|
Opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Something that frustrates me far more than the MIB bullies who threaten new technologies, is when the process is
log-jammed by starry-eyed inventors who think they should start as rich as they could end up, yet they have nothing substantial to demonstrate presently, only uncertain
legends of what has been and/or hopes for what could be.
That's a problem with some inventors. Not only are they years ahead in their visioning of the technology, but they are also years ahead in expectation of rewards for their efforts. If they don't come down to earth and reality, and grow into their success, they will remain in the realm of dreams, with nothing to bring the planet of tangible value, and nothing for themselves, either, but frustration and maybe a few short-term extensions of funds.
In this mode, they will never leave the muck of premature greed.
I certainly don't mean to imply that greed is ever a desirable trait. But at least someone who has incrementally grown into wealth will have the wealth, and their product will be in circulation. They might at this point make the unfortunate decision to grow greedy and slake their greed with more wealth. But at least it is accompanied by product penetrating the market.
Of course the ideal would be that neither the person nor their associates ever grow greedy.
On the other hand, someone who expects more than what they presently deserve, based on a future vision, will turn away every serious investor who comes along, despite the potential value of the technology.
From my experience and observations, I would dare say that this brand of "own worst enemy" has killed far more deals than men in black ever did. I've seen it many times, and I've heard as many stories. Great, and often astonishing technologies that go nowhere because of this premature greed.
My hopes in pointing out this unfortunate syndrome is that it will give those thus
afflicted a gentle shake out of this syndrome that will surely obliterate their chances of success if they
persist in it. And on the down side, I hope that pointing this out will speed up the alert level for those who invest in technologies so they can move on to something more productive.
No matter how great the technology is, the inventor's attitudes often become the greatest impediment to progress. They blame others for not being willing to reward them with what they
deserve too early, when in fact the blame rests on their shoulders for expecting more than what they deserve at any given point in the process.
What they must do is recognize this tendency in themselves, and exercise great restraint in their visions of wealth materializing, letting it unfold slowly and methodically, tied to performance and milestones achieved.
If they demand more reward than what the process can sustain at any given point, and somehow are granted that level of reward, then the process will implode and come to and end, being unsustainable. Certainly that is not what the inventor wants; yet is precisely what they will get if they don't let their vision of wealth mature in a natural course.
The irony is that an inventor of a revolutionary technology who allows the process to mature properly will see the technology roll out relatively quickly, and their personal wealth will grow continuously over decades, as the product rolls out to market penetration worldwide.
Only a very small handful of technologies ever do this; and it is certain that clean energy technologies are about to take their turn.
It may not be so much a search for the ideal technology, for there are an abundance of those. It may be more a search for the inventor and team who are not afflicted with the premature greed syndrome, who can thus allow the technology to unfold properly. They are the ones who will grow wealthy beyond measure as the planet is filled with what they birthed.
Those who demand it now, before its time, will never get it; and there are hundreds, if not thousands thus
afflicted.
I certainly cannot guarantee that if an inventor happens to both have the ideal technology and the ideal attitude that they will automatically see the technology roll forth unobstructed. But I can say that if the inventor is afflicted with the premature greed syndrome, the technology will be obstructed -- by the inventor.
I realize that in this piece I've focused my remarks on the inventor. There are certainly words of censure that could be directed at the investors as well: who patent around inventors and cut them out, who do what they can to minimize what inventors get while padding their own pockets undeservedly.
The path to take a product to the world is indeed a daunting one. There are so many factors involved: teamwork, timing, connections, political climate.
Probably the best advice would be to focus on the next step of growth and bring it about, rather than looking twenty steps ahead with that being the only objective.
My purpose in this article has been to point out a major obstacle to new
technologies coming to market that shouldn't be an obstacle because it has nothing to do with technology and requires only a shift of attitude. Hopefully it will reach its mark in at least a few who might otherwise fail.
# # #
On May 13, 2008, Dr. Ted Loder of AERO wrote:
We have seen this more times than not. Visions of super wealth kill the hard work of reality. Good article Sterling.
* * * *
On May 13, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Jim Dunn wrote:
Great piece on GREED
* * * *
On May 11, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Charles Bensinger wrote:
Very eloquently stated and powerfully to the point. Obviously, you are speaking from a point of extensive personal experience. And the on-going tragedy for all of civilization that your piece speaks to deserves deep consideration by all parties. It's something that needs to be heard by any and all would-be breakthrough technology inventors.
I've also observed that the criticism you level at the inventors is just as valid when applied to certain groups of "renewable energy financial speculators" who blithely throw sound science to the wind and are soliciting millions of dollars from unsuspecting investors through peddling future promises of new fuel
technology breakthroughs without taking a serious look at the very real obstacles to commercial scale production.
Some large chickens will soon be coming home to roost.
* * * *
On May 12, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Mark Snoswell wrote:
This is a symptom of an underlying problem that is more fundamental: There is no framework for collaborative independent research and development. Let me explain...
We have two well established routes for research and development at present:
1. Academia.
2. Private Industry.
While academia has strengths in its open approach that encourages collaboration and education it has become stifled by the Publish or Perish syndrome. Because of this academia can only advance understanding slowly and within the rigid constraints of fashionable thinking. On the other hand, private Industry seeks out innovation but due to its commercial goals it suppresses collaboration and education.
There is also a lot of experience required to thrive in either environment --your average independent inventor is sadly lacking in both academic and business expertise.
A new energy researcher finds they are unable to fit well in either group academia or private industry. What we need is a mechanism where independent researchers can gain funding to pursue new ideas with the benefits of both a collaborative academic environment and a development driven private industry environment. Ideally this would require industry funding and academic commitment... but its not a free ride for the independent researchers. They would be obliged to share (publish) their ideas and to teach others.
To succeed this requires an enlightened approach from all three parties academia, private sector and independent researchers. Everyone needs to let go of their pride, greed and egos long enough to see the benefits for all.
The NEC is in a position to forge a new model as I have described it here. This starts with education and by example. At present I see a very healthy attitude and a good information gathering and reporting network. What I dont see yet (apologies if I have missed something) is an evolving formal education, research and development environment.
* * * *
On May 13, 2008, Pete of Santa Rosa, CA, wrote:
Too many of us see only separation in the world. As a result, we ask ourselves, what's going to work best for me? This question sets us off in different directions with little sense of unity. In a world of separation, it's every man for himself, which puts us in conflict with one another, not partnership. Wouldn't it be better for us to remember we're both one AND separate, and ask ourselves, instead, what's going to work best for all of us, in personal terms AND in terms of business, education, the environment and peace? With this question, our relationships, how we treat the earth and one another, becomes as important to us as how we treat ourselves.
(See; We Create Our Own
Reality)
* * * *
On May 13, 2008, Maj. Todd Hathaway wrote:
Well said! Materialism has managed to torpedo virtually every advanced energy initiative; and I have chosen not to support this field of research through direct funding any longer - a decision resulting from the realization that materialism dominates every aspects of our lives. Many technologies are available for development into viable products, but the almighty dollar or related self-interest has ensured that these products will not benefit the public in a timely manner. People have to learn that there is no 'us' and 'them'. There is only 'Us', and that through attachment to the material world, everyone suffers as a result. Only when mankind outgrows its need to perpetuate self-interest over altruism shall we collectively rise above our self-imposed limitations in energy, health, food, water and other facets of our existence. Thinking creates destiny.
* * * *
See also
|
||||
|
||||
| Page composed by Sterling
D. Allan May 11, 2008 Last updated June 02, 2008
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Feed