All companies die. All cities are nearly immortal.

Both are type of networks, with different destinies. There are two basic network forms: organisms or ecosystems. Companies are like organisms, while cities are like ecosystems.

Geoff West from the Santa Fe Institute has piles of data to prove these universal and predictive laws of life. For instance, organisms scale in a 3/4 law. For every doubling in size, they increase in other factors by less than one, or .75. The bigger the organism, the slower it goes. Both elephants and mice have the same number of heartbeats per lifespan, but he elephant beats slower.

Ecosystems and cities, on the other hand, scale by greater than one, or 1.15. Every year cities increase in wealth, crime, traffic, patents, pollution, disease, infrastructure, and per capita by 15%. The bigger the city, the faster it goes.

A less than one rate of exponential growth inevitably leads to an s-curve of stagnation. All organisms and companies eventually stagnate and die. A greater than one rate of exponential leads to a hockey stick upshot of seemingly unlimited growth. All cities keep growing. As West remarked: We can drop an atom bomb on a city and 30 years later it will be thriving.

The question Geoff West could not answer at tonight’s Long Now talk was:

Is the internet more like a company or more like a city?

I’d bet it is more like a city.

I think the difference between the development of an organism and a ecosystem, or a company and a city, is that the later in each case evolves rather than grows. Growth is always self-limiting, while evolution is unlimited. Evolution is the infinite game; it remakes itself again and again from within so that its growth cannot catch up or stagnate…

Francisco, B., Hanna, D., & David, I. (2010). Educational Research and Innovation The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice. OECD.

Future Work Skills 2020 [pdf]. 2011. Institute for the Future for the University of Phoenix Research Institute.

 Jones, B., & Goff, M. (2011). Learning to live with data deluge and what that means for educators. Teoría de la Educación: Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 12(1), 9–27.

Mills, K. A. (2010). A Review of the “Digital Turn” in the New Literacy StudiesReview of Educational Research80(2), 246.

Heimeriks, G., van den Besselaar, P., & Frenken, K. (2008). Digital disciplinary differences: An analysis of computer-mediated science and ‘Mode 2′ knowledge productionResearch Policy37(9), 1602-1615. doi:16/j.respol.2008.05.012

Hofer, A. R., & Potter, J. (2010). Universities, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Criteria and Examples of Good Practice [pdf]. OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working Papers.

Werquin, P. (2010). Recognition of non-formal and informal learning: country practices [pdf].Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques OCDE. Paris. [ppt]

A · Saber comunicarse bien
> Lectura crítica y reflexiva
> Interpretar la información y los medios de comunicación
> Escritura argumentativa
> Utilizar e intercambiar diferentes códigos
> Debatir y contrastar puntos de vista
> Idiomas

B· Dominar las nuevas tecnologías
> Buscar y evaluar críticamente la información
> Organizar y crear contenidos digitales
> Comunicarse y trabajar a través de redes
> Participar en la vida pública a través de internet

C · Ser creativos e innovadores
> Espíritu crítico
> Apertura a perspectivas nuevas 
> Hacer preguntas y plantear hipótesis 
> Originalidad e inventiva 
> Expresividad artística

D · Conocer cómo funcionan los negocios
> Trabajo en equipo
> Negociación de metas y proyectos
> Flexibilidad y resolución de conflictos

E · Ser multiculturales
> Conocer otras culturas y valores
> Implicarse en la comunidad
> Dialogar y negociar

F · Conocerse a sí mismo
> Expresar las propias emociones
> Entender a los demás
> Ser responsables y confiables

Nuestra crisis es ridícula comparada con otras. Hay países que nos llevan mucha ventaja aguzando el ingenio por narices. En Rusia se utilizan las muletas acoplándoles una pala para cavar mejor la tierra. También se usan los sombreros de paja como pantalla de lámpara. Otro recurso es un bolígrafo con una pequeña linterna atada, para poder seguir escribiendo cuando se corta la luz. Las antenas se confeccionan con una docena de tenedores conectados a un cable; y un instrumento de masaje, usando un ábaco de bolas de madera. En Honduras los bidones vacíos se cortan por la mitad y sirven de barbacoa o papelera, los zumos se envasan en bolsas de plástico donde se hace una incisión para beber, las llantas usadas sirven de maceteros. Las botellas se cortan por la mitad, el culo se pule hasta formar un vaso y el cuello, invertido, se convierte en copa. Y también existe mobiliario urbano: donde haya un árbol que cobije del sol, allí es la parada del bus. Otro país muy bregado es Cuba, ya habituado a la chispa desde el bloqueo comercial tras la revolución. Y además, tras el fin del proteccionismo comunista en 1989 ha debido apañarse con lo que quedaba en la isla. Por ejemplo, como timbre de bicicleta se usa un muñeco de goma con silbido. Y, por contra, un invidente usa un bastón con un timbre de bicicleta para abrirse paso entre la gente. Los chavales aprenden a nadar con dos botellones de plástico de coca cola vacíos, atados a los brazos como flotador. Como no quedan pinzas de la ropa, esta se tiende enrollándola entre las hebras separadas de un cordel. Con latas viejas se hacen lámparas o fogones de queroseno. Un bolígrafo con un alambre conectado a la corriente sirve de encendedor para el gas. Y encajando una hoja de afeitar en un lápiz tienen una maquinilla efímera. Como no hay interfonos, o ya no funcionan, el sistema para llamar en un edificio es dando un número de timbrazos para cada casa. También aquí en los años 70 debías darle al picaporte: tres para el tercer piso y tres y aldabeo para el tercero segunda. Estemos preparados, por si las moscas.

Innovate. Take action. It’s about the verb — innovating — and not the noun. Personally, I’m tired of talking about the noun innovation and reading books about that noun, and only want to help people and organizations get in better touch with their creative confidence so that they can go out and innovate. Trying to understand how to get to innovative outcomes via a process analyzing the inputs and outputs of innovation is akin to trying to understand love by reading textbooks on biology and genomics. I’d wager that the best lovers in history didn’t read books on the subject. Much better, methinks, to go out and do it in order to understand it. Love, innovate, do, live: you’ll come to understand your own self and process in due time. Which is the whole point.

Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No. 10-038


In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with - and may displace – producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.

En el blog de Creative Commons:

Their first policy recommendation should come as no surprise:

The roots of this apparent bias in favor of closed, producer-centered innovation are certainly understandable – the ascendent models of innovation we have discussed in this paper were less prevalent before the radical decline in design and communication costs brought about by computers and the Internet. But once the welfare-enhancing benefits of open single user innovation and open collaborative innovation are understood, policymakers can – and we think should – take steps to offset any existing biases. Examples of useful steps are easy to find.

First, as was mentioned earlier, intellectual property rights grants can be used as the basis for licenses that help keep innovation open as well as keep it closed (O’Mahony 2003). Policymakers can add support of “open licensing” infrastructures such as the Creative Commons license for writings, and the General Public License for open source software code, to the tasks of existing intellectual property offices. More generally, they should seek out and eliminate points of conflict between present intellectual property policies designed to support closed innovation, but that at the same time inadvertently interfere with open innovation.

Here’s a thought experiment: try to imagine what it would have been like to create Google before the era of the Internet and open standards. You would probably have had to pay millions of dollars to create the necessary software on a proprietary operating system. The effort would have required a huge team of people taking many years. Since Google is a search engine, it most likely would have been given to the phone company to design and run. If you were using X.25, the international networking standard (the Internet equivalent of its time), you would have been charged for each packet of information that you sent or received, in a network in which each network operator had a bilateral agreement with every other network operator. This total project probably would have taken a decade, cost a billion dollars, and not have worked very well.

In fact, the actual cost of building and launching the first Google server was probably only thousands of dollars using standard PC components, mostly open-source software as the base, and connecting to the Stanford University network, which immediately made the service available, at no additional cost, to everyone else on the Internet.

We’ve noted before that The New York Times is basically the New York Yankees of infographics and interactive design—with more money, more talent, and more resources than any other news outlet in the world. And unlike the New York Yankees, that talent hasn’t been sitting around for ten years, doing nothing but getting paid. No, the Timesinteractive team has been creating path-breaking experiments in infographics and interaction design. All of which are now collected in its terrific new Innovation Portfolio

An emphasis to be made is that the hacker ethic is not only about computer scientists, or about geeks and nerds, but it is a wider cultural transformation in the sense of the number and kind of people that might fit the definition. The hacker ethic can effectively be taken out of the technological sphere. So, in context, if this is a Network Society and this is its culture, what is the role of hacker ethic in today’s economy and today’s crisis? Beyond economic development we need a broader sense of development. And it is likely that this new ethic can be part of the solution, of this broader sense of development. Fundamental challenges nowadays: Clean: Climate change, being radical innovation the way to go forward; Care: Welfare society 2.0, as inequality increases and more people are unattended; Culture: Multicultural life, how to cope with the increasing cultural crossroads that globalization is creating. How can innovation turn challenges into opportunities? How can hacker ethic help in creating innovation-based solutions? Hackers can help to discover cleaner energy sources, biohackers will eventually help in creating a healthier society (being DNA the open source of life), cultural hackers can help in creating new and more meanings in multicultural life. …

… Arquitectura y nueva economía… Arquitectura y defensa y preservación de LO Común… Arquitecturas y la generación de una nueva sociedad civil… Arquitectura y nuevas ideas sobre la propiedad de lo Común…

Son ítems que van a ser, a partir de ahora, reflexiones recurrentes en el blog, tratando de fijar un sistemas de acciones, ideas, movimientos, relaciones, narrativas y ejemplos distintos de y para lo arquitectónico. El aspecto principal de la discusión en torno a la arquitectura sostenible debe dar prioridad a sus procesos de gestión, sostenible y colectiva, antes que a los productos finales, que siempre serán una verbigracia y ejemplo de ese proceso. Y la principal tarea ahora es la de tratar de gestionar en los servicios y productos arquitectónicos emergentes, y desde contextos económicos distintos a los actuales, la condición germinal de los parámetros que tienen que ver con la idea general/universal acerca de los comportamientos humanos. Esto es,

1. La defensa y preservación de LO COMUN LC

2. Generación de una nueva SOCIEDAD CIVIL SC

3. Generar un proceso de INNOVACIÓN social y técnica IST

4. Contribuir a defender social y técnicamente unos nuevos modos de vivir, de pensar, producir y trabajar SOSTENIBLES NMS