Monday, 29 April 2013

Energy Streetfight, consumption virus & the four dimensions of sustainability (TEDxBerlin))


The presentation we held at TEDxBerlin in November 2011 starts off with a description of Energy Streetfight, a playful approach to reduce domestic energy consumption which we set up in Berlin in 2011 [1], [2]. In the remainder of the presentation we try to outline why and how
  • an experimental attitude,
  • an entrepreneurial mindset which fosters activity (in the example of Energy Streetfight: playful activity) and
  • an understanding of sustainability and value creation which goes beyond the resource view and takes into account four different dimensions (scientific, systemic, cultural, psychological)
can be used to think up and create better systems: Sustainable Value Systems.
Can you see how this approach could help you to think about your venture? If so, how? If no - what would need to be improved? What are the questions that remain?
The transcript of the talk can be found here.
[1] Energy Streetfight Blog: http://www.energy-streetfight.com/the-journey
[2] Energy Streetfight Game-Page: http://www.energy-streetfight.com

Openness & Participation


by Pedro Pineda and Habib Lesevic

Looking at the state of the world at the beginning of this new year 2012, it is becoming increasingly clear that our current ways are not sustainable. This message is being widely broadcasted on all channels around the globe as we are writing this.

But the ecological/anthropogenic dimension that tends to be at the heart of the broadcast is not the only area of crisis calling for an impeding change: Another one is found much closer to yourself than keywords such as ‘third world’, ‘Taliban’, ‘rain forest’, and ‘famine’ might have you believe: We are talking about our psychology of passivity.


Since the industrial revolution, our collective minds have grown increasingly methodless, dependent, and passive - more so than brainstorming may have you believe. (Meadows 1955, Fromm 1955)

In modern society, social structures are not only still hierarchical but also remarkably prescriptive. Much of our thinking towards the questions “What should I do and how should I best do it?” has often already been done for us and the questions answered with sometimes authoritatively, sometimes implicitly prescribed answers.

All that is left for modern man to do then, outside of his time turning the cogs in the machine, is to go out and spend his monetary reward on ready-made products for nourishment, clothing, and entertainment. As psychoanalyst and sociologist Erich Fromm suggested, this internally passive lifestyle quickly can develop into a pan-systemic psychosis, thus providing the fuel for our neurotic cravings for transformation of resources into consumable ‘goods’ (bads?), which in turn drives the ecological crisis.


What this suggests is that any reform to our ways in response to the impeding tipping point will have to include a strong element of activation of the individual, i.e. a strong element of participation of the individual in systemic processes beyond the transactional prison of our semi-closed systems.


We thus have to enable creative action and interaction of the individual towards his surrounding and encourage him to not only ‘get in & get in line’ with systems that resist outward influences, but to actively, creatively, and positively participate in them.  


However, for participation to be possible and to flourish, participants will have to be allowed to go beyond the mere enactment of prescribed visions and processes. They need to be empowered to affect, change, build upon and shape the dynamics, processes, and very order of the systems they participate in! Thus, to truly activate the individual, we will have to liberate ourselves from the dominant idea of closed, inert systems that are created, owned, and managed by a single entity and built to resist outward influences in an attempt to secure innovation and progress.
Instead, we will have to embrace the concept of open, dynamically administered systems which freely interact and change with the actions, visions, and values of its participants.
While this might sound like a SciFi vision of a ‘morphing thing from the future’, open systems are in fact the most basic, most common forms of systems in the non-man-made world: The very planet that nurtures our all existence is a bona fide example of an open system. Openness, therefore, is the natural order of things.


That said, how can this natural order of openness and participation be transposed to our human systems, our projects, the way we go about doing stuff every day?


Openness
 

Openness in the human context is a way of organising social activities that (as stated by the P2P Foundation ) favours
  • universal over restricted access
  • universal over restricted participation, and
  • collaborative over centralised production.
The term Openness is spreading through numerous disciplines (Open Source,  Open Hardware, Open Design, Open Data,...). While it has become a key term related with innovation, it is often attempted to explain what it -really- means, and what is the -real- effect. That in our opinion goes against the very nature of the process. Rather, we prefer to expand on the living side of openness which is the Open Process.


The Open Process

  • is universal over restricted access: everybody can access the knowledge behind each process or product. It means that if you are interested in a topic, you can access it, you can understand it, and you can comment on it in a more informed way. It means sharing knowledge.
  • is universal over restricted participation: everybody can build on it. If you want to build something, you do not have to do it from scratch, but upon the works that is done by others, thus speeding up the process of making, and therefore the possible innovations. It means building on others knowledge.
  • is collaborative over centralised production: everybody can focus on that specific area that they can do best. You do not have to build the whole thing, but concentrate on those aspects that are relevant for you (local conditions, available skills,...) and take from others what they can do best. It means sharing the work.
  • is dynamic and changing vs static and inert: the process is open to transformation by internal and external influences participating in the process.


Enabling an Open and Participative Culture
 

Openness is being approached in many different ways. In such a multifaceted process, we are not trying to identify right or wrong procedures, but just underline challenges that seem to be reoccurring.

1. Pro-activity from individuals
Openness and participation doesn’t mean that everybody have to know about everything or take part in it. It is about letting each participant take his own role and deciding the level of involvement.
Traditional book production time lines are normally measured in months and years. Book Sprints produce comparable content in a much shorter amount of time. Book Sprint : Producing a book

Our role then, isn’t about creating the content (which is now contributed by the participants) but developing structures which facilitate the natural positioning of each participant in that role which suits best him and the whole.

2. Building community & a culture of openness
The complex problems that we now face can be solve just by proactive contributions. The community not only creates but maintains the outcome alive. However, to create longterm relationships, the participants have to practice openness and trust towards the endeavour, its output and its colleagues - thus practicing an open culture.

Open Source Ecology post even their intentions for Organizational Development 2012, With notes on how they are being supported, how are they using the money,...


Allowing a network of individuals and entities that know each other and that can self organize helps to solve complex problems quicker. If we keep the Process open (that is not with a final product in mind) we allow people to contribute and to find out their own benefits, without us having to tell them. And ultimately also help members feel that they belong to something bigger, a Culture.




------------------------------

Collective blog-post writing.

This post was a prototyping exercise to learn about collective knowledge creation and sharing. We set at time-frame of 3hours to write a two pages text on Openness and Participation.
 The creation process looked as follows:
  1. Agree on topic
  2. Define overall message
  3. Add content titles, And choose what  would you like to contribute in
  4. Write parts (research and write) 1’5h
  5. Review, each others contribution 30min

Written by Habib Lesevic (Vic Ventures, Kontext) and Pedro Pineda (We Creative People, MakerLab, Enable Berlin) in 4 hours of a snowy Sunday.
-----------------------------



TEDxBerlin Transcript: Building Sustainable Value Systems

On November 21st 2011 we presented our take on building sustainable Value Systems at TEDxBerlin. You can see the video here.

Below, you'll find the transcript of our presentation.


Energy Streetfight - An Introduction

Energy Streetfight is a project we ran for 8 weeks on the streets of Berlin in 2011. It is a game in which two teams compete against each other in a race to make more islands habitable than the other team.

The players are the residents of the street. All houses and residents from one side of the street form a team and compete with the residents from the other side of the street.

The game is played in an undiscovered island-world full of mysteries, treasures and secret hideouts. Friendly pirates sail this world's seven seas. Each pirate ship represents one house on the street.

Sailing from one island to the next, the pirates quickly discover what each island has to offer. Some islands have plenty of resources while on others, vital supplies are missing. In order to use an island as hideout, the pirates need to transport supplies between them. Each time the right supplies are transported to an island in need, this island is made habitable and falls to this team. Whichever team has enlivened more islands by the end of the game wins.

What fuels the game is an input from the real world: the residents submit their electricity meter reading each week and depending on how much or little they consume, how much they improve over time, and how innovative their ideas to save energy are - their pirate boat's speed and mobility changes. In addition to thinking about their own homes, the challenge is to share ideas and approaches with neighbors and the rest of the street side. When less is consumed, the boat becomes faster and more agile.

To sum it up: Energy Streetfight is a playful approach to reduce domestic energy consumption.


The Underlying Rationale - An Excursion

Sounds like a fun project, energy saved through competition, fun theme, game mechanics applied to a serious matter. A neat game.

But Energy Streetfight is not just a game that aims to tackle a serious issue in a playful manner. It is an experiment in achieving a paradigm shift and building better systems.

What do we mean by that and why do we believe there is a need for this?

Well, let's see: Take a look around, look at the person sitting next to you. Can you recognise anything odd about them? Can you make it out in their eyes, in the way they look at you? It's difficult to make out, but if you look closely, you might see it, you might just see that...We live in a sick world!

With that I don't mean that your neighbour is hiding something awkward from you. I mean it quite literally, we live in a clinically sick world, a world that is infected with a virus:

The Consumption Virus.

This is an extremely tricky virus, because its symptoms are very subtle. It doesn't affect any bodily functions. The immune system doesn't notice it!

That's because the consumption virus doesn't affect your body - what it affects, is your perspective.

In fact, there's a good chance that your neighbour or even you are infected - or to use the correct econo-medical term - that you are homo consumensis.

And the symptoms are worrying:

The homo consumensis suffers from severe passivity (by that we don't mean that he is lazy or unemployed, the virus does not affect busyness).

Passivity is to be understood in the Spinozian sense, that is, the homo consumensis is internally, psychologically passive. He doesn't know himself truely, he is unaware of his essence, unaware of his own potentials. He is thus forced into a one dimensional existence, into a logic of taking, where relating to the world around him is possible only in the single way allowed by his state of passivity: consumption.

Products, lifestyles, natural resources, habitats, people, relationships, ideas - nothing is spared in the delirium of the infected.

What makes matters worse is that the virus spreads easily through the culture produced by a type of system that we have built around us, for us, and through us. The type of system I am talking about is called: The Business Model.

Business models are blackboxes where inputs are transformed into output. What we input are resources of all kind; natural, intellectual, human. The transformation process in the blackbox then turns these inputs into something consumable, what we call 'products'. However, contrary to popular belief, products are NOT what the system outputs. In fact there's one more step to the transformation process that is conceptually overlooked - the consumption of the produced product in exchange for monetary inflows.

Thus what the business model outputs, is in fact profit or growth. And it is this systemic purpose of growth and profit, which defines the ethos of our culture of progress. And it is this culture of progress which keeps the homo cnsumensis in his consumptive trance, serving as the cornerstone of all rationalisations to justify and enforces his zombie-esque existence.

And it is this culture of progress based on the profit and growth ethos, which is the carrier of the consumption virus, spreading it across people, nations, hemispheres. What we end up with is an infectuous reinforcing feedback loop between the psychology of the homo consumensis, the systems he builds, and the culture of progress framed by economic growth that emerges from these systems.

What can we do about this? How can we counter this epidemic?

The answer is deceivingly simple:

We need to raise our awareness.

We need to raise our awareness to the ways we are straining our environment.
We need to raise our awareness to the ways we are straining non-human life.
We need to raise our awareness to the ways we are straining our societies.
We need to raise our awareness to the ways we are straining our very selfs!

In short, we need to raise our awareness to our planetary existence beyond the narrow space we currently occupy in our consumptive trance, fueled by a flawed understanding of progress.

This needs to happen on an individual basis! Each of us has this responsibility.

But just as the delerius consumptive states are currently reinforced by the surroundings systems and their emergent culture, so the positive shift in individual awareness can be aided systemically as well -

However to achieve this, we need to build better systems!


Sustainable Value Systems

What kind of systems are we talking about? Systems that promote activity, not passivity. Systems which are centered around the creation of value, where economic sustainability is only one of the emerging properties. We call these systems value systems. How do value systems look like? How to build them? We are only starting to grasp the implications ourselves, learning from our research and through our experiments - one of them is Energy Streetfight. Let us share three learnings with you:

First: the process. It's experimental, it helps us to improve our knowledge-to-assumption ratio, it embraces failure. We start out with many assumptions on the world, and slowly, as we breathe life into our idea, we increase our knowledge through experiences and test the assumptions which underlie our worldview.

Second: activity. Our world is currently dominated by transactional relationships. By models which are top-down and hold people ever more passive and unrelated. 

Let us build systems which ask for the activation of the individual, instigate action. In Energy Streetfight, we asked participants to come up with new ways to save energy and share them as widely as possible.

Let us create systems which foster the activation of groups, enable interaction. In the game, the residents of each house needed to collaborate and synchronize to determine the direction of their pirate ships.

One form of activation is playfulness.  In games, a story, fun, the freedom to experiment and dare and a deeper meaning come together beautifully.

Third. Integrality. Our curent models equate progress to profit and growth. Let us move towards understanding progress more holistically. More importantly even: let's build systems which enrich the many facets of our human experience.

Habib and I, together with our good friend and systems philosopher Vijak Haddadi (and building on many ideas that have been there before) have come up with a model which helps us to think about value creation in multiple dimensions. We call it the Value Diamond. 

- The scientific dimension: how to improve our daily lives with innovations in processes and technologies? There is a lot of that out there, we hear about innovations in this area every day. However, value can be created in more dimensions. 

- The systemic dimension: how to beneficially transform our natural and social environments? Here we ask how to improve the social systems we are embedded in. And in an universe, on a planet where change is a constant, preservation of the natural landscapes which nourish us can be understood as a beneficial transformation as well.

- The cultural dimension: how can we enable new feelings of belonging, how can we create systems which help us to bond in new ways, become more empathic? How can we facilitate new forms of expression?

- Finally: the psychological dimension:  how can a value system help us to uncover our human potentials, enhance our subjectivities, aid us in seeing and accepting reality as it really is?

The Value Diamond offers a lense through which we can look at value creation, and hence progress, more holistically. From our work as coaches and lecturers we have experienced how it can open up spaces to think about more aspects of value creation.

Let's therefore move beyond business models, let's build systems which transcend the homo consumensis, which help us to become active, which take into consideration all facets that make us human…

Let us build sustainable value systems.

To Be or To Regulate?

I heard a commentary during a discussion on the European economic crisis on one of the major international news channels, that the pressing philosophical question today is not the eternal dilemma expressed by Shakespeare's Hamlet as 'to be or not to be?', but instead the somewhat less eternal, rather worldly 'to regulate or not to regulate?'

I found this pretty alarming:

The commentary indicates that we have reached a complete economisation of the perception of existence. Life and being alive seemingly are no longer the greatest mysteries to humankind, having been replaced by the unpenetrable complexity of the ideological battle between rational economic men of the Kenysian and Hayekian camps. (click here for in-fight footage of this epic struggle.)

What is more, the commentary implies that our consumerist, capitalist system is still fine in its core and that the social, economic, and political issues we are currently facing around the globe are just a matter of a few misconfigured systemic variables. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We are experiencing cracks in the socio-economic structure not because we've made a few wrong decisions along the way, but because the very essence of our system is unsustainable! The cracks in it thus are not 'something gone wrong' but emergent property! To put it differently: The cracks are the 'more' in 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts'.

While lots has been said and written about the dysfunctional socio-economic factors of the system, its unsustainable nature has its root in the psychological factors, its ethos:

As homo consumensis, we live passive lives, experiencing ourselves one dimensionally at best as we relate to the world around us through the ideologically preferred mode: consumption. We consume products, lifestyles, natural resources, habitats, people, relationships, ideas, nothing is spared in the enactment of our role within the whole. In this same enactment, we willingly offer ourselves for consumption, be that on the job market, a 'networking event', or a date, sacrificing our existence to the consumerist powers in order to taste the 'blessings' of the consumerist powers.

The homo consumensis has thus created a society that sees the world which surrounds it (including society itself and the people that make it up) as a mere resource of calorific value in the existential quest to develop consumeristic potential. To summarise this way of being in a not-so- easy-to-digest punchline:

You are when you consume, you are what you consume, you are to be consumed.

Need evidence? Raise your awareness to how we are straining our environment with the consumerist way of being. Raise your awareness to how we are straining non-human life with the consumerist way of being. Raise your awareness to how we are straining our societies with the consumerist way of being. Hell, just take a moment and raise your awareness to how we are straining our very selfs with the consumerist way of being.

If you raise your awareness, it should become apparent that in our approach to being, we are missing the point: In the unfolding of our consumerist existence, we are destroying all other.

Regulating the speed or intensity with which we unfold this mode will not change its direction of focus; we will only be able to slow down or accelerate the destructive process.

To an aware observer, surely this is no way to be. I believe Keynes and Hayek would agree.

 

Energy Streetfight - Play for Purpose

ENERGY STREETFIGHT. Play for Purpose: An Augmented Venture.
A presentation at ’Agir ensemble pour l’énergie’ conference held in Marseille on May 19th, 2011.
In the talk we first present our thinking on the current paradigm of passive consumption and how to break it. Then we try to show which role game mechanics - and more specifically our Energy Streetfight venture [1] in Berlin - could play in this endeavor.

New Venture Thinking - From Concept to Reality

photo by dotbenjamin  

As mentioned in our previous post, our New Venture Thinking (NVT) module to be taught at Cass Business School starting January will focus on delivering a perspective which aims to enable the individual and facilitate, drive and multiply productive activity in the form of ventures.
But how can teaching a perspective bring about change, and moreover, changed action?
Well as usual, the answer to this question (and so many more), starts in your mind - and quantum physics.

As Nick Herbert noted in the preface to his excellent book "Quantum Reality - Beyond the New Physics and the Meaning of Reality" (link):

"For better or worse, humans have tended to pattern their domestic, social, and political arrangements according to the dominant vision of physical reality. In the Middle Ages, when virtually everyone believed the world to be the personal creation of a divine being, society mirrored the hierarchy that supposedly existed in the heavens. [...] Coincident with the rise of Newtonian physics was the ascent of the modern democracy which stresses a 'rule of laws rather than men' and which posits a theoretical equality between the parts of the social machinery. The Declaration of Independence, for example, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' reads more like a mathematical theorem than a political document. For better or worse, we live today in a largely mechanistic world."

This Newtonian-inspired take on reality certainly manifests itself in (especially neoclassical) economic theory and teachings of it - to no surprise, as this dominant worldview on human action and interaction was thought up in an attempt to develop a model of the same, one that would mirror the determinism (read: predictability) of Newtonian physics.

William Stanley Jevons, one of the 'founding fathers' of neoclassical theory, wrote on this matter in "The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method" (link):

"Life seems to be nothing but a special form of energy which is manifested in heat and electricity and mechanical force. [...] Must not the same inexorable reign of law which is apparent in the motions of brute matter be extended to the subtle feelings of the human heart? [...] If so, our boasted free will becomes a delusion, moral responsibility a fiction, spirit a mere name for the more curious manifestations of material energy."

In the course of the Industrial Revolution and the century thereafter, we came to not only accept but internalise this deterministic view of an objective reality of what is effectively an abstraction of the social construct of productive action and interaction (i.e. trade) of the individual and humankind: Economics and Business.

However, with the venturing into quantum physics and the emergence of concepts such as wave-particle duality (link), physicists are coming to the realisation that 'the world is not a deterministic mechanism' (Herbert 1985). To quote physicist and pioneer of quantum physics, Niels Bohr, on this matter:

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. [Thus] The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement, but the opposite of a profound truth may very well be another profound truth."

But what then, is reality? And what are the implications of an altered physical worldview on the way we act and interact productively?

Immanuel Kant set out to explain reality by differentiating between three aspects of it: 1. phenomenon - which describes the way reality appears to us through our sensory experiences, 2. theory, and 3. the 'thing-in-itself' ('das Ding an sich') - which describes the reality underlying all phenomenon (link). Kant believed that all phenomena are deeply conditioned by our sensory and intellectual capacities and that we are thus limited to experiencing reality through our human goggles, that is subjectively. In our attempt to make sense of phenomenon and reality, we thus develop theories - or concepts - that aim to mirror both and allow us to cope and interact with the world around us.
It is therefore through concepts which determine our worldview that we see and experience the world. And, consequently, it is also through those very concepts and worldview that we explore, question and construct or world - key activities of the entrepreneur.

To rephrase: It is on the basis of the worldview and the concepts which we carry, that we formulate and explore questions, which in turn drive the direction (and, dare we say, quality) of our thinking, planning, and - ultimately - actions.

Thus, for an entrepreneur it would be wise to conceptualise the world in a way which allows for open-ended questions that appreciate the instability (and hence malleability) of reality within the social construct of human action and interaction.

Yet, it is the Newtonian, deterministic worldview to business reality in all of its alleged objectivity which is to this day dominant in the entrepreneurship teaching in business schools around the world, and which in effect can represent a significant barrier to creative entrepreneurial activity, the reasons for this being twofold:

For one, the worldview which underwrites the dominant business reality has three qualities that qualify its 'scientific relevance' but at the same time inhibit its capacity for explorative, constructive thinking. Namely:
1. Its concepts are reductionistic
2. Its logic is linear
3. Its relationships are static (basic cause-and-effect, predictable)

All three points lend themselves to 'conceptual stability' and are forces that defy change or unpredictability. A worldview with these three qualities hence, will inevitably have a degree of certainty to it. Why is this bad for an entrepreneur? Well, to put it in the words of Jeff McMullen, Assistant Professor for Entrepreneurship at Indiana University (link):

"Thus it seems that one cannot have opportunity without uncertainty."

Second, emerging from this linear, reductionist model is a duality between the individual (in our case the entrepreneur) and 'the Market', whereby the market is an abstract entity with predetermined (but unknown) behavioural patterns. The relationship between the entrepreneur and this market in this construct is linear and static in the sense that the entrepreneur can offer products or services to the market but effectively cannot impact on the market's values and behavioural patterns which determine its reaction to an offering and thus, an entrepreneur's success.

The effect of this static dual relationship on the definition of entrepreneurial opportunity is significant (as implied above), as well as on the way of how to best discover, develop and execute an entrepreneurial opportunity. Furthermore the reductionistic, linear model of human action and interactions impacts (what we believe to be adversely) on the definition of the nature of value, value creation, and the possibilities for value appreciation by a market.

What we aim to do through NVT, is to deliver a worldview which will free the entrepreneur from the 'box' of deterministic thinking and - based on the dynamic, non-linear and holistic concepts of systems thinking and an appreciation of the dynamism between the individual and society propagated by social psychology - emancipate the entrepreneur's questions and thinking.
For that it is precisely here where we see the most powerful lever for a real impact towards a more open, explorative, playful and creative mode of productive activity among our entrepreneurial communities.

After all, to quote a former teacher of mine, the quality of our questions determines the quality of our lives.

In the spirit of the philosophical touch of this post (Spinoza's mechanical causality springs to mind), I can see a new "HOW?" question arise in the mind of the critical, pragmatic reader:
"But HOW do you go about emancipating the questions and thinking of the entrepreneur?"
A question which we shall tackle in our next blog post from the deep open sea.
Until then, luck and a fair wind to you AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH

Habib
vicventuresrevolution starts in your mind.

New Venture Thinking - An Entrepreneurial Mindset

The good news has hit recently that starting January 2011, Ben and I will deliver a teaching gig at Cass Business School in London (link), one of the leading business schools in Europe.
We will deliver a 11-week module that we are currently developing called 'New Venture Thinking', a core module to the students of the BSc Business Studies degree. The module will enclose the latest academic theory on entrepreneurship, creativity, ideation, and venture planning while placing a strong emphasis on the actualisation of ideas into concrete actions. Accordingly, the module will have a strong participative, hands-on element to it in an attempt to train students in not only thinking (critically) - but thinking action.
At the heart of the module stands - what we dub - the 'Entrepreneurial Mindset', a paradigm that finds its origins in systems thinking, social psychology, play theory, design thinking, and of course, the magnificent powers of entrepreneurship. It sets out to provide a worldview which facilitates and encourages the initiation, delivery, and multiplication of the productive activity that are ventures. It is action philosophy, so to speak, though with a pertinent focus on holistic value creation that extends well beyond the traditional realm of profit-making and shareholder value.
The module will cover areas such as a non-linear view on the entrepreneurial process, a systemic approach to entrepreneurial opportunity, multi-dimensional value theory, techniques and tools to ideation and creativity, an entrepreneurial take on the business model, and the importance of a venture story in the planning and execution process, whereby the synthesis of all these individual aspects into an enabling perspective is the overall goal of the module.
In our research for the module, we recently attended the Entrepreneurship Summit (link) that took place at the Freie Universität in Berlin, organised and hosted by Prof. Dr. Günter Faltin, the founder of Stiftung Entrepreneurship and author of the magnificent entrepreneurship book "Kopf schlägt Kapital - Die ganz andere Art, ein Unternehmen zu gründen" (link). Besides the interesting and stimulating ideas that we got exposed to during the summit, it was very motivating and exciting to see that the logic of a new entrepreneurial mindset - and with it, a new entrepreneurial culture that spans much wider than the narrow business context with which the concept of the 'entrepreneur' is so often associated - seems to be part of an emerging Zeitgeist and is gaining momentum, indicating a change in social character.
Of course, a word of doubt can be uttered over the idea of 'teaching an entrepreneurial perspective' to drive entrepreneurial productive activity. Isn't it precisely the problem today that already too much thinking (and talking) is going on and nowhere close to enough action in regards to the pressing issues of our time?
Our answer to that is: Yes, but.
Stay tuned for an expansion on that 'but'. In the meantime, we're always eager to entertain your thoughts in response to the above, so don't be shy if you have any comments or thoughts.

Yours truly, ARRRGHHH