The Vision Pioneers Blog

by Miriam Garvi

In this age of technological advancement, so much that was once unheard of has come within our reach. Old barriers are broken as we venture into space or create clones of the living. The enormity of resources that are poured into making scientific progress and creating markets for technology is a testament to how strongly the world holds on to its belief in the power of knowledge.

This last decade is favoring growth-oriented strategies that rely on innovation, entrepreneurship and venture capital to generate such growth that will be valued on financial markets. Little is said, however, about what kind of ideas are brought about and whether we believe that they are actually doing good, not just promoting a strategic agenda. The questions that we do not raise are fundamental in their simplicity: what is the purpose, and whom is it all for?

Our belief in knowledge springs from the assumption that any added building block brings the world enlightenment. In our efforts to exploit and manipulate nature so as to satisfy the growth agendas of our times, the natural is no longer good enough. Instead, we welcome industrially-processed substitutes that are labeled «improvements». And so we put ourselves at the mercy of streamlining profiteers, buying frozen chicken that has been «neutrally marinated» in water and food conservatives simply because someone just realized that the artificial replacing the genuine was a profitable strategy. Less of the genuine; more of the artificial, even as more people around us suffer from cancer and we see our nature going down the drain.

Implications of knowledge, but what of wisdom?

The source of wisdom?

What good is technological advancement, unless it allows for meaningful progress and prosperity for mankind? Can we claim to be enlightened, if we consume what is at our disposal, with no concern for the legacy that we will be leaving behind?

The theory of devolution tells us that everything started from a high and has been slowly deteriorating ever since. In this light, the need is imminent to move away from a foundation that is flawed, looking to discover a different source, one that will give rise to meaningful richness in all its diversity.

by Miriam Garvi

With so many quasi-ideas out there being endorsed by the big money, it is funny how difficult it can be for people with real commitment to find the resources they need to do something good. Quasi-ideas have a remarkable way of ending up in fancy packages, and they are never on display without their wrapping.

So when the dean of a business school I happen to know very well becomes involved with a company for mobile learning, proposing to supply teaching programs for the people of Africa or for hundreds of millions of farmers in China, I am intrigued. Being “of the world, by the world, and for the world” is deluxe wrapping indeed, but what benefit is intended for the citizens of African countries or the farmers in China, and how does it relate to their true needs?

When hearing this, I wonder whether teaching the world through a mobile interface is in fact a superior pedagogical idea, or if it is simply an easy way of re-churning pre-recorded messages to the greatest possible audience.

During the Internet boom almost ten years ago, e-learning was hot, and any business adding an e- prefix to its idea could retain astonishing amounts of venture capital. Today it appears that by changing the prefix to m- (mobile learning or m-learning) and dreaming of conquering the world, pockets will be filled once again. Only this time instead of JP Morgan and others we have government institutions such as the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) willing to endorse any dreamer of a «mobile academy» that will target the Third World. But to what purpose?

So many ideas are brought about not because we believe they will be good for the world, but because they might be an opportunity to make more money, enhance careers, or make better connections. And with the right packaging, the client becomes the excuse that legitimizes us making ourselves the beneficiary of it all.

Every once in a while, I have this wish that we would do away with the glossy paper and the fancy bows and see things for what they actually are. And in that light, we might come to recognize those treasures that are truly worth their weight in gold. The ones that impress without the wrapping.

Those are the ideas worth fighting for.

by Miriam Garvi

Ten years ago, as I was busy interailing across Europe, interviewing Scandinavians abroad for my master’s thesis, I was fascinated by how the Internet was providing new opportunities for people to settle down and work from a location of their own choosing. In my business studies, I had seen little or no room for the individual, and I embraced the idea of «quality of life» as something that would acknowledge the diversity of people’s driving forces.

One common notion these days is that quality in life equals work-life balance, translating into expectations of success on all arenas including the professional, private/family, private/social and private/hobby spheres. And there are many consultants and life coaches out there offering their recipes for successful self-realization.

Juggling career and family, life for most really seems to be about give and take rather than balance. About choosing between the quality moment with the kids or the important meeting at work. About taking time for oneself, or investing in one’s closest relationships. Amidst all these internal and external expectations, we prioritize and we compromise.

Success has a funny way sometimes of leaving an unsettling aftertaste.

There is little life quality in conforming to the funky mold of successful being, when its achievement comes at the price of what may actually matter most. Finding a purpose that makes it all worthwhile will reveal a pathway that, though much less traveled-by, brings a meaningful dimension to life as we know it.

by Miriam Garvi

If one is to believe the media coverage lately, our world is being rocked at the core by a wave of threats ranging from natural catastrophes to terrorism, financial collapse, potential pandemics or the menace of climate change.

It seems that the comfortable life that we have been enjoying in the Western world is under serious threat.

A new way of viewing the world, yet what is it bringing?

Various voices of authority have long been endorsing the path of economic short-sightedness by proclaiming the virtues of self-regulated financial markets. Since the credit crisis, however, few are those who are still singing their praise. Instead of self-regulation, many are now favoring its opposite: regulation on the supra-national level, encouraged by hedge-fund mogul George Soros and others. Global controlling mechanisms are extending into a wider range of arenas, as they are seen as necessary measures in order to fight climate change (in the form of carbon taxes) and terrorism.

Some would call this a shift of paradigms, as we are witnessing how one way of viewing the world, of defining its problems and solutions, is giving way to another more in tune with the current economic and political agendas.

It is too easy to call for voices of authority to give us the answers, colored by their own particular political or economic interests. Facing the fallacy of institutions and beliefs of yesterday, the opportunity is ours to step back as if nothing existed and consider a world that is worthwhile.

If we dare take that leap, then we just might see the birth of pioneering visions that will bear fruit for the benefit of both ourselves and of others.

There is hope to be found for the future.

by Miriam Garvi

The past century has seen the rise of large organizational structures. For years now we have let ourselves be impressed by the resources and market dominance of mammoth organizations, be they Monsanto, the UN, or even the Red Cross.

Multinationals, global corporations and various institutions are swallowing huge amounts of resources, but what are they giving in return? Many of us invest most of our working lives in anonymous structures which have become powerful instruments in building a great distance between the real centers of decision-making and the realities of those who are living their consequences - including clients, employees and society.

People suffocating in this alienating process are unable to see the meaning of what they are doing, and are left at the mercy of the re-organizing whims of those in power looking to earn the approval of financial markets.

This greatest inefficiency of our time is slowly but surely snuffing out the joy of working and every little flame of creative potential within us.

Making structures even more rigid with the help of supra-national regulation is not the answer for our times. Nor does size give the strength that enables the astonishing. Creative and purposeful contribution can only be stimulated when people are free to see the meaning of it all.

Time has come for a new era:
Smallness in size, greatness in meaning.

by Miriam Garvi

I am one of those who have been following Barack Obama’s rise to power with interest. Especially, I am intrigued by how a simple electoral message consisting of one single word seems to be touching the right cord with so many people out there:

CHANGE

Thanks to the political and rhetorical strategy that has brought Obama to power, change is becoming synonymous with progress, i.e. with the belief that things will inevitably be better if only they are different.

But where is this change taking us?

It is quite evident that changes are occurring both on national and global levels. Climate change, terrorism, a financial system in collapse, massive unemployment on the way are all reports of threats to our existence. And amidst such perceived anxiety, a desperate call for strong leadership emerges.

This year’s G20 summit has been quick to respond, displaying an unprecedented spirit of global cooperation, coordination and collaboration, as the U.S. joins ranks with the EU, and even Russia calls for strong leadership on the global level. As emphasized by Obama at the press conference following the summit, “We all have responsibilities to work together.” And these days such responsibilities are summarized in a global deal to boost world growth, a tantalizing vision that should take us away from the insecurities of a «boom and bust economy» towards globally sustainable economic growth.

There is nothing new about the human mechanism that turns towards strong leadership in order to dampen anxiety. Our responsibilities, to paraphrase Obama, are not to abdicate our own freedom of action, placing our salvation in the hands of those people behind the scenes pulling the strings of influence on the global arena. Our responsibilities are not to buy into an enticing vision of a New World Order, putting all our trust in the panaceas offered by our world leaders without considering what costs will have to be paid in the process. This has been done before, and the result was oppression, genocide, and world war.

What good is change, if it comes at the cost of freedom? We cannot sell out our freedom to a change agency as it promises to take us out of the crisis, only to realize the price of it once there is no turning back.

As change agents, the opportunity is ours to bring about the kind of change that leads to meaningful prosperity. It is time to recognize that greed as a motor for prosperity has faltered. No longer can prosperity be narrowly defined as economic wealth. I have seen leprous people in Africa much happier than people in the West. Meaning, not dollars and cents, is the currency that motivates people to change the world for the better.

by Miriam Garvi

Today’s recession is bringing back the rhetoric of greed to the forefront, both among politicians and journalists, as a way of condemning practices now deemed excessive by the electorate, whilst keeping such practices at a comfortable distance from those who have long been in the position to influence the way we view the world and our own role within it.

It has long been held that greed, or self-interest as philosophers and economists endorsing this position would prefer to call it, is the supreme driving force behind enterprising, growth and development, and as such, the very motor of society.

But for those less fortunate who are now paying the price for enacted self-interest, as they find themselves laid off from businesses where top executives are cashing in additional bonuses, or left with mortgage loans that they have no means to service, this economic as well as moral rationale of a self-focused society is a far cry from the reality they are living.

Yet in the spirit of Ayn Rand, defenders of this rationale would argue that we owe nothing to the weak, who have only to opt to overcome their weakness by way of reason.

It is interesting how quickly societal thinking turns elitist when we who are doing the thinking are part of the fortunate few. The idea of «natural selection» and of the survival of the fittest is flattering indeed as long as we are the ones surviving. And if the purpose of it all is to be the last man standing, having beaten all contestants in the short-term, profit-making chicken race, then success is becoming rather void of meaning.

It is high time we wake up and see things as they really are, not as the dominant rhetoric, or the dominant logic, would want us to believe things to be. Let us be greedy, greedy for meaning! Let us engage in that which can bear fruit to the benefit of ourselves and others. Let us make a profit, but not a fortune. And let us reinvest for the benefit of mankind.

by Miriam Garvi

Imagine for a second that you have this beautiful Idea. A cure for breast cancer. A new solution for waste-handling. A brand of cookies made the old-fashioned way with real ingredients rather than artificial ones. Maybe your Idea was triggered by something on the evening news. Maybe it came to you as you were facing a problem, pondering on how to solve it. Maybe you were frustrated with the lack of good options available on the market. However it came to be, you’re full of excitement at the prospect of launching into business. Family and friends lend you the money for office space and you start working prospective clients.

Gradually, it all takes form. Yet it’s a slow start. After a couple of years, you’re still struggling to make ends meet, waiting for that major breakthrough that will awaken people to the beauty of your Idea.

Then someone comes along with an offer to invest in the business and a market plan that makes everything sound so simple.

Five years later, loans to family and friends have been repaid, with interest. Thanks to new resources and competent fellows on the board, the company has grown considerably and you’re working your way into the Chinese market. Sure, the journey has been slightly different than you imagined and things might have had a different outcome had you been the one making all the decisions. A new CEO has taken your place and you’re now in charge of research and development. But you’ve always considered that to be the most enjoyable part anyway!

But one day life’s not all peachy anymore. Your solution for waste-handling needs  improvement but there is no patience for that. Your investors give priority to sales and marketing – but there is no way of reaching the milestones that have been set whilst pushing quality to the right level! Angry customers are calling in, they feel cheated. Employees are coming to you for advice, imploring you to resolve the situation. Fatigued and frustrated, you try raising your voice at the board meetings but you seem to be speaking a foreign, quite exotic, language. Keep pushing is the message; we’ve got a prospective buyer for the company that will move things to the next level!

And one day, when someone close to you asks you about what happened to that dream of yours, it hits you. In the effort of turning your Idea into a lucrative service, it is becoming just another one of those things that promises far more than it delivers. Where are those beautiful qualities that you could not wait to share with the world? Longing for the passion for what you once saw, you ask yourself if it is ever too late to go back to what initially sparked the desire to do something that can make a difference.

No, it isn’t.

by Miriam Garvi

Aid in the form of loans certainly came in fashion when Mohammad Yunus was laureated with the Nobel peace prize for promoting micro finance as an instrument for development. Such micro credits would propel households of meager means into business activities otherwise inaccessible. As for any micro-enterprise that showed particular promise, it could be muscled up with venture capital provided by international funds and corporations looking to position themselves on untapped markets.

The ideal win-win relationship between David and Goliath that would put poverty in a museum?

Making financial resources available to those willing to start up an enterprise has long been seen by the economic establishment as the way to growth and prosperity for a nation. Nothing radical then about extending credits to lower-income households in developing countries in order to encourage them to launch into business. Micro debts may sound rather insignificant on the aggregate level, but when a family of meager income finds itself unable to service its loan, the cost quickly becomes unbearable.

In West Africa, however, a phenomenon is on the rise that is challenging the relationship between seed money, growth and prosperity as we know it.

In one of the more remote regions bordering the Sahara desert that offers few natural resources, a new generation of rural teen-age girls are enjoying a purchasing power that is unknown to most urban families. As food prices around the world are on the rise, these girls are not only buying what they need for the family household, but also luxury items such as jewelery and fashionable clothes. Those who were once the most vulnerable of all have become a powerful clientele attracting a wider supply of goods than in the city markets. And in response to growing demand, shops are opening aimed particularly at this young and empowered rural generation.

The source of this new-found wealth? A number of perennial, fruit-bearing trees that can grow naturally in the harsh, sub-Saharan environment. By allowing various species to grow in their fields, these farming households are now the proprietors of production units which produce fruit throughout the year, fruit that is much-in-demand at marketplaces spread throughout the region.

The original investment? A handful of seeds distributed for free to motivated farmers by the Eden Foundation.

The cost of these production units? The labor of sowing seeds in one’s field, coupled with some initial weeding during the first years of a seedling’s life. The vitality of the seed will do the rest.

The return on investment? Self-sufficient households with a surplus to spend on the lifestyle of their choice. And the process is completed without indebtment to any creditor eager to channel the recipient only into the kind of entrepreneurship that will enable them to feed off their investment.

Talk about a sustainable economy that is bringing prosperity to those who were once the poorest of them all.

by Miriam Garvi

This week-end saw the completion of the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos. Since the forum launched its «Davos Question» last year, asking people to name one thing that would make the world a better place, future prospects have plunged into darkness. With jobs, homes, savings and pensions being threatened, who is thinking of making the world a better place?

The world’s elite of financiers, politicians and business people, anxious to restore confidence in a global financial and economic system, are calling for swift and decisive action. According to Tony Blair and others at the WEF, it seems that what we need is an enterprise system that is free but less greedy. So much for the professed virtue of selfishness.

Not so very long ago, a voice in the wilderness was calling for the kind of leadership that paired outlook and foresight with a concern for the well-being of coming generations. The voice was that of Georges Doriot, Harvard professor and father of venture capital; his vision that of an «Institute of Man»:

I have thought that we should have an Institute of Man.

This would be a group of outstanding individuals who could evaluate the progress which Man has made.

In light of this progress and the background of this progress this group could give some attention to the problems facing man today.

From these people the country and its leaders could seek advice.

But so far, no one has liked my idea and perhaps our leaders would not listen to such scholars even if the Institute existed.

Doriot’s idea was not about change, nor about remedying a system running wild. He was talking about the kind of constant visionary outlook that will view the world in terms of purposes, needs and implications, a goalistic dialogue not bound by any political or economic agenda.

Today, so many resources are poured into taming the monster we created. Let those with passion and integrity rise and show the good that can be done amidst the darkness.