It was one hundred and six years ago that Albert Einstein stated that the speed limit of the cosmos was the speed of light – 186,000 miles per second.  The speed of light, the “c” in the equation E=mc2, has, since Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, been accepted as a fundamental axiom of science.  It is one of the foundations of quantum physics and much of scientific endeavor ever since.

This is why there has been such an uproar over the findings of a recent research project on neutrinos recently conducted at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research.. Neutrinos, sub-atomic particles were measured as traveling a distance of 450 miles (720 kilometers) 60 nanoseconds faster than it would take a light beam. Even this miniscule difference raises the possibility that the speed of light is no longer the upper speed limit of the universe.  Einstein himself once said that, if you could send a message faster than the speed of light “You could send a telegram to the past” [It is a commentary on the speed of the last century’s pace of invention that Einstein used the word telegram, but that is something for another column, newsletter or even book]

So the science fiction possibility of actual time travel and longstanding ideas of cause and effect might now have to be reconsidered.  The most published quote in reaction to these ...]]> [Note:  This column was published in the most recent Shift Age Newsletter.  You can sign up for a free subscription here.]

It was one hundred and six years ago that Albert Einstein stated that the speed limit of the cosmos was the speed of light – 186,000 miles per second.  The speed of light, the “c” in the equation E=mc2, has, since Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, been accepted as a fundamental axiom of science.  It is one of the foundations of quantum physics and much of scientific endeavor ever since.

This is why there has been such an uproar over the findings of a recent research project on neutrinos recently conducted at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research.. Neutrinos, sub-atomic particles were measured as traveling a distance of 450 miles (720 kilometers) 60 nanoseconds faster than it would take a light beam. Even this miniscule difference raises the possibility that the speed of light is no longer the upper speed limit of the universe.  Einstein himself once said that, if you could send a message faster than the speed of light “You could send a telegram to the past” [It is a commentary on the speed of the last century’s pace of invention that Einstein used the word telegram, but that is something for another column, newsletter or even book]

So the science fiction possibility of actual time travel and longstanding ideas of cause and effect might now have to be reconsidered.  The most published quote in reaction to these findings came from a theorist from CERN, Dr. Alvaro de Rujula: “If it is true, then we truly haven’t understood anything about anything.”  He further went on to say “It looks too big to be true.  The correct attitude is to ask oneself what went wrong.”

The group that reported the results was the Oscillation Project with Emulsion Tracking Apparatus or Opera.  The Opera group agreed with Dr. de Rujula and said they have published the findings in order to have them scrutinized. The findings are so astounding and fundamentally hard to accept that the hope is that they are either corroborated and confirmed with another experiment, or that some yet to be found flaw in the measurements of the experiment can be found.    100 years of scientific endeavor, training and thinking have been called into question.

Is this a moment such as finding out that the earth revolves around the sun or that the earth is round?  Is this one of those times when totally accepted scientific thought is proven wrong? Is this one of those moments that decades and centuries from now will be looked upon as a breakthrough threshold of science?

Given that it was the Opera group that is asking the question, we have to say, sorry folks, that it isn’t over until another scientific team sings.  If these findings are corroborated, then it will most likely be in 2012.  What if it was corroborated on 12/21/12, the date that the Mayans said that the world as we know it will change?

Now, three months later, I am happy to report that the response from the education community has been strong and extremely positive. Two conferences that had me as the keynote speaker purchased copies of the book for all attendees, and the feedback from these educators has been so positive that I am humbled. In addition, several school superintendents have purchased copies for the principals in their districts. I am currently scheduled to present to three large education conferences this summer and fall, as word of mouth on the book is spreading across the country. As I am a futurist and not a professional educator, it is truly gratifying to hear such positive reactions from K-12 educators.

Why did a futurist write a book on transforming education? Here are some of the reasons:

-There is so much noise, finger-pointing and argument about K-12 education today that it became clear to me that there’s a lack of vision. Many people have points of view, but they are relative to practices they either criticize or support, all based on the present landscape. The present system doesn’t work, so we have to completely start over with a new vision.

-The current system is from the Agricultural Age for its school year, the Industrial Age for most of ...]]> As many of you who subscribe to my Shift Age Newsletter know, I co-authored a book with Jeff Cobb on transforming education. Shift Ed: A Call to Action for Transforming K-12 Education was published in April by Corwin Press.

Now, three months later, I am happy to report that the response from the education community has been strong and extremely positive. Two conferences that had me as the keynote speaker purchased copies of the book for all attendees, and the feedback from these educators has been so positive that I am humbled. In addition, several school superintendents have purchased copies for the principals in their districts. I am currently scheduled to present to three large education conferences this summer and fall, as word of mouth on the book is spreading across the country. As I am a futurist and not a professional educator, it is truly gratifying to hear such positive reactions from K-12 educators.

Why did a futurist write a book on transforming education? Here are some of the reasons:

-There is so much noise, finger-pointing and argument about K-12 education today that it became clear to me that there’s a lack of vision. Many people have points of view, but they are relative to practices they either criticize or support, all based on the present landscape. The present system doesn’t work, so we have to completely start over with a new vision.

-The current system is from the Agricultural Age for its school year, the Industrial Age for most of its buildings and schools, and the Information Age for now-outdated technology. It’s time for Shift Age education. The legacy thinking from the 19th and 20th centuries must be jettisoned and replaced with a vision of what 21^st-century education looks like.

- One of the questions I am most often asked by audiences in the United States is if we will remain a great country or if we are beginning an inexorable slide downward. If we want to remain a great country, we must better educate our children. If we want to remain a great nation, we must have better educational opportunities for citizens of all ages. It must start with our children. That is why I have written this book on the essential need to transform K-12 education.

There is a companion website for the book, www.shiftedtransformation.com If you want to go straight to the videos, click here. In addition, if you want to hear about the education curriculum of the 21^st century, the 5C’s, click here.

In Shift Ed: A Call to Action for Transforming K-12 Education, we set forth a vision for transforming education for this century. We ask educators to step up and create this vision or come up with a better one. It is time from transformation, as nothing less will be enough.

In 2007, I forecast that humanity, and particularly the developed countries of the world, would enter the “reorganizational recession of 2007-2010.” Considering that this is a blog that looks into the future, it might seem contradictory to be looking back at this event, but by doing so, I can explain why it was accurate and why understanding it will help us better navigate and understand what lies just ahead.

The reason for the length, breadth and depth of the 2007-2010 recession was that it was a reorganizational recession between the Information Age and the Shift Age. Most economists look at recessions through the eyes of history, measuring whatever recession we are currently in against past recessions. Phrases such as “this looks to be another jobless recovery similar to the recessions of the 1990’s” or “the recovery will be on the back of the consumer – when the consumer starts spending, we will emerge from this recession” (both paraphrases) are common and represent economists looking at economic downturns purely through economic filters. That is why they have had to keep revising ...]]> In the last column here, I pointed out that a number of my Shift Age forecasts have come true. I wrote about several of them and how I get an odd sense of déjà vu when these forecasts become reality. In this and coming columns, I will revisit them – not to gloat, but to provide explanation, because people read and hear forecasts differently from explanations of the actual events they become.

In 2007, I forecast that humanity, and particularly the developed countries of the world, would enter the “reorganizational recession of 2007-2010.” Considering that this is a blog that looks into the future, it might seem contradictory to be looking back at this event, but by doing so, I can explain why it was accurate and why understanding it will help us better navigate and understand what lies just ahead.

The reason for the length, breadth and depth of the 2007-2010 recession was that it was a reorganizational recession between the Information Age and the Shift Age. Most economists look at recessions through the eyes of history, measuring whatever recession we are currently in against past recessions. Phrases such as “this looks to be another jobless recovery similar to the recessions of the 1990’s” or “the recovery will be on the back of the consumer – when the consumer starts spending, we will emerge from this recession” (both paraphrases) are common and represent economists looking at economic downturns purely through economic filters. That is why they have had to keep revising their forecasts. The Great Recession of 2007-2010 was more than just a bad economic recession; it was a reorganizational recession.

When the world drifted into recession in 2007 and then went into economic free fall in the fourth quarter of 2008, I said that it was not only reorganizational but that it would last longer than any recession in memory.  I also said that it represented a transition from the largely 20^th-century way of doing business to the new 21^st-century reality of the global economy. The analogy I’ve used is the 1970’s, and the multiple recessions that occurred from 1973 through 1982. During that time, the developed countries of the world went through the very painful reorganization from being purely Industrial Age economies to becoming Information Age economies.  Economies based on atoms to economies based on digits. This took a decade to occur.

The accelerating speed of change suggested to me that humanity would pass through a period of five or six years and would emerge economically into the Shift Age. Some economies will emerge in 2011 substantially different from what they were when they entered the recession four years ago. Entire industries have entered the creative destruction phase. New dynamic business sectors based on the accelerating electronic connectedness of humanity have taken root. These are Shift Age companies. New businesses based on non-physical realities are now thriving.  They are Shift Age companies. The ascendancy of entirely new businesses and business models is the reality today, just as it was in the 1980’s, after the decade of economic upheavals between the Industrial and Information Ages.

Hundreds of CEOs and business leaders have told me that this concept of a reorganizational recession is the context that has helped them understand the disruptions they confront in the marketplace. When asked, “When will things come back?” my answer has always been, “They will not come back.  It will get better, but it will be in different forms, shapes and ways.”

Oh yes, remember that chestnut that we will exit the recession when the consumer starts to spend again? Since 2008, I have strongly said that “thrift will be the new cool, the new extravagance” and that the consumer has been scarred, and this scarring will last for years. I have continually forecast that consumers will not lead countries out of recession as quickly as they have in the past. The parents of the early-stage baby boomers lived through the Great Depression, and that scarred them for life. It affected the way they looked at the world for the rest of their lives. Well, consumers in general – and in particular, the American consumer – have been scarred by the Great Recession of 2007-2010 because the things we believed in, such as ever higher real estate values and ever increasing 401Ks, were proven false.

The Shift Age is about saving more, living with less, owning less, living in smaller homes, driving smaller cars, having fewer physical goods and more digital goods. Growth for the sake of growth – an economic axiom prior to this reorganizational recession – is now seen as hollow in a world whose very existence depends, to some degree, on sustainability.

As we emerge from the Global Recession of 2007-2010, we see a changed landscape from what existed before. Welcome to the Shift Age!

As a futurist I often feel as though I live in a déjà- vu world. I write about something and then months or years later it occurs or becomes something that is on the minds of a lot of people.

This is the first of what may be occasional columns from years past written here that, for one reason or another, are relevant to what is currently going on in the world.  As a futurist I try to write “ahead of the curve” or to take a “future look at today”. Sometimes old columns resonate today.  This is one of them.

The recent – and ongoing – flap about privacy settings on Facebook is just the latest incident that makes us think about our privacy in this age of connectivity and social media.  When we are confronted with this issue, predictably we seem to recoil and speak about invasion of privacy.  We get upset that our personal data is or could be shared with people we don’t know.

Facebook, with  almost too numerous to count privacy settings, is clearly a conflicted company when it comes to privacy.  It has a culture, purpose and business model that is completely about sharing, or sharing completely.  A complete surrender of privacy is the ideal.

To focus on Facebook and other social media as a place of concern for privacy is myopic.  We all long ago gave up privacy for the sake of convenience.  In the larger scheme of things we have willingly, if not fully consciously, ...]]>

As a futurist I often feel as though I live in a déjà- vu world. I write about something and then months or years later it occurs or becomes something that is on the minds of a lot of people.

This is the first of what may be occasional columns from years past written here that, for one reason or another, are relevant to what is currently going on in the world.  As a futurist I try to write “ahead of the curve” or to take a “future look at today”. Sometimes old columns resonate today.  This is one of them.

The recent – and ongoing – flap about privacy settings on Facebook is just the latest incident that makes us think about our privacy in this age of connectivity and social media.  When we are confronted with this issue, predictably we seem to recoil and speak about invasion of privacy.  We get upset that our personal data is or could be shared with people we don’t know.

Facebook, with  almost too numerous to count privacy settings, is clearly a conflicted company when it comes to privacy.  It has a culture, purpose and business model that is completely about sharing, or sharing completely.  A complete surrender of privacy is the ideal.

To focus on Facebook and other social media as a place of concern for privacy is myopic.  We all long ago gave up privacy for the sake of convenience.  In the larger scheme of things we have willingly, if not fully consciously, given up our privacy over the past few decades.

The recent privacy flap at Facebook has caused many people in audiences I address to ask about privacy as it relates to social media.  I end up referring to a column I wrote almost four years ago and simply say:  “As technology advances, privacy declines”

Below is that slightly tongue in cheek column, written in 2006.

Technology Advances, Privacy Declines

One of the trade offs we seem to have accepted during the past 20 years is a loss of privacy.  None of us say we approve of that, but we have embraced technology in such a way that a diminished sense of privacy has occurred.  The portability of storage and computing, as discussed on this blog in earlier posts, is a major reason.  The easier small storage devices and laptops are to carry, the higher probability of theft.

It was revealed the other day that a laptop, with personnel records for 382,000 Boeing employees was stolen.  This was the third time in 13 months that this has occurred with Boeing.  Of course Boeing is not the only company where this has happened.  Laptops are portable and easy to put into a briefcase or bag.  Someone goes up for another cup of coffee at Starbucks or leaves their desk to go to the bathroom and in a few seconds the laptop and all the data on it is stolen.  We all enjoy the fact that we can have a computer with us wherever we are.  The freedom to work wherever and whenever we want is a very empowering thing, something that didn’t exist 20 years ago.

In the 1960s and 1970s, computing equaled mainframe computing.  Companies and universities all had these large machines that were in air conditioned, controlled access environments.  Access was highly monitored, records were kept for all activities and people even dressed in white coats.  It looked and felt like the religion of the main frame.  Yes, you could probably steal a computer tape, but you would have to have another main frame computer to access the data.  This is so different than today when every desk has a PC and laptops are everywhere.

The other key development of course is the Internet and the fact that all these computers are connecting to it.  This connectivity allows remote access from practically anywhere.  Firewalls become challenges to hackers.  Identities stolen from computers via the Internet can be almost instantaneously monetized.  It seems like every day there is an article or story in the media about identity theft.  So our highly connected lives open us up to risk.  This also opens us up to tracking.  What web sites we visit on the Internet.  What we buy.  Who we communicate with and what we say.  Of course, now with massive use of wireless we have grown accustomed to using public wireless hot spots for our most personal communications and transactions.  We learned a decade ago that cell phones were less secure than land lines, yet that certainly didn’t compel us to stop using them.  In fact, cell phone usage has exploded.

Entire new security businesses such as consumer virus protection software, and security gurus have emerged to help companies protect their data and confidential information.  We all want to be connected and protected at the same time.  If you truly want to keep your communications private, think back on all the mafia movies you have seen.  To avoid being bugged at home or at the office, or being wiretapped via the phone, mafia dons would meet on a park bench or take a walk on a construction site to discuss ‘business’.  Once you move to most electronic communications you increase the risk of intrusion, observation or theft.  Hey, what’s so bad about sitting on a park bench on a sunny day?

I have written extensively about humanity being in transition between the Information Age and the Shift Age.  Those who have heard me speak or read my writings come to understand and accept this.  That said, this is a higher concept than the simple reality of the calendar.  No one can dispute the numerical fact that we are 10% into the 21^st Century, unless you want to debate whether the scientific concept of linear time verses the older concepts of cyclical time or chaotic time.

Once you start to look at the world, its’ institutions and both business categories and specific companies, through this 20^th versus 21^st century filter, things become clearer.

Here are some examples:

I could go on for pages, but the lists above should both provide clarity and food for thought.

A very simple way to look at the world is through this filter as it will bring clarity as to what will last and what won’t, to what will be significant and what will not be.  It is clear that companies created in the 20^th century that ...]]> In the past year I have found that framing conversations about certain topics with the context of being of the 20^th century or of the 21^st century to be clarifying for most people.

I have written extensively about humanity being in transition between the Information Age and the Shift Age.  Those who have heard me speak or read my writings come to understand and accept this.  That said, this is a higher concept than the simple reality of the calendar.  No one can dispute the numerical fact that we are 10% into the 21^st Century, unless you want to debate whether the scientific concept of linear time verses the older concepts of cyclical time or chaotic time.

Once you start to look at the world, its’ institutions and both business categories and specific companies, through this 20^th versus 21^st century filter, things become clearer.

Here are some examples:

I could go on for pages, but the lists above should both provide clarity and food for thought.

A very simple way to look at the world is through this filter as it will bring clarity as to what will last and what won’t, to what will be significant and what will not be.  It is clear that companies created in the 20^th century that do not transform themselves are at high risk.  While going from good to great, searching for excellence or re-engineering corporations were all good for 20^th century businesses, only transformation and on-going re-invention will keep companies competitive in these next ten years.

People, societies and businesses can often get stuck in a context largely created in the past.  The ‘as long as it seems to be working, let’s keep doing it’ mindset hasn’t served large 20^th century industries or companies very well these past few years.

On 01/01/10  I suggested  here that the 2010-2020 decade would be the Transformation Decade.  The definition of transformation is “a change in nature, shape, form or character of something”.  Any company, any business that does not do this in the next ten years will likely not be around in 2020.  This of course is particularly true of anything created in the 20^th century.

Start to look at the world through this filter of is something 20^th century or 21^st century and you will start to suddenly see the future separating itself from the past as the past quickly falls away.