We are getting older, quickly (again)

About 15 years ago I learned from biologists and modern research that our body is generally able to sustain about 700 years. Only there is something that turns us off at about 70 - 80 on average. Plus our metabolism as well as our understanding of the metabolism is too weak to help us get much older. But this all is changing rapidly.

Life expectancy between 3,000 BC and 2,400 AD

About 5 years ago I found a striking sentence in a book about Gilgamesh where he said to his friend "Before the great flood people were much older than now". I started to explore average life expectancy and a ton more data. The result in a nutshell is this:
Before the great flood, in accordance to the Bible, people were indeed several hundred years old. During the great flood we seem to be genetically crippled (like through a nuclear accident) and our life expectancy collapsed to about 24 years in no time.

Then around 1900 an unparalleled process began: We became older and older as you can see in the graph. I picked life expectancy data from Europe, Middle east and Asia from resources like Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia and dozens of Internet sources.

The economic impact of getting much older is enormous. The German government is actually exploring to lift the retirement age to 70 years.

If the typical trend analysis of biological development, following the curve up to today is applicable, we can recognize this rapid growth effect until we get "back to normal" at around 2,400 B.C. and will get 600 years on average.

What Does That mean?

The answer is filling a book (right now) and would much exceed the size of a blog post, but are some topics to explore:

1) We will need to mentally prepare ourselves and others to deal with a much longer life
2) We will work longer - or better said be much longer productive
3) We need to understand that career change is no longer an option but will happen anyway as demand in workplaces change
4) Long term projects are much more feasible than in the past
5) Protecting what we created is maybe less important than being able to cut loose and restart something new
6) Think of a career change with 65, do that for 30 years and then do something completely different again for another 20 or so years
7) Build some resting phases into your life as you won;t sustain a non stop productive life (not the next 2-3 generations)
8) Understand that you are able to support a longer life with a mental engagement
9) Be prepared for a more flexible retirement and age care policy as some will be much longer productive than others and age is no longer the only marker in that process
10) Recognize that you will life longer than you planned to in the past and your current retirement funds will need to be extended. Your kids in turn will live even longer and have to prepare much differently.
11) Governments will need to collaborate with health care, age care and work force organizations to model the new reality for their own financial structure.
12) The good news - longer productivity will fill the insurance and health care pockets to be able to manage the new situation.

This was a question asked in a LinkedIn group and I thought I do the long answer as blog post.

1) The most significant new thing in the next 30 years: Age Management
We will recognize that Baby Boomers life to 110 - 130 years of age.
Our kids may turn 150 and kids born in 2040 may become 180+
The German government is actually this year (2010) exploring to lift retirement age to 70. In the next 20 years we will need to come up with a new "flexible retirement mechanism" as some will be able to work longer than others. Imagine the complexity.
Some of us will recognize that aging on top of all biological/physical changes is somewhat dependent on our mental stage - I plan to become 150 - 180. That means projects of 50 years in length are absolutely possible under one team, or many who plan to retire with 70 can't because there are another 50 years in front of them or the dream of living much longer may become a night mare to some. Political leadership is challenged to prepare their nations for new educational models (start a new career with 65, do that for 30 years and then be prepared to do some totally new crazy ass stuff)

2) Global Leadership
I am analyzing leadership cycles since 20 years. The rise and the fall of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Great Britain, US, Japan, China... There is one striking communality:
>>> If a society is spending more time and resources on protecting their assets and status quo, than risking it, they are at the end of their leadership cycle <<<. Japan became a co-leader with the US in terms of technology, infrastructure, productivity without most US citizen even noticing it, still believing the US is the leading nation. Australia and Europe are today's most prosperous societies, with very low unemployment rate and high degree of innovation, productivity, infrastructure investments and technology. One of them will be taking leadership by 2020 and be dominant by 2040.

3) Innovation
Nobody knows what is the main innovation in 2040 but with some time and energy we could predict it. Computers, Internet, Nano Technology, Bio Technology, Gene Technology, Social Media are all innovations that had it's roots 20 years before a break through. So 2040 is 10 years too far off but a prediction to 2030 maybe:

- Active Age deceleration, gaining 10 - 30 years
- Combination of development in astrophysics and commercially profitable projects may open new doors for space travel and even deep space engagements
- Bio augmentation. We are somewhat able to do things already and we will massively augment our biological capabilities with synthetically bio engineered "add ons" - piercing is just a precursor to something very different.
- Sociological / Spiritual innovation. Societies became more spiritual when the society is facing trouble - seeking for some spiritual help. For the first time we see spiritual engagements and interest in economic up times. Something on that end will happen in the next 30 years.

4) Democratization of influence
The way we influence in business and politic will change in its foundation - and we see it already very prominently. We will bring the traditional mechanism of democracy (the way we practice it today) to a halt and will need to rethink how we organize our society. There is quite a risk of anarchy involved - but I trust we will make it work at the end of the day. ;) 50+ years ago participation in voting was below 50%. Only those people voted who felt they have an idea what they vote on. The weaker the political parties where, the more they motivated everybody to "execute their right" - to a point where the majority voter has no idea what they are actually voting for other than a few clips on TV, well prepared speeches and advertising campaigns worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The educated voter is a minority and force a party to create a political model that is attractive to those who are influencer with no expertise. I love the movie Ideocracy.

Most of my shorter term predictions where pretty good - so will see you in 2040 for a review. :)

In the last few days National Geographic published stunning photos with never seen before accuracy from the sun and a sun spot.

It made me wonder:How can we recognize a spot that is pitch black - while the sun is so bright, that we can't look into her with our nacked eye? Sure I'm not the first asking this question but another phenomenon made me think: Some of the solar flairs close to the sun's surface are also black. But black is just a frequency in the spectrum of the visible light and if something sparks across the surface of an object as bright as the sun - there is no "black".

A quick background note:
When I was at university, part of my work was on plasma physics. We tried to fuse Deuterium with Tritium - it never worked though. But I remember the effects of a black hole and why it is black - not the color black but black because no visible light is emitted or reflected - like the sun spot.

So are these sun spots actually black holes - or more accurately visible nuclear fusions so intense that they actually absorb anything including light?

I actually begin to think so.

If we watch some of the massive solar flairs and listen to explanations we hear about enormouse explosions that fire the flairs up into the ether. But if we watch very closely to one of those most recent clips we recognize something different:

It looks like the surface is lifting a bit like a bubble and than an enormouse pull accelerates that surface matter into what looks like an explosion but is actually more like a magnetic suction of matter towards a few spots - the sun spots. Black hole is probably no longer just a hole but actually an area of extraordinary high energy concentration and mass.

Microsoft, Playboy Magazine and Harley Davidson are still pretty strong brands with lot's of fans. BUT...

They all stand still.

Microsoft never really caught up with the Internet, running behind with everything the Internet had offered and toady it's just a 35 year old desktop software company. After the failure with Internet: SaaS. Microsoft failed to open up, becoming part of the SaaS evolution. They called it "Software + Service" which in itself was proof that they didn't even understand what SaaS really was. Then social media - there is nothing MS has to offer. Now cloud computing. MS is investing hundreds of millions in infrastructure nobody is using. Mobile computing, e-learning, SaaS, Social Technology, nothing the old company has even a tiny bit of authority or reputation.

ETRE 1996 was when I met Bill Gates last time in person. He talked about IBM and why Microsoft will never be like IBM. Back than IBM was a behemoth company and MS still an agile growth company. But he was right - IBM is reinventing itself over and over Microsoft never did. More sad though, if you analyze the key products of Microsoft - not a single one was really a Microsoft innovation. DOS wasn't, Windows wasn't, the spreadsheet wasn't, the database wasn't, not even Word was a Microsoft innovation. All Microsoft did was buying some cool technology cheap. But cool stuff ain't be cheap any longer and so MS is not buying any longer. All that's left as an old microcomputer software company. The last refuge MS had was it's massive global channel. But also that is deteriorating. From about 860,000 resellers in 2000 down to 640,000 in 2010. Where did the 220,000 resellers go? To a competitor? No - most ceased operation because they were no longer able to compete with the new technology.

Harley Davidson is still a cool motor bike for the baby boom generation - but the customers are literally dying out. Playboy's Hugh Hefner tries to buy back the magazine so it can't be sold to Penthouse - but it would probably just die with Hefner one day. Microsoft seems having the same destiny. All were great companies - yet only a microscopic number of great companies survive.

Is there a way to get either company back on track? They need to learn how DNA reproduction works. If one allele overrides the instructions from another, it is called the dominant allele, and the allele that is overridden is called the recessive allele. In the case of a daughter with both green and brown alleles, brown is dominant and she ends up with brown eyes.  Although the green color allele is still there in this brown-eyed girl, it doesn't show.

There may still be entrepreneurial spirit in any of the companies - but it doesn't show any longer. They would need other dominant alleles to get the entrepreneurial spirit to work - IBM seemed to have found that formula.

You and I read many blogs about someones business, latest technology, greenhouse effects, some sailors blog and what have you. For me personally one stands out - I actually "view" (nothing really to read) almost all the time:

Celementine's Reflection of me

This is an outstanding blog because it makes you stop, it makes you forget the world aroud you andtakes you into an ever changing wonder world - in part because it makes you wonder and in part because it's full of wonders.

Axel

http://xeesm.com/AxelS
(my social map)

The “new enterprise” as I call it is a network of highly engaged individuals or groups of individuals that may constitute the most successful organizations in the future – actually organism is probably better than organization. However it will be quite challenging to build the first of such “new enterprises” as many potential customers may require an organization they used to deal with: a big company. Only time will tell how this part of the business shift evolves. Here is an article from Gary Hamel "Three forces that will transform management" @ the McKinsey Blog that I highly recommend reading.

Let me share some vision for a structure where innovative leaders may create a company in the following way:
1) Innovation
A new product idea based on identified needs.

2) Development
Developing a prototype with some connected organizations (not employees), picking the best talents out there.

3) Crowd Sourcing
Giving the product to the market for tests and feedback. Crowd based product evaluation and vetting. The crowd becomes the best product managers.

4) Feedback
Refining the product with the development teams and further feedback cycles. The users are testers and the Q+A team. The primary benefits to them: A lower cost product – but more importantly the product they want!

5) Sales
With the maturity of the product, identifying business partners who want to introduce the product to their customers, friends, networks – some may be as commercially oriented as manufacturers reps, yet with all their energy and enthusiasm some may be just friends and contacts in the social networks. In this very model there is no employed sales force.

6) Social Marketing
Then further broadening the market through the social web by providing platforms for the early adopters and advocates who like what they see and spread the word. In this model there is no marketing department, no marketing employees. Maybe one person helping orchestrate the social platforms and discussions.

7) Production
Like in many cases today, production is done by outsourced production companies. Smaller more flexible units may emerge to build parts in better quality with more motivated talents.

8) Management
Management is the new challenge. Managing such a company requires not only a new way of thinking but an understanding of the changing buying behavior, the shifts in our society and the rapidly growing desire for more personal recognition and freedom.

9) Overhead
Such a company shrinks to a nucleus of maybe a 2-3 and later on a dozen people. A traditional business equivalent in size may have 100 times more employees.

10) Strategy
Innovation is now part of the core fabric of such a company, not business process automation, sales, marketing… The new enterprise is actually “just” an innovator not a producer or seller or provider.

We are actually building such a product with such a company: XeeSM

Axel
http://xeesm.com/AxelS

P.S. My spelling and grammar