On Breed-to-Kill Operations in Africa

The best counter argument to the validity of breed-to-kill as 'conservation' operations is that true conservation is about maintaining an entire ecosystem, not just a single species.

To use the example of so called 'big game'; the point of conserving lions is so that the food chain hierarchy stays intact. Without top level predators the whole system often collapses. Breeding lions and releasing them into the wild artificially inflates populations. For this reason, release-to-kill is still irresponsible despite any perceived 'conservation' benefits.

Even if the raising of those lions take's place in captivity it is no more about 'conservation' than farming animals for food (or perhaps even worse, farming animals for the sole purpose of taking pleasure in killing them seems abhorrent, try explaining that to a child. Death, if necessary should be metered with the greatest respect for the being who is sacrificed. Pleasure should in no way be a part of killing).

Additionally,if the raising of lions takes place in the wild, then breeding them in numbers greater than what the ecosystem can support for the sake of being able to 'hunt' them also in no way constitutes 'conservation'.

Pretty much the only way that breeding or killing lions could be considered conservation is if the populations are being actively managed as part of an overall ecosystem stewardship program taking into consideration all aspects of the ecosystem.

The ultimate goal would be to have breeding and culling conducted by state-sponsored wildlife officers, paid a regular wage. In the future, this may be a possibility for Africa but at present it's not even possible in Australia.

We offer rewards for private hunters for the killing of foxes, wild cats and many other introduced animals. If African conservation institutions wish to allow private hunters to assist in population management in the interim, fine, it's a step along the way, but to be breeding, releasing and killing with no regard for the ecosystem as a whole and for no other reason than pleasure, that is just wrong.
Also, any good hunter only shoots when he is sure to kill. Amateurs maiming bred-to-kill animals is disgusting.

Unfortunately though, I don't think bred-to-kill lions are one of Africa's larger problems, Ebola springs to mind, also the premature death of child soldiers is still to much of a concern in parts of Africa.

The only way to solve lower level issues like breed-to-kill programs is to solve the basic needs of humanity living in Africa.

Creating economic prosperity in a sustainable manner so that the majority of African residents receive education and are capable of being the future builders of the governments that will solve problems like that of breed-to-kill programs is the first and foremost cause.

It is about reducing the barriers to obtaining education for all people living in Africa. Reducing these barrier is the only way lions and other 'big game' will stop being bred to kill in the long run.

It is impractical to implement incrimination laws in every country from which hunters originate. Legislation would need to be passed in likely 50+ countries to have any impact and the infrastructure to police that legislation would also need to be implemented.

The only way to save Africa's lions and other 'big game' is to encourage the economic growth of Africa in a sustainable way.

Oh the tyranny of the limited resource allocation decision.

Trust and Value

If human survival is largely determined by our capacity to predict the future, then the capacity to predict our fellow human being's behaviour is a survival advantage.

To trust someone is to believe you have the capacity to be able to predict how they will behave in a given situation. The more you trust someone, the more confident you are that you can predict their behaviour in a wide range of contexts.

Any tool we have that may help us to predict our neighbour's future behaviour therefore has survival value

Take money, fiat currency in particular, it is nothing more than a socially agreed unit of trust. If I exchange this much of 'x' good or service with you for 'y' quantity of currency unit, I can exchange 'y' quantity of currency units with any member of the same social grouping for 'x' amount of goods or services. 

An agreed upon enforcement mechanism within the social grouping allows individuals within the grouping to trust each other without building a relationship - i.e. observing a person's behavioural responses for a long enough period of time and across various contexts to accurately predict their future behaviour. This is reliant on the consistency with which the group enforces agreed the upon rules.  

Given the above, the fundamental unit of value is trust. It therefore follows that the only unit worth attempting to gain control of is trust.

If this line of reasoning is followed three ideas become apparent:

1. If whatever you are doing is not building more trust than it's consuming, it's not worth doing.

2. Activities who's outcomes are impossible to predict (games of chance) and therefore do not create trust even if engaged with repeatedly are not worth pursing. The end result will always be a zero-sum.

3. In order to create trust (value), it is necessary to combine inputs in such a way that they produce a more reliable outcome. The trust output must be greater than the trust inputs. The sum must be greater than it's parts. 

In conclusion: trust, the capacity to predict future behaviour, is the fundamental unit of survival value and is represented in our modern world by fiat currency. The only way to 'get rich' is to create trust, once trust is created, people will exchange the community's trust for your trust in them. You therefore start to control a larger pool of the overall societal trust.

Please comment, all points of view welcome, in fact, pick holes right through it!

Fact Co.Create: 10 Ways to Create an Open Culture

I thought I'd share this as open cultures are so important to innovation. I personally am very involved in designing and creating organisational structures and this article really speaks to what I have found to be successful in fostering an innovative community in which people don't feel like they have to work hard but they do because they want to!

http://www.fastcocreate.com/1681531/10-ways-to-create-an-open-culture

“So Jobs created Apple in his own image, in the image of Jobs he created Apple...”

Few company’s histories are as much a part of the global psyche as that of Apple Inc. (Apple Computer Inc pre 2007, http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/apple-drops-computer-from-name/ ). Apple has managed to capture the attention and devotion of a sizeable portion of the personal digital device marketplace.

To me, one ad, in fact one Keynote address, sums up the story which is the driving engine behind the brand. This is Steve Jobs 1983 Keynote address to introduce the new Macintosh and Apple’s break-away campaign (from LA based agency Chiat\Day, now TBWA\Chiat\Day https://www.tbwachiat.com/)

This iconic Keynote address defined a story which, in my opinion continues to define the Apple Brand today.

The story of the underdog, winning against insurmountable odds, is a story that has been told over and over and over for millennia - across cultural bounds - and it is the story which Steve Jobs so artfully wove around Apple Inc. from the very beginning (“A small, fledgling company...”(Steve Jobs, 1983)). 



I think he found weaving this story particularly easy because, in many ways, Apple was the externalisation of his own journey and beliefs. As was demonstrated when he left the company and then returned to it; Steve Jobs left and so did the heart and soul of the brand, Steve Jobs returned and Apple was back. Steve Jobs and Apple were essentially two halves of the same identity. Apple’s values and ideals were Steve Job’s values and ideals: and visa versa.

(Just for fun: a paraphrasing of Genesis 1:27 also sums up Steve Jobs’ relationship to Apple: “So Jobs created Apple in his own image, in the image of Steve Jobs he created Apple...”. Unlike the devine creators experience, Steve Jobs’ experience was more a symbiotic co-evolution, with one shaping the other, than a direct creation. But anyway, back to the story.)

The story of the hero’s journey is a story which has always, and I believe always will, intrigue us (see Joseph Campbells’s “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell#The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces).

I propose that we are deeply connected to this story because it is a story we can all relate to, it is the story of the individual struggle to form an identity, it is the story of becoming ‘someone’.

The personal battle to form an identity is a struggle we all face in our path through life. We are constantly forced to ask ourselves the question: “Who am I?” For example, when we are offered a new job or when we enter a new relationship; the fork in the road confronts us forcing us to answer the question: “Who am I, and who do I want to be?” We are compelled to shape our own identity lest it be shaped for us.

This drive to determine who we are - our identity - is what Apple’s story tapes into. The fundamentally need for self-actualisation (see Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs#Self-actualization ).

However the strength of Apple’s brand lies not just in the story, but more importantly it is given credit by the fact that it actually lived out this story. As history would reveal, this small, fledgling company, did in fact go on to fight and win, against great odds, the battle to determine it’s own identity. 

Apple’s story is a very human story and I think this is why Apple’s computers appeal so strongly to the artistic community, Apple’s brand identity puts the humanity back into the machine. 

As with so many myths, Apple’s story gives us not just hope in the face of fear, but also tells us how to act in uncertain times, it tells us how we too, can self-actualise; by striving for the ideals of beauty, simplicity and function.

(In my view, Apple’s continued growth is partly due to the fact that it’s story positions it as an antidote to Durkheim’s anomie and Marx’s alienation, evermore prevalent in today’s industrialised world)

Apple’s brand narrative is more than simply the old and incredibly boring ‘Buy Apple and you will be self-actualised’ problem/solution model, Apple’s story transcends base consumerism (recognise need, buy pre-packaged solution) and instead offeres empowerment. 

Apple’s brand identity is fundamentally about ideals and the self-determination available to each and every  individual and to humanity as a whole greater than the sum of it's parts.

Thoughts and comments welcome!

(As an aside: if you take the above interpretation to be true it is little wonder people often liken Apple evangelists to religious fanatics http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/tech/apple.religion_1_apple-store-apple-employees-brains?_s=PM:TECH).