Skip to content →

Category: politics

Tree Planting and the Politics of the Soil

Japanese Maple

I recently planted a new Japanese maple tree in my back garden. The new one replaced an old one that had died a suspicious death. Over the last few seasons its growth had slowed to a crawl. It had always put on a fine display of maple leaves that turned bright orange-red in the Autumn. When they fell to the ground, the leaves scattered across the green grass making beautiful patterns.

This Spring the maple tree barely sprouted leaves; clearly something wasn’t right. We love to grow different and unique tree in our garden, we have the full equipment to take care of them, even have a good electric pole trimmer reviews, but this tree is a disaster for us because we don’t know what kills it. We consulted with our gardener and we took some measures to try and bring the tree back to health. In the end, the battle was lost. A preliminary post-mortem concluded that a gopher had eaten the roots of the tree and therefore it was unable to take in water and nourishment from the soil.

A month or so passed and the Japanese maple turned into a stark and brittle wooden sculpture. Slowly, bit by bit, the life was drained from it. My wife and I drove down to Half Moon Bay to a large nursery to pick out a replacement tree to be planted to celebrate my birthday. After a few stops, and auditioning a number of trees, we found a perfectly formed Japanese Maple — an Emperor I variety.

When we planted the new tree, the mystery of the previous tree’s death was revealed. The gopher was exonerated by a more thorough investigation. The large Italian cyprus tree nearby, a tree planted in the 1920s, had strangled the maple. It was murder. The cyprus sends out shallow roots in a fine dense mesh. The roots of the large tree surrounded, enclosed, and cut off the water supply of the smaller maple. The Japanese maple has woody roots that are meant to grow deep. They never had a chance.

This war of the root systems had been going on underground all along, invisible to us. We suddenly discovered that our garden is also a kind of battlefield. We were about to plant a new tree and place it in harm’s way. We realized that we couldn’t do what we’d done before. If we simply went ahead and planted the tree, it would meet the same fate as its predecessor. It was the end of the era of naive tree planting.

Our gardner came up with a solution. The new Japanese maple came in a large 10 gallon plastic container. The plan was to cut the bottom from the container and plant the tree along with the container. The container’s plastic sides would serve as a barrier which would protect the new roots from the Cyprus root’s smothering embrace. This new arrangement gave the maple’s roots the chance to grow deep into the open soil below.

As we plant new trees, and start new ventures, sometimes we aren’t attuned to the political currents flowing just below the surface. Our naive first attempt at tree planting assumed we were entering a neutral and nurturing space. Who could take exception to the addition of a beautiful tree to our garden? We won’t know for some time whether the strong move by the federal government of our garden will have effectively given the new maple tree the chance to grow and prosper. But so far, so good.

One Comment

Remembrance and Forgetting

Prometheus bound

This morning MSNBC aired a minimally edited replay of their broadcast from the morning of September 11, 2001. I remember watching those images on that morning. I remember worrying about my colleagues who would be arriving at our New York office in the World Trade Center. I’d visited them a few months before, spending all day in the building– from early morning to early evening.

At the time, on that morning seven years ago, I viewed the images with disbelief, as in a dream. Now as I view them again, the emotions are still strong, but I see them with clear eyes. On the day of the actual event, I didn’t think we lived in a world where such a thing could happen; today I know such a thing has happened.

Prometheus, in eternal punishment, is chained to a rock, where his liver is eaten daily by a vulture, only to be regenerated, due to his immortality, by night.

But my topic is not the possibility of terrorist acts, but rather the replaying of memories and something Nietzsche called ressentiment, or the spirit of revenge. When we act out of the spirit of revenge, filled with the pain of the moment, we act out of weakness. In our digital age, if everything is recorded, can we ever forget the past? Will we be like Prometheus bound to a rock, our wounds forever raw? Will all human motivation be reduced to acting from the spirit of revenge, as no perceived slight or hurt ever fades from memory? The digital doesn’t fade, it’s on or off. The challenge to overcome the spirit of revenge grows larger as memory is displaced into our digital systems and networks. The digital is immortal and can be replayed endlessly at the click of a mouse.

I think perhaps we forget the meaning and power of forgetting. Manu Bazzano in his book “Buddha is Dead” discusses the modes of forgetting:

“There is forgetting and forgetting. We subconsciously remove from our memory unpleasant experiences, and we tend to ‘forget’ by sheer inertia. On a super-conscious level, however, we keep our consciousness fresh and vibrant by actively ‘forgetting.’ The noble person knows how to forget, not solely out of compassion (‘forgive and forget’), but also because there can be no happiness, no cheerfulness, no hope, no pride, no present without forgetfulness. Life would drag on, forever unresolved, a life that ‘cannot have done with anything,’ a life of ressentiment, a sick life.”

In our digital age, with perfect replays, can we learn to digest and properly metabolize events and turn them into experience? When we act and create from experience, we’ve listened, reflected and responded. We’ve created something new to fill the present moment. To truly embrace change, we must not look back in anger, but walk purposefully into the future.

3 Comments

A Fine Madness: Spy vs. Spy

I’m not certain how these things are connected. But watch the whole thing and I’m sure something will occur.

Comments closed

Bootstrapping the Live Web: Declaring Independence from the Selfish Meme

The Williamsburg Alternative

There are some distinctions that need to be made when thinking about the creation of new modes of interaction on the Network. A number of metaphors are currently employed when talking about services like Twitter (Identi.ca imitation is the sincerest form of flattery). The judgement we seem to be trying to make is whether this new thing will go viral, or will gain broad market acceptance. When we answer questions about the new thing in this way, we’re pretending to be venture capitalists. What we’re asking is: will my investment pay off? And since we have no real skin in the game, we’re really asking, will Fred Wilson’s investment pay off for his investors? There’s an assumption at the base of the question about what’s really important. In a sense, it’s a moral position about what’s most valuable and a definition of the fundamental drivers of innovation. Thus the endless questions about “business model.”

After the money question, we’ll ask what most people will do. Will this new thing be adopted and become common practice? There are a number of binary oppositions we use as sledgehammers to beat the daylights out of any emerging form of life. These tools are a substitute for thought and discovery, they stand between us and what is unfolding before our eyes.

  • Digital Natives vs. Digital Immigrants
  • Young People vs. Old People
  • Early Adopters vs. Most People
  • The Enterprise vs. The Consumer
  • Geeks vs. Jocks
  • You vs. Your Grandmother

Tools for thought need to be put into question even as we employ them. When we thoughtlessly pick them up and use them as a hammer, we’re just repeating memes. The meme is speaking us and just asserting its evolutionary destiny as a selfish gene. When a meme is repeated to a group in conversation and all heads nod knowingly, no thought has taken place. Rather, this is an example as language as a virus.

So when does thinking begin as we continue our conversation on these new modes of the Network? It starts with a question and the deepening of the question. The Answer puts an end to the dialogue. Think of an answer like a software release; there’s alpha, beta, release candidates, golden masters — but in the end everything launches with bugs and has a version number assigned to it. The only way to move the ball down the field is to return to the question.

We’re starting to see the emergence of the Live Web from the established Static Web. The mistakes we make at this point give us important information about the future landscape. Twitter built a static web application using a content management system metaphor. But by opening pipes to the live web through SMS, XMPP and Track, Twitter enabled a compelling live web experience. Twitter’s ensuing stability problems have taught us that static web architecture can’t support live web usage at scale. The team there now has to start over with a live messaging architecture that can support the experience that was discovered. In this effort, Twitter’s simplicity is its friend. Oddly, the imitators don’t seem to have comprehended this lesson.

The interesting conversation around Twitter isn’t about whether it will make someone money or whether your grandmother will use it. Rather it’s the question about whether it’s a real foundational piece in bootstrapping the coming Live Web. Twitter’s Follow and Track relationship models have uncovered a much larger social space for real time interaction. Where the real-time web as IM is largely point-to-point, allowing two previously connected individuals to trade messages, Twitter enables a space where meeting someone new is a possibility. Our bootstrapping activity is only partially about technology, fundamentally it has to be about how we use the service right now and our ongoing conversation about its possibilities.

 

Comments closed