Huge growth in traffic - website statistics
This week over 50,000 pages were visited in a single day. At least 1% of US web users have visited my web pages since 1996 - of which this web log is a new extension.
1 in 550 Americans searching the web in a busy month comes here for answers. Around 50 million words requested in a single 24 hour period by 16,000 individual visitors who spent 1,900 hours on site.
Over 3,500 book chapters are downloaded some days - more than half a million over the last few months.
Future of your Business, Family and Wider World by Dr Patrick Dixon, Futurist Speaker, Keynotes on Growth Strategies and Leadership, Lecture Slides, Articles and Videos from Conferences - 15 million unique visitors to MAIN Futurist site (articles / keynotes / videos) - link on right to www.globalchange.com
February 21, 2004
February 20, 2004
Human Cloning - how human cloning is carried out - human cloning latest news and videos about human cloning technology, human embryos and embryonic stem cells, reasons against human cloning
E-mail review received today on human cloning pages above:
comments: Hello, I'm currently working toward an MA in Applied Anthropology at Oregon State University. We're reading a book called, Taking Sides: Health and Society and having class debates and discussion on the topics within. I am participating in a cloning debate next week and have found your Website and book incredibly helpful! I wanted to say, keep up the great work!
Thank you, Carissa
E-mail review received today on human cloning pages above:
comments: Hello, I'm currently working toward an MA in Applied Anthropology at Oregon State University. We're reading a book called, Taking Sides: Health and Society and having class debates and discussion on the topics within. I am participating in a cloning debate next week and have found your Website and book incredibly helpful! I wanted to say, keep up the great work!
Thank you, Carissa
February 18, 2004
February 16, 2004
February 15, 2004
February 14, 2004
books.htm: "'Futurewise' has just been published in 3rd edition (English, Estonian and Latvian - with Russian to follow soon).
Free copies of 'AIDS and You' are available now in English, Spanish and Russian, in bulk, to organisations for distribution in developing countries - from ACET International Alliance website. French, Romanian, Czech, Turkish, Portugese, Swahili, Urdu and Hindi editions will also soon be available in bulk free of charge for organisations working in Africa, Asia, Latin America and former Eastern bloc countries, due to generous partnership with OM and other organisations. A new English edition of 'The Truth about AIDS' will also be available soon on the same basis."
Free copies of 'AIDS and You' are available now in English, Spanish and Russian, in bulk, to organisations for distribution in developing countries - from ACET International Alliance website. French, Romanian, Czech, Turkish, Portugese, Swahili, Urdu and Hindi editions will also soon be available in bulk free of charge for organisations working in Africa, Asia, Latin America and former Eastern bloc countries, due to generous partnership with OM and other organisations. A new English edition of 'The Truth about AIDS' will also be available soon on the same basis."
February 12, 2004
Human cloning latest news
Dr Dixon comments to BBC, IRN, Press Association on latest news of human cloning breakthrough
Korean and US scientists today claim human cloning progress - Woo Suk Hwany of Soeul National University in Korea announced that he had succesfully cloned healthy human embryos, removed embryonic stem cells and grown them in mice. Just a couple of weeks ealier, Dr Panos Zavos made another of his frequent cloning announcements about attempts he and others are making to produce healthy cloned babies. The Korean and US teams are using human cloning technology to try to create stem cell lines which can be used to study disease.
While they are opposed to the abuse of human cloning technology to produce babes, their own cloning advances are making life easier for people like Zavos. Either way, most stem cell research is shifting rapidly away from human embryo cloning and use of embryonic stem cells, to adult stem cell development. Embryonic stem cells are controversial to use (many countries have banned the work), hard to grow, hard to control (can become cancerous), are rejected in the body unless made to order for an individual by cloning, or used in an immune protected site like the brain. That's why the makers of Dolly the Sheep ran out of human cloning money and went out of business. In comparison, there is no shortage of commercial funding for adult stem cell research which is showing spectacular results in treating mice and rats with stroke, heart and spinal cord damage.
Press Association copy:
"Dr Patrick Dixon, an author and expert in the ethics of human cloning, dismissed the idea that today’s announcement marked a breakthrough.
He said: “Except in tissues like the brain, there are huge problems with rejection of these embryonic stem cells if they are introduced into adults.
“It is very difficult for them to grow properly and very difficult to control them,” he said. "The idea that this offers a real breakthrough is based on a scientific nonsense.
“But in this supposedly spectacular benefit lies a serious risk that this technology will be abused.”
He cautioned that developments in these techniques would be “handing a gift” to controversial scientists such as Dr Panos Zavos and Clonaid intent on cloning human babies.
Dr Dixon said embryonic stem cell research was being overtaken by advances using adult cells. "Human cloning technology using embryonic stem cells is very last century. We do not need it.
“It is being overtaken rapidly by the spectacular advances in tissue repair using adult stem cells taken from the person who is unwell.
“Clinical trials are already showing results in people with heart failure while animal studies have shown successful repair in brain after stroke, heart muscle, spinal cord and other tissues.”
Human cloning latest news
Dr Dixon comments to BBC, IRN, Press Association on latest news of human cloning breakthrough
Korean and US scientists today claim human cloning progress - Woo Suk Hwany of Soeul National University in Korea announced that he had succesfully cloned healthy human embryos, removed embryonic stem cells and grown them in mice. Just a couple of weeks ealier, Dr Panos Zavos made another of his frequent cloning announcements about attempts he and others are making to produce healthy cloned babies. The Korean and US teams are using human cloning technology to try to create stem cell lines which can be used to study disease.
While they are opposed to the abuse of human cloning technology to produce babes, their own cloning advances are making life easier for people like Zavos. Either way, most stem cell research is shifting rapidly away from human embryo cloning and use of embryonic stem cells, to adult stem cell development. Embryonic stem cells are controversial to use (many countries have banned the work), hard to grow, hard to control (can become cancerous), are rejected in the body unless made to order for an individual by cloning, or used in an immune protected site like the brain. That's why the makers of Dolly the Sheep ran out of human cloning money and went out of business. In comparison, there is no shortage of commercial funding for adult stem cell research which is showing spectacular results in treating mice and rats with stroke, heart and spinal cord damage.
Press Association copy:
"Dr Patrick Dixon, an author and expert in the ethics of human cloning, dismissed the idea that today’s announcement marked a breakthrough.
He said: “Except in tissues like the brain, there are huge problems with rejection of these embryonic stem cells if they are introduced into adults.
“It is very difficult for them to grow properly and very difficult to control them,” he said. "The idea that this offers a real breakthrough is based on a scientific nonsense.
“But in this supposedly spectacular benefit lies a serious risk that this technology will be abused.”
He cautioned that developments in these techniques would be “handing a gift” to controversial scientists such as Dr Panos Zavos and Clonaid intent on cloning human babies.
Dr Dixon said embryonic stem cell research was being overtaken by advances using adult cells. "Human cloning technology using embryonic stem cells is very last century. We do not need it.
“It is being overtaken rapidly by the spectacular advances in tissue repair using adult stem cells taken from the person who is unwell.
“Clinical trials are already showing results in people with heart failure while animal studies have shown successful repair in brain after stroke, heart muscle, spinal cord and other tissues.”
Human cloning latest news
February 10, 2004
Motivation
Motivation - The Reason for the Crisis
Surveys show there's a huge crisis of motivation in most large corporations, which is why they continue to spend billions of dollars each year on motivation courses, training in motivation, meetings to boost motivation, incentives to strengthen motivation, meetings to analyse problems in workforce motivation, tools to measure motivation, mission statements and so on. Problems in recruitment, productivity and retention, problems of commitment to teams and corporate agendas.
But the motivation gap is fundamental. People are passionate - but mainly about life outside of work. Indeed the very phrase "work-life balance" tells us that most people think that work is the opposite of life. So how did we get to be in such a motivational crisis?
Motivation has moved on and left most corporations behind
One thing is clear: motivation is changing. Just look at the current obsession with work-life balance, which is now a powerful force in every corporation, number one or two career priority for the majority of executives in the US, UK and Japan. Forget the old days when ambition meant rushing up the career ladder. Today the great dual ambition is to have a satisfying job and a fulfilling personal life.
Or take the growing motivation for community action: 60% of all US workers give time each year to work for causes they passionately believe in. The average time gift is 200 hours. If each hour given by a US citizen was charged out at the average industrial wage, you would be talking about an industry as large as 4.5% of GDP or 12% of the Federal budget.
And other countries are similar, whether people are rich or poor, in Western Europe or East Africa Despite all the gloomy pundits some years back, community motivation remains very much alive. But these motivation changes are rarely reflected in corporate policy - or if they are, in a very superficial way. That's because CEOs and senior teams are still over-influenced by last-century management ideology about efficiency, bottom-line profit, shareholder value, return on equity and other motivation - killing fixations.
Management Gurus – high priests of confusion ?
You’ll find that management theory is still mainly built on two things: psycho-theories from one or two centuries ago and also case histories of organisations. Both are rooted in the past, can be based on subjective interpretations of data, and rarely concentrate on motivation. Case histories rapidly date as our world changes – just look at old business books and count the case examples of companies that now don’t even exist, or are basket cases, or riddled with recent scandal - and the old psycho-theories raise many questions. Life in the third millennium has moved on a long way from unproveable nineteenth century introspections about unconscious motives and desires.
You’ll find great business ideas formed often many decades ago about the nature of organizations, team management, excellence at work and the rest. All vital and important things without which no business can survive, but very little that grabs you by the throat when it comes to passion, commitment and motivation.
Hey – if there was, we wouldn’t all be in this mess.
Without management experts we would all be the poorer, with lower productivity, inefficient structures, bad organizations and wasted resources. However it is a historical fact that management fads come and go faster than ever – often in less than a decade - leaving tens of thousands bruised, bashed and confused by each one that sweeps into their organization. You just have to look at a list of business titles published over the last five decades to see that. And these fads actually undermine motivation.
Bashed by all the latest fads
Core competencies, empowerment, balanced scorecard, adhocracy, action learning, 360 degree appraisals, the learning organization, career anchors, champions, decentralization, vertical integration, quality management, re-engineering, down-sizing, psychological contract, mission statement, portfolio working, management by objectives, managerial hierarchies, just-in-time, lateral thinking, emotional intelligence and work/life balance.
First are four top turn-of-the-century gurus: Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, Michael Porter and Gary Hamil. Each has had a huge impact on business thinking today but are not so strong on motivation..
Between them these giants of corporate thinking have contributed a huge amount to corporate efficiency, productivity and effectiveness, generating wealth for millions, contributing to the economy and to society.
What about passion for living?
Great leaders, great visionaries, passionate about their messages – but what do they tell us more generally about human passion for life?
What do they tell us about why people act as they do? The choices they make? The things they feel strongly about? The culture we live in and the changing lifestyles choices people are making?
Of course, all of them have addressed every topic under the sun at one time or another on platforms or in writings, but what happens when you look at the main thrust of their influence?
Peter Drucker
The problem is that Drucker says everything about managing a corporation but far less that captivates the human spirit. Almost nothing about managing personal life as a whole – or about work / life balance or broader motivation issues.
Tom Peters
Tom Peters talks of excellence in companies, and also talks about passion in leadership but says almost nothing about excellence of personal quality of life, why personal commitment to workplace goals is falling and why for most people, their strongest sense of motivation is for the work they are not paid to do, the things they do outside of work, simply because they believe those things are worthwhile.
Michael Porter
Michael Porter talks of being competitive, but people are more than links in a value chain. He has a good understanding of company survival, but a relatively poor understanding of personal survival and of what people are looking for in life. Motivation is hardly at the heart of what he writes or says.
Core competency has become a widely accepted concept, encouraging corporations to focus on strengths. However, finding a company’s core competency, or even changing future corporate history does nothing to motivate me to get out of bed in the morning.
The world’s leading management gurus, on whom hundreds of thousands of management consultants base their work, are relatively silent when it comes to motivation, and are nowhere when it comes to finding one single unifying factor that drives all human action.
And we find the same when we review dozens of other widely respected gurus of management theory. Here are a few more popular buzz-words:
Actions are not the same as understanding passion that drives these actions. Strategy does not necessarily provoke personal motivation. Leadership can encourage motivation but only if it understands what makes people passionate. What's the point of a balanced team if people can’t care less? Leaders doing the right thing is often not the same as having a fired-up workforce. Passion is based on more than mere ideas. Since when did anyone at work get really get excited about a structure? Quality of products and services is hardly the core motivation for individual life, for what we do or what we buy. Re-engineering of the corporation is not the same as re-engineering people’s motivation. Objectives do not provide people with meaning and ultimate sense of purpose. Team psychology is almost irrelevant to question of personal passion and aims in life. “Company-wide quality management” is not the same as connecting with what people feel strongly about. Global branding does nothing to motivate. There is more to motivating people than having great style.
Most recognised authorities on management score low on motivation with the exception of Charles Handy, Edward Schein, Elton Mayo, Elspeth Ross Kanter, and Douglas MacGregor. And most of those who scored high are dead, or retired, and most of their works were published decades ago.
Why corporations have been given such a narrow view of motivation
Why the problem? Well one obvious reason is that he who pays the piper calls the tune and management consultants by definition are asked in by corporations to improve their bottom line profitability, not to massage the inner needs and motivation of their employees, except as a profit-enhancing exercise.
So its hardly suprising that we get on the whole a very narrow view.
One thing is clear: there is one mega black-hole of fresh thinking about motivation, about what really makes people tick, about why people act as they do.
Harness all the passions people have and they will follow you to the ends of the earth.
Motivation
Motivation - The Reason for the Crisis
Surveys show there's a huge crisis of motivation in most large corporations, which is why they continue to spend billions of dollars each year on motivation courses, training in motivation, meetings to boost motivation, incentives to strengthen motivation, meetings to analyse problems in workforce motivation, tools to measure motivation, mission statements and so on. Problems in recruitment, productivity and retention, problems of commitment to teams and corporate agendas.
But the motivation gap is fundamental. People are passionate - but mainly about life outside of work. Indeed the very phrase "work-life balance" tells us that most people think that work is the opposite of life. So how did we get to be in such a motivational crisis?
Motivation has moved on and left most corporations behind
One thing is clear: motivation is changing. Just look at the current obsession with work-life balance, which is now a powerful force in every corporation, number one or two career priority for the majority of executives in the US, UK and Japan. Forget the old days when ambition meant rushing up the career ladder. Today the great dual ambition is to have a satisfying job and a fulfilling personal life.
Or take the growing motivation for community action: 60% of all US workers give time each year to work for causes they passionately believe in. The average time gift is 200 hours. If each hour given by a US citizen was charged out at the average industrial wage, you would be talking about an industry as large as 4.5% of GDP or 12% of the Federal budget.
And other countries are similar, whether people are rich or poor, in Western Europe or East Africa Despite all the gloomy pundits some years back, community motivation remains very much alive. But these motivation changes are rarely reflected in corporate policy - or if they are, in a very superficial way. That's because CEOs and senior teams are still over-influenced by last-century management ideology about efficiency, bottom-line profit, shareholder value, return on equity and other motivation - killing fixations.
Management Gurus – high priests of confusion ?
You’ll find that management theory is still mainly built on two things: psycho-theories from one or two centuries ago and also case histories of organisations. Both are rooted in the past, can be based on subjective interpretations of data, and rarely concentrate on motivation. Case histories rapidly date as our world changes – just look at old business books and count the case examples of companies that now don’t even exist, or are basket cases, or riddled with recent scandal - and the old psycho-theories raise many questions. Life in the third millennium has moved on a long way from unproveable nineteenth century introspections about unconscious motives and desires.
You’ll find great business ideas formed often many decades ago about the nature of organizations, team management, excellence at work and the rest. All vital and important things without which no business can survive, but very little that grabs you by the throat when it comes to passion, commitment and motivation.
Hey – if there was, we wouldn’t all be in this mess.
Without management experts we would all be the poorer, with lower productivity, inefficient structures, bad organizations and wasted resources. However it is a historical fact that management fads come and go faster than ever – often in less than a decade - leaving tens of thousands bruised, bashed and confused by each one that sweeps into their organization. You just have to look at a list of business titles published over the last five decades to see that. And these fads actually undermine motivation.
Bashed by all the latest fads
Core competencies, empowerment, balanced scorecard, adhocracy, action learning, 360 degree appraisals, the learning organization, career anchors, champions, decentralization, vertical integration, quality management, re-engineering, down-sizing, psychological contract, mission statement, portfolio working, management by objectives, managerial hierarchies, just-in-time, lateral thinking, emotional intelligence and work/life balance.
First are four top turn-of-the-century gurus: Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, Michael Porter and Gary Hamil. Each has had a huge impact on business thinking today but are not so strong on motivation..
Between them these giants of corporate thinking have contributed a huge amount to corporate efficiency, productivity and effectiveness, generating wealth for millions, contributing to the economy and to society.
What about passion for living?
Great leaders, great visionaries, passionate about their messages – but what do they tell us more generally about human passion for life?
What do they tell us about why people act as they do? The choices they make? The things they feel strongly about? The culture we live in and the changing lifestyles choices people are making?
Of course, all of them have addressed every topic under the sun at one time or another on platforms or in writings, but what happens when you look at the main thrust of their influence?
Peter Drucker
The problem is that Drucker says everything about managing a corporation but far less that captivates the human spirit. Almost nothing about managing personal life as a whole – or about work / life balance or broader motivation issues.
Tom Peters
Tom Peters talks of excellence in companies, and also talks about passion in leadership but says almost nothing about excellence of personal quality of life, why personal commitment to workplace goals is falling and why for most people, their strongest sense of motivation is for the work they are not paid to do, the things they do outside of work, simply because they believe those things are worthwhile.
Michael Porter
Michael Porter talks of being competitive, but people are more than links in a value chain. He has a good understanding of company survival, but a relatively poor understanding of personal survival and of what people are looking for in life. Motivation is hardly at the heart of what he writes or says.
Core competency has become a widely accepted concept, encouraging corporations to focus on strengths. However, finding a company’s core competency, or even changing future corporate history does nothing to motivate me to get out of bed in the morning.
The world’s leading management gurus, on whom hundreds of thousands of management consultants base their work, are relatively silent when it comes to motivation, and are nowhere when it comes to finding one single unifying factor that drives all human action.
And we find the same when we review dozens of other widely respected gurus of management theory. Here are a few more popular buzz-words:
Actions are not the same as understanding passion that drives these actions. Strategy does not necessarily provoke personal motivation. Leadership can encourage motivation but only if it understands what makes people passionate. What's the point of a balanced team if people can’t care less? Leaders doing the right thing is often not the same as having a fired-up workforce. Passion is based on more than mere ideas. Since when did anyone at work get really get excited about a structure? Quality of products and services is hardly the core motivation for individual life, for what we do or what we buy. Re-engineering of the corporation is not the same as re-engineering people’s motivation. Objectives do not provide people with meaning and ultimate sense of purpose. Team psychology is almost irrelevant to question of personal passion and aims in life. “Company-wide quality management” is not the same as connecting with what people feel strongly about. Global branding does nothing to motivate. There is more to motivating people than having great style.
Most recognised authorities on management score low on motivation with the exception of Charles Handy, Edward Schein, Elton Mayo, Elspeth Ross Kanter, and Douglas MacGregor. And most of those who scored high are dead, or retired, and most of their works were published decades ago.
Why corporations have been given such a narrow view of motivation
Why the problem? Well one obvious reason is that he who pays the piper calls the tune and management consultants by definition are asked in by corporations to improve their bottom line profitability, not to massage the inner needs and motivation of their employees, except as a profit-enhancing exercise.
So its hardly suprising that we get on the whole a very narrow view.
One thing is clear: there is one mega black-hole of fresh thinking about motivation, about what really makes people tick, about why people act as they do.
Harness all the passions people have and they will follow you to the ends of the earth.
Motivation
February 09, 2004
Future of marketing - global business and consumer trends: "Keynote speech by Dr Patrick Dixon for Finland Marketing Federation in Helsinki, audience of 500, plus many other resources on the future of marketing and consumer trends: direct mail, network, email, strategies, ideas, relationship marketing, market research, consumer reports, campaign slogans.
Themes: branding, successful brands, new consumer values, slogans for the third millennium, direct marketing in the mobile digital age, how to reach target groups more effectively, product placement, designing and testing future advertising campaigns, image-building, corporate identity, selling into developing markets, understanding consumer preferences and behavior."
Themes: branding, successful brands, new consumer values, slogans for the third millennium, direct marketing in the mobile digital age, how to reach target groups more effectively, product placement, designing and testing future advertising campaigns, image-building, corporate identity, selling into developing markets, understanding consumer preferences and behavior."
February 08, 2004
Future of banks and financial services - major challenges - Web TV interview with Dr Patrick Dixon Futurist: "Internet banking, banking trends, free internet banking, internet banking uk, compare internet banking, online banking internet banking security information, future of electronic banking, online banking internet banking security, history of internet banking, advantages of internet banking, offshore internet banking, internet security online banking, national internet banking, the history of internet banking."
Future of Banking and Financial Services
See huge number of resources on the future of banking, insurance industry trends, risk management, internet banking, security issues, investment banking, retail banking and private banking.
See huge number of resources on the future of banking, insurance industry trends, risk management, internet banking, security issues, investment banking, retail banking and private banking.
Conjoined twins: Conjoined Twins: Tragedy and Joy - twins with two heads and other treatment dilemmas.
Should doctors decide (or parents or lawyers in courts) whether one should die so the other conjoined twin can live? What are conjoined twins? Two heads on one baby. Moral / ethical issues and debates.
Conjoined twins (or Siamese twins) are often in the news, for example this week following the tragic death of a baby called Rebeca Martinez in the Dominican Republic, born with a two heads - joined at the skull - after doctors operated to remove the additional face, brain and other structures.
We saw another tragedy in 2000 following the arrival in the UK of distraught parents from the Maltese Island Gozo, seeking specialist surgical help to separate their two newborn babies, Jodie and Mary. Pediatric surgeons at St Mary's Hospital in Manchester had no experience of separating conjoined twins but feared that unless they acted fast, both would die. The parents were told that despite appearances, Mary's internal organs were so poorly formed that she could not survive without being joined to Jodie. The parents of the conjoined twins refused an operation, and the case was heard in court. The Judges ordered that the operation should go ahead..... but.....
What are Conjoined Twins?
Conjoined twins are formed from a single egg which develops into two almost separate balls of cells. In normal twinning, each ball becomes an identical twin. As a result cells in conjoined twins become confused about where they are in the body - indeed which of the two conjoined twins they are actually in.
In normal embryo and foetus development every cell knows where it is in the body because the neighbours produce chemical messages. So a skin cell knows not only it is skin, but that it is - say - nose skin, rather than chin or ear or lip skin. In conjoined twins these chemical messages don't work properly - how can they? The end results can be very bizarre: a single organism with two heads, two hearts, four legs and arms - or is that single org"
I once was present in the labour room when a child was born with two heads - yes two heads - on a single set of enlarged shoulders. conjoined twins or just another major abnormality? So then. you can't label all conjoined twins the same. There are huge variations in the degree of joining. Some are born with two bodies and one head for example.
In the case above, the two headed child / conjoined twins was / were stillborn. But what if it / they had stayed alive? What if we had landed up with two thoughtful conjoined twin brains on the same body - perhaps only one actually in control of movements below the neck?
Strangely enough, a surgeon has made an artificial conjoined twin of a monkey, onto which a second head was transplanted. (See video).
The moral debate on separation of conjoined twins
In fact the situation with the conjoined twins in the UK was in a way quite similar. Although at first sight each appeared to have a separate well formed body with some joining at the lower body, detailed tests showed these conjoined twins were very unequal - one was providing the heart, lungs and many other basic functions.
The other conjoined twin was very poorly equipped for separate life. To make matters worse, these conjoined twins, Jodie and Mary, were also to some extent mutually dependent. If separated, the stronger and more capable conjoined twin (Jodie) would need huge amounts of surgery over subsequent years, and was likely to suffer significant handicap.
The parents came in a hurry to the UK because they heard that Britain was expert on the management of conjoined twins, hoping no doubt that both could be separated with few long term problems. The long court battle was decided with doctors being given the right to cut off the weaker conjoined twin, thereby killing Mary, to preserve the life of Jodie - against the parent's wishes. They felt that if the two could not be safely separated then they should be left together and nursed with loving care until natural events took over. Some doctors said that both would soon be dead in that case. Others said that these two conjoined twins could survive far longer with good basic care.
Doctors have second thoughts on separation of conjoined twins
Of course, once the court battle was won by doctors, they began to have second thoughts. It is a brave doctor indeed who is willing to take the knife to two conjoined twins, both of which are at that point alive and growing, and see perhaps both conjoined twins die in the operating theatre or very shortly afterwards. Easier to go ahead if the parents want their conjoined twins separated and understand and accept the risks - but what if you have had to force the whole thing on them in the first place?
And there is another issue. The survivor of these conjoined twins would need huge care efforts and community support. The parents said this was unlikely in their own culture.
A fundamental problem in conjoined twin decisions is that the parents themselves may not always agree, they may each feel differently on different days. It is common for parents to feel somehow that the birth of conjoined twins is their fault, or to blame each other, doctors, society or God. The natural joy of birth has been replaced by overwhelming grief for the loss of what might have been - in this case one or two perfectly normal children. This is a hard place to make life-changing decisions about conjoined twins management.
Doctors should treat with great care
My own view, on balance is that doctors should tread with great care when parents are refusing certain treatments for their children, where the outcome of successful treatment is likely to be severe handicap and loss of quality of life. It is a human right for any human being to refuse medical treatment, and it is the responsibility in the case of children for parents to take those decisions on behalf of their children. In this case the fight was because some doctors disagreed with the parents and wanted to take that responsibility away.
But these parents had come to the UK in good faith, seeking advice on the management of conjoined twins. They did not expect to find themselves imprisoned in the country, forbidden to take their children back home, and forced to take that advice, when they believed it to be morally wrong. Their conjoined children were essentially kidnapped by court, and imprisoned against their parents' will in the UK. That does not sit comfortably with me.
Medicine gone mad
Too many times I have seen medicine gone stark raving lunatic mad with aggressive over-treatment and stupid decisions. Even the Catholic church, traditionally the most conservative in these matters, has taken the position that doctors should not strive officiously to keep someone alive. This is a common issue in the care of those dying of advanced cancer. It was in keeping with this that the Vatican offered a safe refuge and hospice care.
Here is a strange irony: if mother had arrived a day before going into labour, under existing UK law doctors could have killed the conjoined twins in the womb and then forced a labour and buried or cremated them without any fuss whatsoever. The UK has one of the laxest abortion laws in the world. But the moment these two conjoined twins were born, the world began to worry that every possible effort should be used to at least keep one alive.
It would be far safer for the future of humanity if we meddled less, and allowed nature far more room to take its own course, neither slaughtering babies in the womb just hours or minutes before birth, nor going over the top to fight for life at all possible costs after birth.
* The Siamese name often used for conjoined twins comes from the well known twins Eng and Chang born to Chinese parents in Siam (now Thailand). The first surgical separation of Siamese twins was in 1953.
Should doctors decide (or parents or lawyers in courts) whether one should die so the other conjoined twin can live? What are conjoined twins? Two heads on one baby. Moral / ethical issues and debates.
Conjoined twins (or Siamese twins) are often in the news, for example this week following the tragic death of a baby called Rebeca Martinez in the Dominican Republic, born with a two heads - joined at the skull - after doctors operated to remove the additional face, brain and other structures.
We saw another tragedy in 2000 following the arrival in the UK of distraught parents from the Maltese Island Gozo, seeking specialist surgical help to separate their two newborn babies, Jodie and Mary. Pediatric surgeons at St Mary's Hospital in Manchester had no experience of separating conjoined twins but feared that unless they acted fast, both would die. The parents were told that despite appearances, Mary's internal organs were so poorly formed that she could not survive without being joined to Jodie. The parents of the conjoined twins refused an operation, and the case was heard in court. The Judges ordered that the operation should go ahead..... but.....
What are Conjoined Twins?
Conjoined twins are formed from a single egg which develops into two almost separate balls of cells. In normal twinning, each ball becomes an identical twin. As a result cells in conjoined twins become confused about where they are in the body - indeed which of the two conjoined twins they are actually in.
In normal embryo and foetus development every cell knows where it is in the body because the neighbours produce chemical messages. So a skin cell knows not only it is skin, but that it is - say - nose skin, rather than chin or ear or lip skin. In conjoined twins these chemical messages don't work properly - how can they? The end results can be very bizarre: a single organism with two heads, two hearts, four legs and arms - or is that single org"
I once was present in the labour room when a child was born with two heads - yes two heads - on a single set of enlarged shoulders. conjoined twins or just another major abnormality? So then. you can't label all conjoined twins the same. There are huge variations in the degree of joining. Some are born with two bodies and one head for example.
In the case above, the two headed child / conjoined twins was / were stillborn. But what if it / they had stayed alive? What if we had landed up with two thoughtful conjoined twin brains on the same body - perhaps only one actually in control of movements below the neck?
Strangely enough, a surgeon has made an artificial conjoined twin of a monkey, onto which a second head was transplanted. (See video).
The moral debate on separation of conjoined twins
In fact the situation with the conjoined twins in the UK was in a way quite similar. Although at first sight each appeared to have a separate well formed body with some joining at the lower body, detailed tests showed these conjoined twins were very unequal - one was providing the heart, lungs and many other basic functions.
The other conjoined twin was very poorly equipped for separate life. To make matters worse, these conjoined twins, Jodie and Mary, were also to some extent mutually dependent. If separated, the stronger and more capable conjoined twin (Jodie) would need huge amounts of surgery over subsequent years, and was likely to suffer significant handicap.
The parents came in a hurry to the UK because they heard that Britain was expert on the management of conjoined twins, hoping no doubt that both could be separated with few long term problems. The long court battle was decided with doctors being given the right to cut off the weaker conjoined twin, thereby killing Mary, to preserve the life of Jodie - against the parent's wishes. They felt that if the two could not be safely separated then they should be left together and nursed with loving care until natural events took over. Some doctors said that both would soon be dead in that case. Others said that these two conjoined twins could survive far longer with good basic care.
Doctors have second thoughts on separation of conjoined twins
Of course, once the court battle was won by doctors, they began to have second thoughts. It is a brave doctor indeed who is willing to take the knife to two conjoined twins, both of which are at that point alive and growing, and see perhaps both conjoined twins die in the operating theatre or very shortly afterwards. Easier to go ahead if the parents want their conjoined twins separated and understand and accept the risks - but what if you have had to force the whole thing on them in the first place?
And there is another issue. The survivor of these conjoined twins would need huge care efforts and community support. The parents said this was unlikely in their own culture.
A fundamental problem in conjoined twin decisions is that the parents themselves may not always agree, they may each feel differently on different days. It is common for parents to feel somehow that the birth of conjoined twins is their fault, or to blame each other, doctors, society or God. The natural joy of birth has been replaced by overwhelming grief for the loss of what might have been - in this case one or two perfectly normal children. This is a hard place to make life-changing decisions about conjoined twins management.
Doctors should treat with great care
My own view, on balance is that doctors should tread with great care when parents are refusing certain treatments for their children, where the outcome of successful treatment is likely to be severe handicap and loss of quality of life. It is a human right for any human being to refuse medical treatment, and it is the responsibility in the case of children for parents to take those decisions on behalf of their children. In this case the fight was because some doctors disagreed with the parents and wanted to take that responsibility away.
But these parents had come to the UK in good faith, seeking advice on the management of conjoined twins. They did not expect to find themselves imprisoned in the country, forbidden to take their children back home, and forced to take that advice, when they believed it to be morally wrong. Their conjoined children were essentially kidnapped by court, and imprisoned against their parents' will in the UK. That does not sit comfortably with me.
Medicine gone mad
Too many times I have seen medicine gone stark raving lunatic mad with aggressive over-treatment and stupid decisions. Even the Catholic church, traditionally the most conservative in these matters, has taken the position that doctors should not strive officiously to keep someone alive. This is a common issue in the care of those dying of advanced cancer. It was in keeping with this that the Vatican offered a safe refuge and hospice care.
Here is a strange irony: if mother had arrived a day before going into labour, under existing UK law doctors could have killed the conjoined twins in the womb and then forced a labour and buried or cremated them without any fuss whatsoever. The UK has one of the laxest abortion laws in the world. But the moment these two conjoined twins were born, the world began to worry that every possible effort should be used to at least keep one alive.
It would be far safer for the future of humanity if we meddled less, and allowed nature far more room to take its own course, neither slaughtering babies in the womb just hours or minutes before birth, nor going over the top to fight for life at all possible costs after birth.
* The Siamese name often used for conjoined twins comes from the well known twins Eng and Chang born to Chinese parents in Siam (now Thailand). The first surgical separation of Siamese twins was in 1953.
February 06, 2004
The truth about the Iraq war
The Truth about the Iraq War
We can debate the morality and chaotic aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, and miss the bigger picture, which is far wider than the post 9/11 war against terror, or the current crisis among Palestinians and Israelis, or the situation in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or the convulsions in the UN and the EU, or US global dominance and accusations of aggressive imperialism.
The problem of the global village - and the truth about the Iraq war
Here is a simple but fundamental question, which was at the heart of the Iraq war controversy: how is the global village to run and be governed? It’s the hidden basis of the political conflicts in the UN over Iraq and similar issues.
The inescapable fact is that we are moving further every day to a one–world economy without a one–world government or legal structure.
Last-century thinking describes a world of nation states, where national sovereignty is absolute and cannot be violated under international law except to resist aggression and in self-defence. That was the French and German position on the war with Iraq and it has very powerful historical precedent.
But life has moved on. We will need a new model altogether if we are to live in prosperity and peace during the third millennium. That’s because at least 4 billion people are already living in towns, cities or rural areas which are profoundly affected by globalisation and the techno-communication revolution. They are already citizens of the global village, or the global nation of all nations.
The start of a new world order began with war in Iraq
Since the collapse of Communism we have seen the beginnings of a new world order: all nations working together in a semi-democratic global body to seek the common good, for the whole of humanity. It may be primitive and rather innefective, but is becoming more significant.
In the last decade the UN has grown in stature from a feeble committee weakened by bickering, paralysed by a tiny minority of countries who had the right of veto. The UN has become a stronger unifying force in world affairs. That’s why sharp debates over how to discipline Iraq’s government have been all the more shocking.
But don’t be misled by aggressive speeches: when you think back to the days of the Cold War, the consensus amongst developed nations in early 2003 for some kind of significant UN intervention in Iraq’s affairs was overwhelming by historical standards, although you would have been forgiven for thinking the opposite from the media coverage of UN voting intentions.
Lesson from the Cold War
During the Cold War, any threat of military invasion of a country by Russia or America would have produced in most cases immediate counter-threats by the other. As a result most wars were waged by proxy in far away places, between small nations funded and armed by both superpowers.
But in March 2003, despite all the hot air, not one nation in the world offered to fight for Sadam and protect Iraq from American invasion, least of all Russia or China. Not one other national army offered soldiers or weapons to protect Iraq national sovereignty, to liberate the people of Bagdad from foreign US-dominated forces, to underpin survival of the Sadam regime.
Sure, some nations held back, abstaining, remaining neutral. Some national leaders were making strong statements of protest - but these turned out to be only words, not backed by bullets. Where were the countries lining up to sell hundreds of high-tech missiles or tanks or planes to Iraq?
So the strange reality is that while it appears at first sight that the new fragile world order is crumbling into the dust, the opposite may be the case. Of course much depend on how Iraq instabily settles or flares, the early and "successful" withdrawal of US and other foreign troops, life for the Iraqi people post-withdrawal, and the impact on the region as a whole.
The current tensions and conflicts may well fuel further waves of terrorism, especially if the US fails to take a powerful lead, together with international support, to help establish a “just” Middle East peace settlement for both Palestinians and Israelis. It may also lead to destabilising regime changes in other Arab nations, replacing family dynasties with anti-American Islamic fundamentalism in countries like Saudi Arabia. But the current spats are unlikely to lead to destruction of the UN, nor the break up of the EU, nor the rapid neutering of American power - quite the opposite.
The world is far more united than words suggest
The truth is that most nations of the world united in condemnation of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and again in imposing sanctions of many kinds over more than a decade since. They united again post-9/11 in a coalition against terror and more recently in insisting that UN-monitored disarmament took place.
When it came to discussions about weapons inspections and the threat of armed intervention, disagreement was almost entirely over process rather than substance: how disarmament should be achieved, measured, monitored and if necessary imposed, and over what timescale? At what point should the international community conclude that all alternatives to armed intervention have been exhausted? What form should military intervention take under such circumstances? How should it be led and financed? How should the peace be kept, reconstruction proceed and national autonomy be re-established?
Our memories are short. The level of multinational consensus about the need if necessary to intervene in the affairs of rogue states is extraordinary and unusual in world history.
That is why there is such a consensus about Iran now amongst France, Germany, Russia, UK, US, China, India and many other less powerful nations about the need for the international community to act by force if necessary, if Iran continues despite many warnings with an active programme to rapidly develop nuclear warheads.
And so we return to the global village – or rather the global nation of all humanity.
Economically, the world is already operating as a single closely inter-related organism. The problem is that mechanisms for governance, law and order are still primitive – feudal or medieval in nature. We have yet to grow up.
So we have “cities” in the global nation behaving like little kingdoms, taking the law into their own hands whenever it suits them (Russia and America), while at other times appealing to the “government” to impose common will on others.
What of the future? Life after the Iraq war will never be the same
Expect the world-wide love-hate relationship with America to become even more polarised, on the one hand hungrily devouring American media culture, on the other hand increasingly bitter and resentful at American power and lack of sensitivity to how the rest of the world works.
Expect new generations of terrorists to take courage and exact “revenge”, with the aim of “wounding American pride and arrogance”. Every one of them will tell you they are fighting for a higher moral cause.
Expect America to continue to feel deeply hurt, increasingly isolated and angry, the target of frequent terror attacks and general animosity in many places, acting forcefully around the world wherever it feels national interests dictate, and withdrawing to lick its wounds when it does not.
Expect America to be increasingly hostile to the idea of submitting in any respect whatsoever to the will of the global majority, whether on the environment, trade agreements or any other matter, and to be in even less mood to compromise than pre-Iraq War. Expect the US at the same time to make intensive diplomatic efforts to try to win back lost friends, but with ever-deepening suspicion of UN controls, inefficiency, corruption and influence.
In contrast, expect almost the entire rest of the world to invest intensively in the UN as the sole vehicle for solving complex international issues, in a quest to create a more sustainable and peaceful future.
Expect the EU to forge ahead with renewed energy to create structures to balance US power economically and militarily. But the EU will be severely restrained by ongoing internal conflicts, which will be made worse by every new country joining, as well as by unfolding events. Expect the UK to be frozen out of significant decisions by France and Germany who will seize every chance to dominate the future of the EU together, and to humiliate the US. Expect UK doubts to grow about whether it will ever sit comfortably within a Franco-German led federation of EU states. Expect France and Germany to be increasingly worried about rapid enlargement, and dilution of their power by pro-US nations with shaky economies, arguing passionately that the world will be a better place if there is a significant European counter-balance to the US.
Expect several non-European nations to embark on dangerous military adventures, arguing that the US has set a new model for them to copy: “legally” invading other countries when they could possibly be a future threat. India and Pakistan, North and South Korea and so on. These local wars could produce huge problems for the future stability of the world. Expect concerns about this to lead to calls for stronger structures and processes within the UN.
Reforming the UN as a more democratic global authority
A key challenge will be to reform the UN so that it can become more effective and fair as a federation of nations. The current powers of veto are anti-democratic and smack of nineteenth tyranny, held as they are by very few supremely powerful, wealthy nations,
The UN will only carry true global moral authority when each nation is able to cast votes in proportion to it’s contribution to global population, so that each citizen is represented equally without fear or favour. But this is an unthinkable prospect.
Even an idea of such a global assembly will provoke huge reactions in wealthy nations, because it strikes to the root of the most important unsolved problem on the planet today: the fact that most people are extremely poor, with no voice and no vote in world affairs, living off less than $2 a day.
Why global democracy is so unpopular
And so we find an interesting fact: those who live in democratic nations, who uphold democracy as the only honourable form of government, are not really true democrats after all. They have little or no interest in global democracy, in a nation of nations, in seeking the common good of the whole of humanity.
And it is this single fact, more than any other, this inequality of wealth and privilege in our shrinking global village, that will make it more likely that our future is dominate by terror groups, freedom fighters, justice-seekers, hell-raisers, protestors and violent agitators.
The lesson of history is that tyrannies and dictatorships get overthrown, that the will of the majority eventually finds a voice and freedom.
And that is exactly what will eventually happen in our non-democratic, dysfunctional, unjust, global village.
We cannot wind back the clock
We cannot wind the clock back fifty years to a cosy world where these country by country contrasts no longer matter. CNN and Hollywood have seen to that.
On TV screens in the poorest slums on earth, millions of people see their wealthy neighbours go about their daily lives while they scrabble in the dust to find money for basic food and shelter. They have seen the truth.
The digital society created the global village and globalisation the basic rules for trading within it, but neither has taught us how to live together in such a small cultural space. This is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
In a future world where small numbers of activists will wield unimagineable power with dirty bombs, nuclear devices, chemical weapons and strange viruses, our very survival will depend on finding a way to live together in harmony, with freedom and justice for all.
And that will require further extrensions of global governance.
History may record that it took us many decades, possibly, to agree to it – but what will be the pain along the way?
The Truth about the Iraq War
We can debate the morality and chaotic aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, and miss the bigger picture, which is far wider than the post 9/11 war against terror, or the current crisis among Palestinians and Israelis, or the situation in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or the convulsions in the UN and the EU, or US global dominance and accusations of aggressive imperialism.
The problem of the global village - and the truth about the Iraq war
Here is a simple but fundamental question, which was at the heart of the Iraq war controversy: how is the global village to run and be governed? It’s the hidden basis of the political conflicts in the UN over Iraq and similar issues.
The inescapable fact is that we are moving further every day to a one–world economy without a one–world government or legal structure.
Last-century thinking describes a world of nation states, where national sovereignty is absolute and cannot be violated under international law except to resist aggression and in self-defence. That was the French and German position on the war with Iraq and it has very powerful historical precedent.
But life has moved on. We will need a new model altogether if we are to live in prosperity and peace during the third millennium. That’s because at least 4 billion people are already living in towns, cities or rural areas which are profoundly affected by globalisation and the techno-communication revolution. They are already citizens of the global village, or the global nation of all nations.
The start of a new world order began with war in Iraq
Since the collapse of Communism we have seen the beginnings of a new world order: all nations working together in a semi-democratic global body to seek the common good, for the whole of humanity. It may be primitive and rather innefective, but is becoming more significant.
In the last decade the UN has grown in stature from a feeble committee weakened by bickering, paralysed by a tiny minority of countries who had the right of veto. The UN has become a stronger unifying force in world affairs. That’s why sharp debates over how to discipline Iraq’s government have been all the more shocking.
But don’t be misled by aggressive speeches: when you think back to the days of the Cold War, the consensus amongst developed nations in early 2003 for some kind of significant UN intervention in Iraq’s affairs was overwhelming by historical standards, although you would have been forgiven for thinking the opposite from the media coverage of UN voting intentions.
Lesson from the Cold War
During the Cold War, any threat of military invasion of a country by Russia or America would have produced in most cases immediate counter-threats by the other. As a result most wars were waged by proxy in far away places, between small nations funded and armed by both superpowers.
But in March 2003, despite all the hot air, not one nation in the world offered to fight for Sadam and protect Iraq from American invasion, least of all Russia or China. Not one other national army offered soldiers or weapons to protect Iraq national sovereignty, to liberate the people of Bagdad from foreign US-dominated forces, to underpin survival of the Sadam regime.
Sure, some nations held back, abstaining, remaining neutral. Some national leaders were making strong statements of protest - but these turned out to be only words, not backed by bullets. Where were the countries lining up to sell hundreds of high-tech missiles or tanks or planes to Iraq?
So the strange reality is that while it appears at first sight that the new fragile world order is crumbling into the dust, the opposite may be the case. Of course much depend on how Iraq instabily settles or flares, the early and "successful" withdrawal of US and other foreign troops, life for the Iraqi people post-withdrawal, and the impact on the region as a whole.
The current tensions and conflicts may well fuel further waves of terrorism, especially if the US fails to take a powerful lead, together with international support, to help establish a “just” Middle East peace settlement for both Palestinians and Israelis. It may also lead to destabilising regime changes in other Arab nations, replacing family dynasties with anti-American Islamic fundamentalism in countries like Saudi Arabia. But the current spats are unlikely to lead to destruction of the UN, nor the break up of the EU, nor the rapid neutering of American power - quite the opposite.
The world is far more united than words suggest
The truth is that most nations of the world united in condemnation of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and again in imposing sanctions of many kinds over more than a decade since. They united again post-9/11 in a coalition against terror and more recently in insisting that UN-monitored disarmament took place.
When it came to discussions about weapons inspections and the threat of armed intervention, disagreement was almost entirely over process rather than substance: how disarmament should be achieved, measured, monitored and if necessary imposed, and over what timescale? At what point should the international community conclude that all alternatives to armed intervention have been exhausted? What form should military intervention take under such circumstances? How should it be led and financed? How should the peace be kept, reconstruction proceed and national autonomy be re-established?
Our memories are short. The level of multinational consensus about the need if necessary to intervene in the affairs of rogue states is extraordinary and unusual in world history.
That is why there is such a consensus about Iran now amongst France, Germany, Russia, UK, US, China, India and many other less powerful nations about the need for the international community to act by force if necessary, if Iran continues despite many warnings with an active programme to rapidly develop nuclear warheads.
And so we return to the global village – or rather the global nation of all humanity.
Economically, the world is already operating as a single closely inter-related organism. The problem is that mechanisms for governance, law and order are still primitive – feudal or medieval in nature. We have yet to grow up.
So we have “cities” in the global nation behaving like little kingdoms, taking the law into their own hands whenever it suits them (Russia and America), while at other times appealing to the “government” to impose common will on others.
What of the future? Life after the Iraq war will never be the same
Expect the world-wide love-hate relationship with America to become even more polarised, on the one hand hungrily devouring American media culture, on the other hand increasingly bitter and resentful at American power and lack of sensitivity to how the rest of the world works.
Expect new generations of terrorists to take courage and exact “revenge”, with the aim of “wounding American pride and arrogance”. Every one of them will tell you they are fighting for a higher moral cause.
Expect America to continue to feel deeply hurt, increasingly isolated and angry, the target of frequent terror attacks and general animosity in many places, acting forcefully around the world wherever it feels national interests dictate, and withdrawing to lick its wounds when it does not.
Expect America to be increasingly hostile to the idea of submitting in any respect whatsoever to the will of the global majority, whether on the environment, trade agreements or any other matter, and to be in even less mood to compromise than pre-Iraq War. Expect the US at the same time to make intensive diplomatic efforts to try to win back lost friends, but with ever-deepening suspicion of UN controls, inefficiency, corruption and influence.
In contrast, expect almost the entire rest of the world to invest intensively in the UN as the sole vehicle for solving complex international issues, in a quest to create a more sustainable and peaceful future.
Expect the EU to forge ahead with renewed energy to create structures to balance US power economically and militarily. But the EU will be severely restrained by ongoing internal conflicts, which will be made worse by every new country joining, as well as by unfolding events. Expect the UK to be frozen out of significant decisions by France and Germany who will seize every chance to dominate the future of the EU together, and to humiliate the US. Expect UK doubts to grow about whether it will ever sit comfortably within a Franco-German led federation of EU states. Expect France and Germany to be increasingly worried about rapid enlargement, and dilution of their power by pro-US nations with shaky economies, arguing passionately that the world will be a better place if there is a significant European counter-balance to the US.
Expect several non-European nations to embark on dangerous military adventures, arguing that the US has set a new model for them to copy: “legally” invading other countries when they could possibly be a future threat. India and Pakistan, North and South Korea and so on. These local wars could produce huge problems for the future stability of the world. Expect concerns about this to lead to calls for stronger structures and processes within the UN.
Reforming the UN as a more democratic global authority
A key challenge will be to reform the UN so that it can become more effective and fair as a federation of nations. The current powers of veto are anti-democratic and smack of nineteenth tyranny, held as they are by very few supremely powerful, wealthy nations,
The UN will only carry true global moral authority when each nation is able to cast votes in proportion to it’s contribution to global population, so that each citizen is represented equally without fear or favour. But this is an unthinkable prospect.
Even an idea of such a global assembly will provoke huge reactions in wealthy nations, because it strikes to the root of the most important unsolved problem on the planet today: the fact that most people are extremely poor, with no voice and no vote in world affairs, living off less than $2 a day.
Why global democracy is so unpopular
And so we find an interesting fact: those who live in democratic nations, who uphold democracy as the only honourable form of government, are not really true democrats after all. They have little or no interest in global democracy, in a nation of nations, in seeking the common good of the whole of humanity.
And it is this single fact, more than any other, this inequality of wealth and privilege in our shrinking global village, that will make it more likely that our future is dominate by terror groups, freedom fighters, justice-seekers, hell-raisers, protestors and violent agitators.
The lesson of history is that tyrannies and dictatorships get overthrown, that the will of the majority eventually finds a voice and freedom.
And that is exactly what will eventually happen in our non-democratic, dysfunctional, unjust, global village.
We cannot wind back the clock
We cannot wind the clock back fifty years to a cosy world where these country by country contrasts no longer matter. CNN and Hollywood have seen to that.
On TV screens in the poorest slums on earth, millions of people see their wealthy neighbours go about their daily lives while they scrabble in the dust to find money for basic food and shelter. They have seen the truth.
The digital society created the global village and globalisation the basic rules for trading within it, but neither has taught us how to live together in such a small cultural space. This is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
In a future world where small numbers of activists will wield unimagineable power with dirty bombs, nuclear devices, chemical weapons and strange viruses, our very survival will depend on finding a way to live together in harmony, with freedom and justice for all.
And that will require further extrensions of global governance.
History may record that it took us many decades, possibly, to agree to it – but what will be the pain along the way?
February 05, 2004
How to Survive the Future: "FUTUREWISE - How to survive the FUTURE
Six Faces of Global Change - new edition of book just out this month
Managing through the downturn
Many CEOs I know are feeling battered and bruised right now. Hit by one event after another, there's little time to regroup or reflect, and the top of a corporation can be a lonely place. Profit warnings, share price pressures, painful layoffs and great geopolitical uncertainties can sweep away even the most comprehensive strategies - and that's despite outstanding management over many years. (This article was published in Leigh Advisor June 2002)
It's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture in the rush to cut cost and conserve cash. Hopefully you succeed in protecting the business, satisfying shareholders and analysts, but what about morale and momentum in the senior team?
To be a winner in the next three years you need to use the downturn to reshape for growth, propelled by an unshakeable conviction that your mission is still important, that more prosperous times lie ahead, and that in some way your company is helping to build a better kind of world. Your own passion for running the race matters most of all in a downturn when people are insecure and loyalty is tested.
Your corporation's future will be dominated by six factors, or faces of a cube, spelling F U T U R E. So if you are going to cut, then cut carefully for healthy fresh growth, and take the rest of the workforce with you with a renewed sense of direction. And what direction is that?
Fast: The world is changing faster than boards can think, so survival means scenario planning as far as possible before events happen, with rapid response plans, making every dollar count. Market research can't predict the future in a rapidly changing world - it just shows what consumers think. We "
Six Faces of Global Change - new edition of book just out this month
Managing through the downturn
Many CEOs I know are feeling battered and bruised right now. Hit by one event after another, there's little time to regroup or reflect, and the top of a corporation can be a lonely place. Profit warnings, share price pressures, painful layoffs and great geopolitical uncertainties can sweep away even the most comprehensive strategies - and that's despite outstanding management over many years. (This article was published in Leigh Advisor June 2002)
It's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture in the rush to cut cost and conserve cash. Hopefully you succeed in protecting the business, satisfying shareholders and analysts, but what about morale and momentum in the senior team?
To be a winner in the next three years you need to use the downturn to reshape for growth, propelled by an unshakeable conviction that your mission is still important, that more prosperous times lie ahead, and that in some way your company is helping to build a better kind of world. Your own passion for running the race matters most of all in a downturn when people are insecure and loyalty is tested.
Your corporation's future will be dominated by six factors, or faces of a cube, spelling F U T U R E. So if you are going to cut, then cut carefully for healthy fresh growth, and take the rest of the workforce with you with a renewed sense of direction. And what direction is that?
Fast: The world is changing faster than boards can think, so survival means scenario planning as far as possible before events happen, with rapid response plans, making every dollar count. Market research can't predict the future in a rapidly changing world - it just shows what consumers think. We "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)