprecedented change in the human condition. For the first time ─ literally ─ substantial and growing numbers of people have choices. for the first time, they will have to manage themselves. And society is totally unprepared for it…”
SYSTEM
Please see the full presentation at http://goo.gl/FnJOlg

Applied Omniscience in Transformative and Integrative Risk Management! By Mr. Andres Agostini
OMNISCIENCE
This is an excerpt from the presentation, “…Applied Omniscience in Transformative and Integrative Risk Management!…” that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article:

Please see the graphic at http://lnkd.in/dUstZEk

Womb-to-Tomb Management! By Mr. Andres Agostini
Womb-To-Tomb Management
This is an excerpt from the presentation, “…Womb-to-Tomb Management!…” that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article:

Please see the graphic at http://lnkd.in/dbD4G7e

This is an excerpt from the conclusion section of, “…NASA’s Managerial and Leadership Methodology, Now Unveiled!..!” by Mr. Andres Agostini, that discusses some management theories and practices. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of this illustrated article and presentation:

superman
In addition to being aware and adaptable and resilient before the driving forces reshaping the current present and the as-of-now future, there are some extra management suggestions that I concurrently practice:

1. Given the vast amount of insidious risks, futures, challenges, principles, processes, contents, practices, tools, techniques, benefits and opportunities, there needs to be a full-bodied practical and applicable methodology (methodologies are utilized and implemented to solve complex problems and to facilitate the decision-making and anticipatory process).

The manager must always address issues with a Panoramic View and must also exercise the envisioning of both the Whole and the Granularity of Details, along with the embedded (corresponding) interrelationships and dynamics (that is, [i] interrelationships and dynamics of the subtle, [ii] interrelationships and dynamics of the overt and [iii] interrelationships and dynamics of the covert).

DETAIL    DETAIL    DETAILBoth dynamic complexity and detail complexity, along with fuzzy logic, must be pervasively considered, as well.

To this end, it is wisely argued, “…You can’t understand the knot without understanding the strands, but in the future, the strands need not remain tied up in the same way as they are today…”

For instance, disparate skills, talents, dexterities and expertise won’t suffice ever. A cohesive and congruent, yet proven methodology (see the one above) must be optimally implemented.

Subsequently, the Chinese proverb indicates, “…Don’t look at the waves but the currents underneath…”

2. One must always be futurewise and technologically fluent. Don’t fight these extreme forces, just use them! One must use counter-intuitiveness (geometrically non-linearly so), insight, hindsight, foresight and far-sight in every day of the present and future (all of this in the most staggeringly exponential mode). To shed some light, I will share two quotes.

The Panchatantra (body of Eastern philosophical knowledge) establishes, “…Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes.…” And Antonio Machado argues, “… An eye is not an eye because you see it; an eye is an eye because it sees you …”

Managers always need a clear, knowledgeable vision. Did you already connect the dots stemming from the Panchatantra and Machado? Did you already integrate those dots into your big-picture vista?

As side effect, British Prime Minister W. E. Gladstone considered, “…You cannot fight against the future…”

PARALLEL     PARALLEL      PARALLEL
3. In all the Manager does, he / she must observe and apply, at all times, a sine qua non maxim, “…everything is related to everything else…”

4. Always manage as if it were a “project.” Use, at all times, the “…Project Management…” approach.

5. Always use the systems methodology with the applied omniscience perspective.

In this case, David, I mean to assert: The term “Science” equates to about a 90% of “…Exact Sciences…” and to about 10% of “…Social Sciences…” All science must be instituted with the engineering view.

6. Always institute beyond-insurance risk management as you boldly integrate it with your futuring skill / expertise.

BEYOND     BEYOND       BEYOND
7. In my firmest opinion, the following must be complied this way (verbatim): the corporate strategic planning and execution (performing) are a function of a grander application of beyond-insurance risk management. It will never work well the other way around. Transformative and Integrative Risk Management (TAIRM) is the optimal mode to do advanced strategic planning and execution (performing).

TAIRM is not only focused on terminating, mitigating and modulating risks (expenses of treasure and losses of life), but also concentrated on bringing under control fiscally-sound, sustainable organizations and initiatives.

TAIRM underpins sensible business prosperity and sustainable growth and progress.

8. I also believe that we must pragmatically apply the scientific method in all we manage to the best of our capacities.

If we are “…MANAGERS…” in a Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Era (not a knowledge-driven eon because of superficial and hollow caprices of the follies and simpletons), we must do therefore extensive and intensive learning and un-learning for Life if we want to succeed and be sustainable.

As a consequence, Dr. Noel M. Tichy, PhD. argues, “…Today, intellectual assets trump physical assets in nearly every industry…”

Consequently, Alvin Toffler indicates, “…In the world of the future, THE NEW ILLITERATE WILL BE THE PERSON WHO HAS NOT LEARNED TO LEARN…”

We don’t need to be scientists to learn some basic principles of advanced science.

Accordingly, Dr. Carl Sagan, PhD. expressed, “…We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows about science and technology…” And Edward Teller stated, “…The science of today is the technology of tomorrow …”

And it is also crucial this quotation by Winston Churchill, “…If we are to bring the broad masses of the people in every land to the table of abundance, IT CAN ONLY BE BY THE TIRELESS IMPROVEMENT OF ALL OF OUR MEANS OF TECHNICAL PRODUCTION…”

I am not a scientist but I tirelessly support responsible scientists and science. I like scientific and technological knowledge and methodologies a great deal.

Chiefly, I am a college autodidact made by his own self and engaged into extreme practical and theoretical world-class learning for Life.

APPROACH    APPROACH     APPROACH9. In any management undertaking, and given the universal volatility and rampant and uninterrupted rate of change, one must think and operate in a fluid womb-to-tomb mode.

The manager must think and operate holistically (both systematically and systemically) at all times.

The manager must also be: i) Multidimensional, ii) Interdisciplinary, iii) Multifaceted, iv) Cross-functional, and v) Multitasking.

That is, the manager must now be an expert state-of-the-art generalist and erudite. ERGO, THIS IS THE NEWEST SPECIALIST AND SPECIALIZATION.

Managers must never manage elements, components or subsystems separately or disparately (that is, they mustn’t ever manage in series).

Managers must always manage all of the entire system at the time (that is, managing in parallel or simultaneously the totality of the whole at once).

10. In any profession, beginning with management, one must always and cleverly upgrade his / her learning and education until the last exhale.

An African proverb argues, “…Tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it…” And Winston Churchill established, “…The empires of the future are the empires of the mind…” And an ancient Chinese Proverb: “…It is not our feet that move us along — it is our minds…”
DESTINY       DESTINY       DESTINY
And Malcolm X observed, “…The future belongs to those who prepare for it today…” And Leonard I. Sweet considered, “…The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create…”

And finally, James Thomson argued, “…Great trials seem to be a necessary preparation for great duties …”

AGE       AGE         AGE
Consequently, Dr. Gary Hamel, PhD. indicates, “…What distinguishes our age from every other is not the world-flattening impact of communications, not the economic ascendance of China and India, not the degradation of our climate, and not the resurgence of ancient religious animosities. RATHER, IT IS A FRANTICALLY ACCELERATING PACE OF CHANGE…”

Please see the full presentation at http://goo.gl/8fdwUP

This is an excerpt from, “Futuretronium Book” by Mr. Andres Agostini, that discusses some management theories and practices with the future-ready perspective. To read the entire piece, just click the link at the end of article:

“…#1 Futuretronium ® and the administration and application of the scientific method without innuendos and in crescendo as fluid points of inflections ascertain that the morrow is a thing of the past…”

ADVERSARIAL
”…#2 Futuretronium ®, subsequently, there is now and here available the unabridged, authoritative eclictation and elucidation of actionable knowledge from and for the incessantly arrhythmic, abrupt, antagonistic, mordant, caustic, and anarchistic future, as well as the contentious interrelationship between such future and the present…”

“…#3 Futuretronium ®, a radical yet rigorous strong-sense and critico-creative «Futures Thinking», systems approach to quintessential understanding of the complexities, subtleties, and intricacies, as well as the opportunities to be exploited out of the driving forces instilling and inflicting perpetual change into twenty-first century…”

Read the full book at http://lnkd.in/ZxV3Sz to further explore these topics and experience future-ready management practices and theories.