I am working my way through the draft application. It is not going badly, question 4 is down and I plan to put to sleep question 5 by tonight.
Question 6, however, is hard.
What specific technical support would you seek for the development of a resilience plan (such as financing mechanisms, technology and data analytics, land-use planning, infrastructure, and community/social resilience capacity building)? What specific technical support would you seek for implementing a resilience plan? Are there solutions or solution providers/ companies with which your city has already worked with or would like to work?*
This is essentially a micro-project, in which we need to envision activities. I struggle to establish the appropriate level of detail, let alone figure out what to do. It is really not fair to ask us what we would do, so I guess the question is really about what types of things we need to do. Cheap, open tech? The unMonastery as an off-grid hacker university to skill people up in a material sense? Local networks connected to solar (reminiscent of Arthur’s State-In-A-Box session at #LOTE1)? Planting lots of trees? What about finance? Should we aim to secure capital in-kind, as in buildings and arable land? I would really appreciate any input you might have.
(we’re going slower so just some idle comments by now)
SCIM-wise there’s all sorts of infrastructure to strengthen and flexibilise, from grow more of own food to keep stocks of insulin (this may have to do with finance).
Then there’s skills: which, and how to acquire them, and how to spread them fast when wanted/needed. The unmon might help with emergency permaculture, and also with instant communities (think boat travelers, each in tiny room, forced to cooperate in a rush). The latter might include currencies and Matt’s app.
So, actual resources, specific know how, and networks (both specialised and mixed).
Is that a useful level of abstraction as to how we’d use some cash?
NB: I’d plant trees for food and wood. Which ones for each climate is a challenge. How to grow the network and financial mechanisms to do that, another level of the challenge. For each action there’s that kind of levels: kitchen table, and the room around the kitchen table.
This is certainly very clear, [LucasG]. We do need to communicate more. Maybe we could say this:
grow and flexibilise infrastructure + two examples
build up and spread skills + two examples
build communities and design for their rapid expansion + two examples (does this include institutions to embed knowledge in? See item 4 in my answer to question 1).
This abstraction level is certainly manageable.
Can you expand on the kitchen table metaphor? You clearly have been thinkinf about this longer than I have.
Over at fluwiki there was a wiki to start with, and later a forum was added. When explaining the difference to newbies, it was clear that there was a structured information space (SIS) which was the wiki, and a conversation space (CS) around it. One had some sort of logical structure and the other unfolded along time. The idea was that ideally we were building the SIS with the CS, like cooks chatting about the real focus which would be the wiki (kitchen table). But confort zones and search tools within the CS almost killed the SIS. (And then there’s the RAS (real actions space) which is kinda the ultimate focus.)
Another metaphor I’ve found useful is pyramid/onion. In health care many see the World Health Org director at the top of the pyramid, general practitioners at the bottom, and “patients” as the inert sand around what really matters. A doctor-turned-politician (very temporarily) told me he favoured another view: this whole business starts with young ape falling off a tree and mom being around to ease the pain. The rest of us are helpful layers around that real action. So, in terms of resilient cities, growing trees needs a layer of growers, a layer of advisors, layers of facilitation, etc. (From ape-care to city-care and beyond.) So it’s not just levels of abstraction but also levels of action. (I guess.)
Heads up: these guys are thinking Big Data / Big Everything
<groan> They’ll hit us with the Internet of Things next.
This document was forwarded to me by Matera just now. The core partnership here is:
Rockefeller Fdn
Swiss Re – wholesale insurers/reinsurers. Here is a bunch that won't buy the Black Swan/fat tailed argument,.
Palantir – big data analytics providers
The American Institute of Architects
The Clinton Global Initiative. This is actually good, since their focus on economic recovery (in America at least) sits wel with our attention for systemic risk.
This is starting to look disturbingly like a centralized initiative: the big fish provide value addedservices, the cities buy them paying with RF money. It’s a great way to build a client base for Swiss Re, Palantir and American architects.
Question: does any of this jeopardize our strategy? Paging [cbrewster].
It’s 11 days until deadline. Here today some local conversation. I guess cities can network in any case? Question is, is this a case of “thank you but no thank you”?
Re Matera 100RC application and SCIM, I’d tell the core of what we do favour: looking at needs (of people, groups, orgs and even states) rather than at systems (which may or may not stay up during a crisis, be it simple or complex). So if people need shelter and buildings have fallen, maybe we can build hexayurts. Or if hospitals need sterilization and there’s no electricity, then boil the knives. I mindmapped this in the 80-page FluSCIM doc (tinyurl.com/fluscim): each need branches out to its several solutions. If the usual branch that solves our transport need has a flat tyre, we take the bus branch.
I.e., express an understandable core concept, not the details. And “needs not systems” is quite an insight.
Of course, if old system works it’s not a crisis, is it?
So sequence is check, reinforce, substitute, do without.
The text in my 6-page summary is there for the taking. (cc)
