Standards

—  Standards  —

Common sense says we need standards. A lack of standards slows down adaptation and decreases resilience for a society. Conversely, if we take rapidly advancing technology out of the market equation, through standards, we facilitate technological and societal progress. As well, if we do not maintain social standards, our society will decay. While an evisceration of social standards facilitates chaos.

In the case of technology and adaptation, a lack of standards strangles development and deployment through indecision, fear of purchasing an obsolete technology–and consequently–a lack of industry commitment. Standards always impact an advancing technology; consider the Internet and the EV (Electric Vehicle). The Internet has been around since the 1960s. The use and notion of an electric vehicle has been around far longer than that. The Internet is every bit as complex as the EV, but it blossomed while electric vehicles are on a slow path to nowhere. Some say EV prices are too high, the charging iffy. The technology is in flux and the range is just okay. All told, does anyone really expect the consumer to consider a $30,000 gamble? Therefore, the market says: “Call me when you get it right.” Even though very few doubt the electric vehicle is the right answer for transportation. Electric vehicles are struggling due to a lack of standards. The Internet became ubiquitous because of standards.

In the case of social standards, a standard provides security; for example, human is a standard. It is silly to call a murderer a saint or a lifeless entity human. The creation of false ideas, like the corporation-as-citizen, undermines security, obliterates the worth of humans, and society withers. Our common sense tells us a corporation is not a person, nor a citizen. Yet we see corporations impacting social values, stealing candidates’ worth through graft, and corrupting the legal process. So while these events are very human, they are not tempered with a consciousness, an emotional framework, the reflection of aging, and most importantly, family. People disconnect from a society when they see themselves catapulted into a sub-class that only prospers if it feeds the maw of corporate desire. Society crumbles.

Consider the corruption of the word “citizen”. The Supreme Court has ruled that multinational corporations are US citizens, and that they have citizen rights. The blatant absurdity is pitiless, the affirmation deceitful in content as well as objective, and the declarers worth our scorn. Unless you define our nation by the amoral needs of the multinational corporation–a market, order, and growth–rather than the needs of humans–liberty, freedom, and the right of humans to self-determination. A multinational corporation could hold dozens of citizenships and no loyalty to any nation. The needs of the mega-citizen usurp the needs of the nation. The synthetic entity seeks to feed itself through its minion of arms, legs, and brains–humans legally bound to the needs of the mega-citizen–without regard to any single human. Common sense says the mega-citizen is an impediment to the process of societal growth and humans cannot be subservient to the corporate lust for markets.

Did I convince you of anything? I thought not. Okay, let’s have an argument about advancing technology and standards.

Some say the real factor for EVs is the marketplace–that the consumer does not want an electric vehicle. Fear of technological obsolescence tempers consumer purchases and limits change. Does anybody want to buy my audio cassette player, my Polaroid camera, or a plasma TV? We have all found ourselves with products made obsolete by technology. Thus, we have all been taught to consider the technology-leap as a huge factor in our technology-based purchases. We all know EV systems will get better so we wait: Technology–the solution–is the cause of the pause in our acceptance. Removing the pause is a step forward in consumer acceptance and adaptation in EV.

Next argument: Standards are too early in this market cycle. They will limit growth and close doors. Did you ever hear the joke about the size of a horse’s posterior and the space shuttle? It’s proof that the argument against early standard adoption is nonsense. People are already working on the standards for EV. Early standards facilitate market acceptance by providing a framework. And of course, intelligent development of the carrying framework (standard) is a key.

Next argument: EVs are too expensive. In truth, they are just too expensive of a gamble. If an EV were to cost five thousand dollars, EVs would be selling just fine. Standards allow for cheaper production costs, attainable through effective planning and efficient execution. That way, corporations know their tooling purchases and other investments cannot be made obsolete–so long as they follow the standards. A technology standard in an advancing consumer market causes prices to drop. Just look at the computer on your desk. It is nothing more than a set of standards that implement rapidly changing technology.

Next argument: If you tie all this into the uncertainty of how we should adjust to the changing climate, any strategy is doomed to failure. Coping with a rapidly changing climate requires acceptance of rapidly advancing technology. For the EV: Interface standards, form factors, and analog standards enhance our ability to adapt by taking technology out of the equation. The EV challenge is to facilitate the acceptance of the solution–the way standards and graphics did it for the Internet. The hypertext transfer protocol (http) of the Internet (Arpanet) facilitated the advance of another standard, the World Wide Web (WWW), a domain developed by a bunch of physicists at CERN (scientists who throw little particles around). WWW facilitates graphics, rather than just text. With the use of graphics, the Internet took off. Today we just type “http://www”, or “www”, to get around the complex set of networking standards we call the Internet–or we click on the mouse standard.

Markets will wait for certainty. A nationwide EV strategy that declares EVs will adjust to new technologies decreases risk and facilitates acceptance. This applies to every part of our adaptation process to the changing climate. If people believe their purchases will rate high on their value curve, they are more likely to buy. This fosters adaptation and new markets. A lack of standards increases risk for everyone, even the mega-citizens.

Okay, so what about the mega-citizens?

• Problem One: A large corporation (mega-citizen-one) invests in a technology–heavily–and so it wants to push that technology and make it a standard.
• Problem Two: Another large corporation (a different mega-citizen) invests in a technology–heavily–and it wants to make that the standard. The result is gridlock in development, while the mega-citizens duke it out and waste resources.
• Problem Three: That large corporation (mega-citizen-one), decides the best course of action is getting more support, so it enlists the acceptance of its standard by other multinational corporations.
• Problem Four: The other mega-citizen does the same to protect its interests. Welcome to more gridlock. Welcome to now.
• Problem Five: Corporate adaptation is dependent on market valuation of its stock, not environmental or social concerns.

We don’t have the time to wait for synthetic entities to experience equity-based-transcendence and commit to EVs. An effective government is the key, one not beholding to the whims of the mega-citizen. The Department of Defense developed the Arpanet and the result is the Internet. Their leadership is the model for now, because, well, it’s the Department of Defense–and today–our nation could use some defending. We also cannot wait for our big brothers, the multinational corporations, to structure feigned cooperation so they can gorge on profits in this new climate. And insofar as CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), that’s like declaring piranhas can be vegans.

If we concentrate on individual technology silos, or corporate objectives, we will miss the forest for the burning trees–with apologies to Mr. Lodgepole. (By the way, I hear he is doing fine, despite the firing.) Okay I am finished arguing.

The key to rapidly adapting our vehicles and our lifestyle in this new climate is the ability to transparently swap out technology; upgrade systems as the adaptation process advances, and not slow down resilience because of technological myopia or corporate valuations. What sense does it make to add the roadblock of corporate stock price to societal needs? The tail is wagging the dog. We need an effective program pulling technological change and corporate objectives out of the adaptation equation. That is the key for our hurried technological adjustment to anthropogenic forcing of the radiative balance. A program like that is what a 21^st Century Manhattan Project looks like in our rapidly changing climate. It cannot be run by the mega-citizens. Corporations have no common sense and their interests run counter to supporting the individual citizen. (If this were not the case, manufacturing jobs would not have been shipped overseas to enhance corporate profit.)

There is another Manhattan-style project that facilitates our response to the changing climate: Remove citizen rights from the multinational corporations. Synthetic humans, corporations, should have no right to govern humans. If I work for a corporation (and I have worked for three Fortune 500 Corporations), I am bound by their rules. Otherwise, I am not bound by their rules, needs, objectives, nor should I be. This is a free nation, not a corporate incubator. Humans govern humans–synthetic entities may not. Giving incorporeal entities dominion over humans is evil.

For your viewing pleasure, cut and paste into your browser . (I thought you might like to read the URL.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougguthrie/2012/02/14/corporations-personhood-conferred-citizenship-earned/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-26/the-supreme-court-s-cowardice.html