Bryan O’Rourke shares his thoughts on technology, business, and consumer trends in health, fitness and more.
Author Pollan and Director Kenner talk on WNYC Radio about US food policy. For the complete interview listen here. Each synthesizes the idea of how flawed food policy is based on a past paradigm of scarcity of calories as the key obstacle; thus leading to a strategy of subsidizing corn and soy production which serves as the foundatio of our centralized fast food nation.
Michael Pollan, award winning author of a number of books including best seller The Omnivore's Dilemma is featured in the just released movie Food Inc.. No sphere of our world is protected from the impact of the revolution, least of which is the food industry as this documentary shows. You'll never look at food the same again. The need to decentralize our production and consumption of food has never been more evident.
X-Prize recently announced they are extending their model to healthcare with a $10 million prize, intended to "catalyze dramatic improvements in health and health care value in the United States." Read the full release here. "if you can't measure it you can't change it" says the X-Prize CEO Dr.Peter Diamandis in the video below. What's the measure in health care ? That is problem in the extant health care model. The highest quality care at the best cost still entails a scarcity paradigm: at some point extending care to an individuals does not generate an ROI for the overall system. Who is going to make those choices ? The X-Prize outcome will be interesting because the solution is complicated; until consumers have an understanding on par with the system that delivers their care and until individuals are rewarded or penalized for behaviors that contribute to outcomes, the idea of "choice" is an oversimplifed solution to this complex problem.
Peter Diamandis, CEO, X-Prize Foundation from Health 2.0 on Vimeo.
Understanding the implications of a world largely influenced by the "Rise of the Rest" is critical to participate with the 2-3 billion people leaving behind a life of abject poverty. Developed nations and their citizens must see this wave as a tremendous opportunity for all and not just a threat to what they have. Watch this excerpt from Fareed Zakaria on the realities of this new world and the implications of the change to politics and policy.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recent speech at Blenheim Palace in England, indirectly addressed the consequences of the “revolution” upon the use of military force by governments. The location was the birthplace of Winston Churchill, long known for opposing appeasement of Hitler. The palace was also named for a battle which Churchill's ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, won in 1704 by leading an alliance of soldiers from Britain, Austria, Hungary, Prussia, and Denmark against the French and Bavarians, undermining the ambitions of a would-be dictator of Europe at the time, Louis XIV. Could Gates have picked a more appropriate setting to address the topic of war and peace?
Gates talk, as with recent others he has made, was poignant against a backdrop of a radically changing world wherein the Untied States, stretched thin by two wars, is increasingly alienated from allies and further weakened by a financial crisis that threatens its economic strength. But these challenges are symptomatic. Weigh the mega trends of globalism, technological advances and demographic shifts around the world, a “revolution”, along with looming unfunded obligations coming due from the U.S. treasury over the next decade; and a fact becomes apparent: we are living in a time of unprecedented global change. Reading between the lines, what Gates truly should say, if indeed he did not, is that the American people and its leadership need to embrace new thinking about our place in a world that cannot be “controlled” predominantly through force. Failing to understand this shift creates a dangerous potential that could delay a faster realization of a harmonious planet for the missteps the U.S. could make by holding on to paradigms which no longer apply.
Gates addressed the issue of war and peace, and asserted the debate historically was framed by two extremes, "a too-eager embrace of the use of military force, and an extreme aversion to it." Gates used the crises of 1914 and 1938 to illustrate his point.
In 1914, nobody really wanted to enter a war in which "miscalculations, hubris, bellicosity, fear of looking weak" led to World War I. Could this possibly describe Bush's war of choice in Iraq? Neville Chamberlains' decision in 1938, on the other hand, allowed Hitler to dismember Czechoslovakia because ethnic Germans predominated in one corner, the Sudetenland. That example could be cited by both sides in the Georgia and Kosovo disputes. The horror of World War I was in the minds of appeasers who believed everything must be done to avoid that again. But as Churchill said, Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war. "He chose dishonor, he will get war."
Gates was correct that those two opposing examples have overshadowed decision-making ever since. Perhaps the nations of Europe today are too adverse to the use of force with governments unable to commit their armies to anything beyond peacekeeping and America is too quick to resort to force. When he said: "We must try to prevent a situation where we have only two bleak choices: confrontation or capitulation, 1914 or 1938”, Gates was right. But only new thinking as exhibited by Gates will avoid that potential from happening.
Copyright © 2021, Bryan K. O'Rourke. All rights reserved.
