Rein Steampunk Economy

Steam Engine to the Moon
1. Auflage 2021
ISBN: 978-3-98631-002-8
Verlag: tredition
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 344 Seiten

Many executives, organisations and companies believe that the economic demands of the digital age can be met with diligence, skill and, above all, experience. They build on expertise, established structures and processes that they have been able to rely on for decades. They perfect the known methods and procedures and strive for the highest degree of flawlessness. However, they overlook the fact that striving for perfection is not only counterproductive, but even harmful. In times of digitalisation and the accompanying globalisation, products, goods and services are not constantly getting better, they are constantly getting different. The processes and business models that drive the economy are continuously changing. Those who focus on perfecting familiar methods, both in production, but even more so in organisational design and leadership, are training a racehorse and do not realise that they are competing against a Formula 1 racing car. Economics, management and human resources are based on 19th century theoretical foundations. They are perfected steam engines - smooth running, enduring in operation and elegant to look at. And completely unsuitable for flying to the moon. In short: they are representatives of the steampunk economy. In his book, Dr. Andreas Rein debunks the steampunk economy and impressively explains how to recognise it. He explains why all companies and organisations are affected by disruptive changes - regardless of sector and industry. He shows that in a digital, fully networked world, the goal must not be the moon, but at least Mars. In his passionate plea for unleashing innovative potential, he shows how to overcome the steampunk economy and create sustainability. For neither human nor earthly resources are unlimited.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Rein, Andreas

Leseproben

CHAPTER 2 STEAMPUNK – WE LIVE IN THE 19TH CENTURY „There are only three things in this world I hate… Steam Punk, Pirates, and Tabbouleh. I mean why do they even have it?“ I-R0K Steampunk as a literary style is based on ideas of authors such as Jules Verne and H. G. Wells, who described future technology from the perspective of their time at the beginning of industrialisation in the Victorian era. The driving force of the time is steam - thus a futuristic technology based on steam engines, mechanical gears and high-precision clockworks is described in steampunk books, films and TV series. Steampunk concepts were put on film by Fritz Lang in Metropolis, but also by Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times, even though the term only appeared in the late 1980s as an antithesis to cyberpunk. Steampunk is surrounded by a very special technology-loving romanticism. Friends of steampunk dress in Victorian dresses and suits, wear aviator or welder's goggles, copper jewellery and walking sticks, and cultivate 19th century manners. In Jules Verne's classic novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, electricity is generated with steam engines in Captain Nemo's submarine Nautilus and the submarine is powered electrically - the book was published in 1870! In fact, Verne thus anticipated much of the later development of submarines, even though submarines with a performance described by Verne are fired by nuclear reactors. In From the Earth to the Moon (1865), Verne describes the construction of a cannon to shoot a hollow projectile filled with people onto the moon. I've just forgotten how they get back, but that's not the point. My point is this: There have always been visionaries who had a sense of future developments and aspirations. Jules Verne was certainly one such person. He predicted future inventions based on the technological knowledge of his time. He could not include other inventions either, because they simply had not yet been invented. Of course, no one at NASA considered building a cannon to shoot men to the moon. But let's imagine for a moment that this 19th century idea had actually been pushed. Maybe then we would have huge, kilometre-long cannons all over the world, with which one could either shoot projectiles into orbit (or a projectile at another country). Then jet engines might never have been invented and civil aviation would be in airships. People who talked about supersonic flying machines would be weirdoes because you simply couldn't imagine an alternative to the current status quo. And manned spaceflight would be completely absurd and never have happened. NASA and ESA would then only be responsible for unmanned spaceflight. No body could have withstood the acceleration in a projectile shot into orbit with a cannon, the G-force, and everything in such a projectile would have died and been crushed immediately (with a bit of bad luck not in that order). There would be TV satellites, spy satellites, unmanned missions to the moon, but no spacewalk, no zero-gravity research and no trips to the moon or then to Mars later in the decade. How would one react to a person who brought up the concept of manned space travel in a steampunk world? What would one say to the visionary who conceived the idea of a rocket? ‘You want to put a human, on hundreds of tons of high explosive fuel and then set it on fire? Are you serious?’ Many ideas were conceived earlier and then waited a long time for their technological implementation. Many basic ideas of artificial intelligence date back to the 1950s and 60s and can only slowly be implemented today. In his novel '1984', George Orwell writes about Winston Smith, who is employed in the Ministry of Truth. His job is to adapt reports in old newspapers to fit the current party position. Newspapers are therefore constantly revised, reprinted and adapted and put into the archives. In order to make critical thinking more difficult, a cleansing of the language takes place with 'Newspeak' - the vocabulary is systematically reduced and the thought police arrest people for their non-conformist opinions. Basically, Orwell is thinking of a comprehensive, codified system of knowledge that, unlike Wikipedia today, is filled and abused by a totalitarian state. With his constant presence of the Party by its face, Big Brother on tele-screens, one can certainly feel reminded of our digital communication today. In '1984', 1940s technology is projected into a future 40 years away. But there are also disciplines in which 19th century thinking and technology are retained and still applied today. Which are so entrenched that they systematically prevent other thinking. So are there real steampunks, not just the romantics who role-play an alternative reality? I believe they are in our midst and have already prevented some space programmes. Their distinguishing feature is: "cp" - ceteris paribus.   CETERIS PARIBUS „I think that I am familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and BITES YOU ON THE ASS!“ MATT HOOPER Ceteris Paribus is Latin and means something like: „other things being equal" or "under otherwise equal conditions". What is meant by this? The Oxford Dictionary of Economics explains the ceteris paribus clause as an analysis of a relationship under the assumption that the variable under consideration changes while all other economic variables remain constant. Or, in other words, a described relationship is only valid under the assumption that the rest of the universe is stationary [1]. A ceteris paribus relationship isolates one factor, an independent variable, which is directly related to another variable, the dependent one. Other influencing factors, i.e. other variables, are simply ignored in their effectiveness - we simply say that they do not change and therefore an isolated cause-effect relationship can be considered. I will simply give an example. We have already heard a problem assessment from Matt Hooper above. Let's just stay in his area of expertise: sharks, or more specifically great white sharks. Let's assume that the number of shark attacks on humans in Australia is increasing. Hooper doesn't know the reason for this, so he looks for explanations. After careful observation, he finds that not only the number of shark attacks has increased, but also the consumption of ice cream. On closer inspection, he even recognises a proportional increase. The number of people injured by sharks increases to the same extent as people consume ice cream. And he can also prove the reverse effect: When less ice cream is consumed, fewer people are injured by sharks. Viewed in isolation, one could conclude that more people were injured by sharks because they ate ice cream. So a general ban on ice cream should reduce the number of shark attacks. This is, of course, nonsense. But that's how you create causality - a cause-effect relationship - where there is only correlation - a co-dependent behaviour. It's warm in summer, so more people eat ice cream. And: it's warm in summer, so more people go swimming in the sea. The trigger for an increased number of shark attacks is the warmth in summer, not ice consumption. Ice consumption is also affected by the warmth, but the sharks don't really care. A correlation becomes a causality - which can lead to devastatingly wrong conclusions. The exclusion of unwelcome influencing factors or the assumption of their constancy, cp considerations, can lead to a dangerously distorted world. In the 1990s, Germany was considered the sick man of Europe. To solve this economic dilemma, the government of the time under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder introduced various measures to tackle unemployment.When I started my own business in 2004, there was a government grant that came from Gerhard Schröder's Agenda 2010. To be eligible for this grant, which was paid out for six months and did not have to be returned, one needed a confirmation from the responsible Chamber of Industry and Commerce about the viability of one's business idea. At the Chamber of Commerce and Industry I had to submit a short description of the business idea ("… but in a way that I understand"), as well as a CV and certificates proving that I was also qualified to implement my idea. But the most important thing was the business case. A plan that projected my costs, revenues, losses, profits and assets on a monthly basis for the next three years. The business case examines the scenario of a business idea in order to illuminate its profitability and make possible investments visible. It is used to present and weigh the projected financial and strategic impact of a proposition. What I delivered to them was pure fantasy. I could put down figures for the first twelve months - I had set up my own business as a project management consultant, had won a client and had signed a consultancy contract for twelve months. But after that? What was I supposed to write? That I wanted to look after two clients in the next twelve months and would double the daily rate? Yes, exactly. That's how I calculated the second year and what I wrote for the third year I can no longer logically comprehend today. That was my only work of fiction to date, but my target audience liked it. I got my stamp, was able to tackle my mandate in peace and quiet and was supported by the state for six months. That was really good and I am still grateful for it today. But the incompetence displayed at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry struck me deeply - shouldn't the experts be expected there? After all,...