Last week, as demonstrations and outrage continued across America, I received an invitation that made me very nervous: I was invited to join a live BBC World Service program to discuss the view from California. I felt ill-equipped to contribute. What could I say that would be valuable to the dialogue? This is a challenging time to opine on the tinder box that is America, particularly if you’re a white immigrant. But I did my homework, listened to a lot of diverse commentary and read widely.
I can’t claim to have all the answers (who does?) but in preparing for the program, I did some personal growth. I changed from from feeling tongue-tied and unworthy, to fired up about speaking out. How? My research taught me three important things (see below).
Or listen to the Fresh Dialogues podcast below which features highlights of our discussion and more about what I discovered.
.
We began by discussing Trump’s executive order introducing police reforms, and then listened to the insightful perspective of Philip McHarris. A researcher at Yale University, McHarris is a vocal member of the Community Resource Hub for Safety and Accountability. He makes some excellent points about the need to prioritize education and economic opportunity for the black community, and has written a provocative New York Times Opinion piece that concludes: “We need to reimagine public safety in ways that shrink and eventually abolish police and prisons.”
I agree with his call to reimagine public safety, but it’s hard to imagine that abolishing police and prisons will ever be a wise idea. What do you think?
BBC transcript (edited for length and clarity).
Philip McHarris: Police are largely arresting people, and putting people in jail and ruining lives and communities, when people need resources and opportunities, and not a prison cell and policing.
Defunding police means shifting resources away from policing and getting at the underlying causes like not having quality schools, employment options, housing healthcare. The communities that are the safest don’t have the most police but they have the most resources. Because of specific decisions and political inaction, housing policies have created legacies of racial and economic inequality. People often are forced into survival economies which are then criminalized.
So the first step is funding community resources and institutions. The other side is developing alternative emergency response systems where police –– who have guns and a license to kill with immunity –– are not showing up when people need a wellness check, a mental health intervention or domestic violence support.
Jamie Robertson: Alison, this idea of defunding the police…is it getting traction? The idea of withdrawing the police and replacing areas of police enforcement with social workers?
Alison van Diggelen:There is support for defunding police and looking at the root causes (of police brutality). The fact is: We all have bias. It’s what we do with it and how we manage our first impulses (that matters most).
The police force needs to build new protocols and new partnerships, as Philip said, with social workers and psychologists. It needs to invest more in anger management and de-escalating violence, rather than inciting violence. And perhaps making Malcolm Gladwell’s book Talking to Strangers mandatory for police officers?
This pandemic has exacerbated the tinder box of despair and rage in America. Perhaps America also needs to face its horrific history of slavery. That legacy continues today. We need to borrow practices from South Africa and Rwanda and hold Truth and Reconciliation hearings.
Here are the three things I learned in preparing for the BBC program:
Speak out: As influential psychologist and author Adam Grant says:
“Just as sexism is not only a ‘women’s issue,’ racism is not only a ‘black issue.’ In social movements, research has repeatedly shown that when majority groups stay quiet, they inadvertently license the oppression of marginalized groups.” Adam Grant
So, no matter who you are or where you’re from, this is time for speaking out against injustice and inequality. It’s also a time for mindful listening, reading purposefully and amplifying the voices from the black community.
“Let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.” Barack Obama
It’s a version of Michelle Obama’s powerful mantra: “When they go low, we go high.” Here’s her full explanation of the mantra:
“‘Going high’ doesn’t mean you don’t feel the hurt, or you’re not entitled to an emotion. It means that your response has to reflect the solution. It shouldn’t come from a place of anger or vengefulness. Anger may feel good in the moment, but it’s not going to move the ball forward,” Michelle Obama.
3. Champion what works
The United States has a appalling history of slavery; but it’s not the only country that’s ever dealt with systemic racism. Think about the last century of German and Rwandan history. And in South Africa, racism wasn’t just systemic during the Apartheid era, it was an integral part of the constitution and the law of the land. Many people predicted a bloodbath when apartheid ended, but instead Nelson Mandela helped to make a peaceful transition. The country’s Truth and Reconciliation Hearings were an integral part of this.
My fellow BBC contributor, Barrett Holmes Pitner writes eloquently about what we can learn from other countries and concludes:
“Rwanda, Germany, and South Africa have reckoned with their troubled past to make a better future, but America has long preferred to ignore the past, and proclaim the inevitability of progress. America today must define and confront the Original Sin of slavery.” BBC contributor Barrett Holmes Pitner.
Here are some other insightful perspectives worth reading:
“Everyone deserves dignity at the end of life,” Isabel Stenzel Byrnes, bereavement counsellor and hospice care worker.
This week’s podcast is a deeply personal story of how the Covid-19 pandemic impacted my family. A shorter version aired this week on the BBC World Service program, Health Check. I dedicate it to my beloved mother, to those fearful for vulnerable family members, and to anyone who’s lost a loved one recently. And I offer sincere thanks to Isabel, Laura and Mary who shared their poignant and hard earned wisdom about dealing with death.
Listen to the full story at the Fresh Dialogues podcast or below:
.
The Covid-19 pandemic has forced me to have a deeply uncomfortable conversation with my sisters. The topic? Our mother’s death. Despite warnings not to visit the elderly, my younger sister drove 500 miles from Kent to Scotland to visit our mother. A puzzling phone conversation convinced her that our 88 year-old mum needed help, urgently. So we made a pact one night: if mum did catch Covid, we’d keep her at home, come hell or high water. The thought of our sociable mum lying alone in a hospital bed, struggling for breath with no one holding her hand, broke our hearts.
Just a few hours later, I woke to the news that hell had arrived. Mum fell during the night and broke her pelvis. My sister watched, impotent, pleading as the ambulance crew –– decked out in full body protection –– stretchered her away. Grimacing in pain, she grasped at my sister’s hand, “Don’t worry, I’ll be OK,” she said. “You know I’m a tough old woman.”
We feared that would be the last time we’d see her alive.
To make matters worse, I’m 5,000 miles away from Scotland, sheltering in California, where I’ve lived for more than two decades.
Earlier this year, the BBC’s Health Check asked me to explore a watershed moment in American healthcare: For the first time since the 1970s more Americans are dying at home than in hospital. My first reaction was: Nope, I can’t go there. Like many of us, I feared facing death.
But now it hit home for me, like an avalanche of mother-daughter worry. Witnessing the isolation of Covid hospital patients in painful technicolor online –– and the inability of loved ones to say goodbye –– has brought it all into sharp focus.
So whyare the majority of Americans now choosing to die at home, and not in hospital? Do they miss out on specialist care and pain relief? What is “a good death,” and what will be the lasting impact of Covid on all this?
“Medicine historically has said: We’ll throw everything we can at a person to keep them alive and is not necessarily what people want,” she says.
Today about 80% of Americans say they want to die at home– or at least not in hospital.
In response, hospice care has grown rapidly over the last 10 years. The modern-day hospice movement was started in the UK in the late 1960s by a former nurse, Dame Cicely Saunders, who wanted to focus on the relief of symptoms like pain, whilst attending to their emotional and spiritual needs away from a hospital environment.
According to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, the number of hospice patients on Medicare– the federal health insurance program for over 65 year-olds – has grown from 44% in 2012 to 50% in 2018. In the US, unlike the UK, in-facility hospice care is the exception, not the rule. So most American hospice workers provide care in patients’ homes.
“Everyone deserves dignity at the end of life,” she says. “Death is the ultimate equalizer. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, black or white, American or from another country. We will all die. So one of the philosophies of hospice care is to give everyone a death with love, support, presence, understanding and dignity. We want to honor the life they lived, and exit this world with grace and support.”
Stenzel Byrnes points out that unlike being in hospital, where unfamiliar surroundings and staff on constant rotation, and unexpected tests in the wee hours which can cause anxiety, dying at home can give people more calm and control.
“It’s different at home with a handful of close caregivers … who know your life story… can share stories and laugh. You can be understood and known at the end of life by the people surrounding you,” Stenzel Byrnes adds.
But, she cautions, there’s a risk of romanticizing death at home. It’s not always calm and predictable.
“Death is hard hard work for the patient and carers, and the family members,” Stenzel Byrnes points out. “It’s a long process of making peace….it can still be something that most of us will fight against. As Dylan Thomas said, most of us will not go gently into that good night. People die the way they lived. If people were defiant, and angry, hostile to other people, they’re probably going to be that way in the end.”
Hospice care can provide all the pain medication patients need in their dying days at home, but unlike in hospitals, it’s rarely 24/7, so family members can face a heavy burden.
Since 1982 Medicarehas paid for hospice care services – providing their doctors say they have less than 6 months to live and they decline curative treatments like chemotherapy and ventilators – this can save patients exorbitant hospital bills. Instead of trying to prolong life at all costs, Mission Hospice’s Mary Matthieson explains that her team focuses on the quality of life, an approach she calls: “Cabernet over chemo.”
But dying at home isn’t just about saving money – it’s also driven by educational and cultural factors.
Influential doctors like Atul Gawande –– and Britain’s Rachel Clarke –– have helped shiftattention towards palliative care, as well as “death positive” movements like Death Cafes, where people are encouraged to meet for tea and discuss death – and online awareness sites like “The Conversation”, help to reduce the cultural taboo around death.
So does Stanford’s Laura Carstensen believe that Covid-19 has jolted the worldinto considering the option of dying at home?
“I’ve already said to my husband: If I had Covid and having difficulty breathing: don’t take me to the hospital,” she says. “A lot of people are saying that – do NOT take me to hospital. It’s the last place I want to go at the end of my life. We’re doing ourselves and other people a favor by talking openly and we’re obliged to help people we care about get what they want.”
The forced isolation of Covid patients is necessary to protect the wider community, but it’s troubling to think of patients dying alone.
“It’s even worse than that,” says Laura Carstensen. “Medical professionals are incredibly stressed themselves, overburdened. It’s hard to imagine that people have time to sit and hold the hand of someone. There’s every reason to think that a lot people are ending up in their very last minutes of life are very much alone.”
Isabel Stenzel Byrnes is also a bereavement expert – and worries that the speed of the virus doesn’t allow anticipatory grief.
“I’m very concerned that bereavement will have added regret, guilt and what we call counterfactual thinking: I would’ve, should’ve done something differently,” she says. “The one solace is the collective grief we’re all experiencing. Everyone on this planet is impacted in some way. You’re not alone if you’ve lost a loved one to Covid. There are thousands like you that are grieving…”
But Byrnes also believes a silver lining will come from this pandemic. That it will produce an awakening and help lessen the taboo of death – helping us to realize that simply talking about death will not make it more likely to happen.
“The epidemic is a natural source of anxiety and stress. It awakens a primitive survival instinct: we want to control as much as possible…” says Stenzel Byrnes. “It confronts us with death and we can think about death without it happening. There’s a myth if we talk about death it will happen. That’s like saying if we talk about sex we’re going to get pregnant. That’s a complete myth. What Covid is doing is: it puts death and dying as a more familiar topic…the idea of death becomes a kitchen table topic that we can openly discuss with friends and family and what is most important to us and what our wishes might be, when our time comes.”
And that’s exactly what Covid did for my family. For us, the kitchen table was the sometimes precarious connection of a Skype call.
After the ambulance crew whisked our mother to hospital, my sisters and I spent an agonizing eight hours waiting, pacing and trying to reach the hospital for news. Late that night, they called to say that mum was coming home.
For the last few weeks, my sisters have been caring for her in her crowded little granny flat. We’ve all had some powerful conversations –– and some hilarity –– about what matters most in life, and in death. My mother tells me how delighted she is that the potatoes in her garden are beginning to sprout vibrant green shoots. She’s also said several times: I’ve had a good life, I’d rather go quickly…
I take a deep breath and feel sad and impotent, so far away. But I’ve also had time reflect on this wisdom from Isabel Stenzel Byrnes, the bereavement counsellor:
“Ultimately the more we talk about death, the more we embrace life,” she says. “Death and life go hand in hand and if we love life dearly we also have to love this idea that it will end. And we can live more fully by accepting that.”
“Mother Nature is a very powerful educator” and her power has never been more apparent than during Covid-19.* But what have we learned from this unprecedented pandemic?
Firstly: That what was once impossible, is now possible. Who’d have predicted that governments facing a global crisis would put humanity ahead of the economy? Despite all odds, they did and for the most part, continue to do so.
Secondly: With many economies in the deep freeze, we have a rare opportunity to create a “new” new normal, one that’s less carbon intensive and more environmentally friendly.
This week’s podcast explores these important questions: Is the Earth sending us a message? And if so, can we rise to challenge, before it’s too late?
OK, here’s a sobering statistic: A recent IPSOS Mori poll revealed that over 70% of the global population consider that, in the long term, climate change is as important a crisis as the coronavirus. Think about that for a minute.
Climate activists –– like the team at Global Optimism –– have renewed confidence that this pandemic has produced the wakeup call we need to re-examine our priorities. Instead of returning to business-as-usual and locking in higher emissions, some leaders are using the slogan: “Build back better.” The BBC’s Roger Harrabin writes about the need for the UK to avoid “lurching from the coronavirus crisis into a deeper climate crisis.” Britain’s Climate Change Committee Chairman, John Gummer has called for rebuilding the economy with a focus on green jobs, and boosting low carbon industries like clean energy and electric cars.
The pandemic has taught us that, instead of denial and inaction, basic risk assessment and preparation could have avoided mass chaos and deaths around the world. I’m sure you’ll agree that witnessing over-stretched intensive care units and the Hunger-Games-like scramble for ventilators, face masks and personal protection equipment was excruciating. It didn’t have to happen. Over five years ago, Bill Gates warned us about the risk of pandemics. Why did no one listen?
Today, Bill McKibben, Greta Thunberg and others are warning us about the risks of climate change. Calling them all Cassandras -– prophets of doom and gloom -– is no longer an option. We’re all in this together and we are woke! Let’s harness this united mindset and act NOW to green our economy, before it’s too late.
Some people might scoff at my idea that the pandemic could mean the Earth is sending us a message: the FT’s Robin Harding couldn’t conceal his mirth, as you’ll hear soon! But Jamie Robertson supported my idea, recalling his high school “Fruit flies in a jam-jar” experiment. Thanks Jamie! So think about this: Is the jam-jar sending the flies a message? It’s clear that you don’t have to be a sentient-being to send a message.
Here are highlights of my conversation with the BBC’s Jamie Robinson and the FT’s Robin Harding, (edited for length and clarity). We start by hearing from Tom Rivett-Carnac about this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change direction, as governments use unprecedented levers to jumpstart their economies.
Tom Rivett-Carnac: If we now just subsidize fossil fuels, previous ways of doing things, we’re just going to end up with another boom and bust and very quickly be back to where we were in terms of pollution. An interesting correlation between climate and the pandemic: In both cases, relatively small amounts spent yield massive returns to benefit society.
Recent analysis suggests that if world leaders had spent $3.4 Billion annually preparing for Covid 19, it could have prevented at least $4 Trillion in costs, not to mention the human costs of the pandemic. That’s also true of climate. Taking action to prevent further impact is the cheapest thing to do and we should learn from the experience of the virus and invest now to prevent the impacts of climate change, and reap the benefits of the transition to a green economy.
Jamie Robertson: Robin, how does that argument fit in Japan?
Robin Harding: I don’t think that argument plays very strongly in Japan. I disagree with it strongly. The virus has revealed how miserable we are if we can’t go on holiday, see people, go out to work. I think people will be keen to get back to normal. What it reveals about the climate and the environment is that shutting everything down, avoid traveling to improve the environment isn’t going to wash with people. Instead we need to think about ways to decarbonize… Japan tends to prioritize the economy over the environment and always has.
Jamie Robertson: Now I want to go to California and see if the feeling is any different there, Alison?
Alison van Diggelen: There is a change in mindset, the pandemic and climate change are connected: we’re united against a common enemy. And we are learning to work from home more and that’s having a positive impact on climate change and it’s going be a lasting legacy.
Today on Earth Day, it’s worth framing it like this: When Europeans came to The Americas, they brought smallpox and other diseases that decimated the Native American population because they didn’t have immunity. Now, the tables have turned: we humans are the invaders of the natural world. We’re now being exposed to wild animals’ pathogens; (from bats etc.) and we don’t have natural resistance. So it LOOKS like Mother Earth is fighting back. So I’m hoping, and I think many people are hoping, that this pandemic could stimulate a shift in mindset: we might become more inclined to protect rainforests, rethink farming and rethink our use of oil. If not, if we keep encroachment on wild areas, we could face more pandemics like this one.
Jamie Robertson: Robin, I imagine you’re not going along with that?
Robin Harding: I don’t feel this is the earth is sending us a message, that we’re doing something wrong (laughter)…
Jamie Robertson: There is the argument that if you put a large number of people in a small space: we have 8 billion people living on earth, you’re going to get more diseases. If you put fruit flies in a jam jar, they expend in number and then they die off…
Robin Harding: That’s belied by our actual experience. As we’ve become richer and more developed, we’ve succeeded in taming diseases. This disease came from a wild animal market that wasn’t properly regulated. So to me, the lesson is you need to regulate wild animal markets, not that you need to need to revert to nature.
Jamie Robertson: Alison, final word from you on this argument?
Alison van Diggelen: I appreciate your support here, Jamie. Arguably we’ve crossed a line here … and I don’t think regulation itself is going to help us.
*In 2019, during a must-read interview with the Washington Post, environmentalist and author, Bill McKibbon, famously said “Mother Nature is a very powerful educator.” Here at Fresh Dialogues, we couldn’t agree more.
If you’re stuck at home and thinking: what can I do to help my community? I hope today’s podcast will inspire you.
Last week, my colleagues at The BBC World Service invited me to join the show Business Matters and share news from Silicon Valley. Even though the valley is one of America’s COVID-19 hotspots, I was determined to report something positive.
For inspiration, I thought of Mr. Rogers, America’s beloved TV personality and puppeteer. He famously said, “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’”
During this unsettling time, when it’s easy to get scared and give in to despair, I find his advice reassuring. But I think he meant more than one thing. I think, if Mr. Rogers was alive today, he’d say:
Find people who are helping…
Find opportunities to help, and encourage others to help in their communities.
So I scoured the news for uplifting stories about people who’re helping in my community. A tweet from California Governor Gavin Newsom caught my eye. He praised the rapid response of a Silicon Valley company that’s stepping up to meet the urgent need for ventilators to keep COVID-19 patients alive. I immediately got in touch with Bloom Energy and interviewed its chief operating officer, Susan Brennan that afternoon. She told me she challenged her team by saying, “We’re going to solve this thing!” I wanted to know: was the solution the brainchild of one person, or a team effort? You’ll find out below.
My interview aired on the BBC World Service on April 2, 2020.
Here are highlights of my conversation with the BBC’s Jamie Robertson and Enda Curran, chief Asia economics correspondent at Bloomberg in Hong Kong. The transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
We began by discussing the record 10 million people in the United States who’re unemployed, many almost overnight. Jamie Robertson: Alison, you must know people who’ve been made unemployed. Are they just lying down and taking it or are they getting up and doing something else, finding other opportunities? Alison van Diggelen: In California, Governor Newsom has set up a job matching site. The state has partnered with private companies so you can go online and find jobs that fit your skills. Other people are doing coding classes, or online training, to become yoga teachers for example.
This week, I interviewed Susan Brennan of Bloom Energy and heard about an engineer called Joe Tavi. He hasn’t lost his job, but has found a new job. He was on the production team for fuel cell making, but is now on the “Tiger Team” to refurbish ventilators for the cause. People are really seeing opportunities within this devastation. Robertson: We’re going to be hearing from him in the last piece on this program. You’ve got a fascinating report….
Over in Silicon Valley, a fuel cell company called Bloom Energy has stepped up to refurbish non-functioning ventilators for hospitals in record speed by repurposing their warehouses. Here’s the company’s COO, Susan Brennan. Susan Brennan: Valves, pumps, airflow, batteries: If you look at the pieces, there’s so much commonality between a ventilator and a fuel cell. Completely different function and process, but at its base level: very common inputs.
I spoke to the head of health and human services on March 17th, St Patrick’s day. That’s when I built the Tiger Team. I said: this is a mission, either you’re in or you’re not in. But if you’re in, we’re going to solve this thing!
My engineer, Joe Tavi, went home on a Wednesday. He downloaded the manual, taught himself overnight, developed processes the next day, Thursday. On Friday we convinced the state that we were capable of doing this. Everybody’s asking: what they can do right now? Where is that niche that you have, that you can go fill?
Susan asks a very good question: where’s the niche that you have, that you can go fill?
Find out more
Bloom Energy is refurbishing between 1000 and 2000 ventilators a week. To date, it has delivered over 1000 ventilators in California and Delaware. If you have ventilators in need of refurbishment, please contact Bloom Energy today. You could save a life.
If you’d like to share what you or your company is doing to help fight the pandemic or support people in your community, join the conversation at Facebook
This week, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager, stole the show at the United Nations General Assembly. Thanks to her, climate change is on the minds of the world. I was invited to discuss climate change action on the BBC World Service this month and we explored the role of activists like Thunberg, indigenous people, and technology pioneers like Elon Musk.
With visible rage, Thunberg described the urgency of action in stark terms on Monday.
”People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”
Then Thunberg made a passionate plea to each one of us, especially political leaders, to examine our consciences.
“How dare you continue to look away? The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.”
Greta Thunberg’s fury was evident to everyone who watched her, but she ended on a positive note:
“Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
BBC host, Jamie Robertson led a lively discussion exploring the urgency of climate change action and we were joined by ABC Australia’s Clare Negus. I took the opportunity to praise Thunberg’s tenacity.
The program started with a soulful report by the BBC’s Frey Lindsay. He reported on a gathering of indigenous community leaders from around the world who met at University College London to listen, exchange ideas and build solidarity in the fight against environmental degradation and climate change.
Listen to the podcast at the BBC World Service (environmental discussion starts at 10:40)
Here’s a transcript of conversation highlights (edited for length and clarity):
Jamie Robertson: In California, you’re very much on the front line, we think of the wildfires…do indigenous people have a role to play here?
Alison van Diggelen: It’s important for us in California, and around the world, to listen to the indigenous people. What we do over the next ten to twenty years is going to determine the fate of humanity. We need to remember environmentalist, John Muir, who said:
“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”
Technology plays a role in this by increasing transparency. Almost everyone has a mobile phone (and can take photos of environmental abuses), so multinationals can’t get away with what they used to.
Jamie Robertson: How high up the news agenda are questions about environmental problems and climate change?
Alison van Diggelen: Greta Thunberg, bless her heart, is keeping it on our agenda, but I wish it were higher. Looking at the Democratic Party Presidential debates, climate change was there, but I wish we could raise the issue more. People are concerned about what’s impacting them on a daily basis. There’s not enough of a long term view. We need more people like David Attenborough (and Greta Thunberg and Bill McKibben) speaking up for the environment.
Jamie Robertson: Clare ?
Clare Negas: It’s a major criticism of ABC Australia that we do too much on climate change and not enough on cost of living stories!
Jamie Robertson: I want to take the conversation on to the Frankfurt Motor Show and the extraordinary confrontation between the “Lords” of the auto industry and ordinary citizens worried about climate change, worried about cars and what they’re doing to the environment.
Alison, you’re in California at the forefront in the development of electric vehicles and things which could actually make a difference. Is there a sense of optimism that these things will work?
Alison van Diggelen: Absolutely. California is where Elon Musk jumpstarted this electric vehicle revolution. Tesla is doing phenomenally well. They’re due to sell about half a million electric cars this year. California is a state that is doing all it can to boost the sales of electric vehicles (EVs). It accounts for half of all U.S. sales of EVs thanks to rebates and state government policies. It has a goal of getting 5 million EVs on the road by 2030 and it does things like fast tracking permissions for charging infrastructure; that’s a key part of making EVs the number one form of transport.
Elon Musk has predicted that within 10 years, the majority of cars produced will be electric. Others like Morgan Stanley say it’s more like 20 years. It may be somewhere in the middle.
Jamie Robertson: Clare, do you have such faith?
Clare Negas: I do! I think globally electric cars will be the future. In Australia it’ll be a bigger battle because there is such a cultural identity around petrol and diesel fueled engines. We’re a strong car culture and that will continue. A few years ago, we drove a Tesla hundreds of kms to prove it wouldn’t run out of energy. There were no problems. Check out Clare’s fascinating report here.
End of Transcript
Extra: The program included a discussion about the college admissions scandal and I made a shout out to the hard working team and students at Breakthrough Silicon Valley who arguably have the most to lose. Their leader John Hiester recently wrote a moving oped about his outrage at cheaters like Felicity Huffman.
Find out more about clean tech and technology’s role in climate action at Fresh Dialogues.
Last week, I was invited to join the BBC World Service program “Business Matters” to discuss business ethics and the trade war. To give a flavor of the Silicon Valley zeitgeist, I shared highlights of my interview with Scott Kupor, a prominent venture capitalist (VC), and author of the book, “Secrets of Sand Hill Road.”
On the never ending drama of the US/China trade war, I came up with an apt way of describing Trump’s strategy: “Like a bull in a China shop.” (Listen at 15:45 in the BBC podcast)
This view was bolstered, just four days later, when we saw the biggest drop in the Dow Jones all year, and experts blamed it on Trump’s escalation of trade tensions. Headlines like this one are now common: Have U.S. Tariffs backfired? I won’t be surprised if an impulsive tweet from Trump plunges the world economy into recession.
But meantime, here’s a transcript of my conversation with the BBC’s Fergus Nicoll and author Jasper Kim in Seoul. It’s been edited (and italicized) for length and clarity.
Fergus Nicoll: Silicon Valley has had its fair share of “fake it till you make it” stories, would-be billionaire entrepreneurs who talk a great game and acquire a loyal and admiring following, then they go bust and sometimes go to jail. And it’s not just the tech sector. It’s fair to say the chance of hearing unvarnished, unpartisan truth from any given politician might be lowish. Alison, who’ve you been discussing ethical behavior with?
Alison van Diggelen: I had a great discussion recently with VC Scott Kupor…We talked about Facebook’s mantra of “moving fast and breaking things” and he feels the rules are different for small startups which have limited impact. He calls them “the pirates.”
I asked him: Are you saying it’s OK to be a pirate in the early stages of a startup?
Scott Kupor: It depends on what pirate means (audience laughter).
Fraud and misleading people is clearly not right. But the idea that you might enter into a market where you’re not exactly sure what the product should look like, you might have a theory on what your regulatory structure is, but you’re not 100% sure.
[Photo credit:Sarah Gonzalez/Commonwealth Club]
I’ll give you a great example: we’re investors in Airbnb and Lyft. These companies probably couldn’t have been successful if they’d asked for permission every time they went into a new market. You could argue that was unethical: They should’ve got permission first. The reality is, they said: we’re going to go into a new market, we believe we have a defensible theory that why what we’re doing is appropriate from a regulatory perspective, but we also know we’re likely to get challenged on that. But over time, if a consumer utility is big enough, there is a way to deal with these issues. So that’s my definition of a pirate: I think that’s reasonable acceptable behavior. Fraud and misleading people is not acceptable behavior.
Alison van Diggelen: In order to create a startup that’s potentially going to change the world, you have to break some rules and the question is: which rules? You have to question the status quo. Theranos –– the blood testing company that famously imploded last year and the CEO has been charged with fraud –– is a great example of going too far, going to the dark side. One of the Theranos whistleblowers, Tyler Schulz, has started a nonprofit called Ethics in Entrepreneurship to teach ethics, get the basics down.
This is why I asked Scott Kupor about ethics. VCs work closely with startups (they often join their board of directors) and I wanted to hold his feet to the fire and say: You (and your colleagues) have a responsibility to make sure your entrepreneurs are thinking about ethics. It’s one thing to be a pirate in the early days, but at some point you have to grow up and be like the navy and play according to the rules and respect the nation’s laws.
Fergus Nicoll: Do you think these internal debates translate across Asia in terms of startups, Jasper? For example, startups in Vietnam saying: we think we’ve got a space in the market, but we’ll have to break the rules to get there, then grow…and then we’ll behave?
Jasper Kim: There are some minute cultural nuances, but similarities. If you look at Steve Jobs. His famous quote is:
“All the great ideas were stolen.”
If you look at Apple in the early days: they flew a pirate flag and were unabashed by the fact that they basically ripped off or stole ideas from here and there. The genius of it was connecting different technologies that existed before, like the touch screen, with ATM machines, like the wheel on the iPod, and use that to make genius products like the iPhone.
What is ethical? That’s a big question. Kupor’s defense is that it’s all for consumer utilitarianism, but there’s also the other side of what’s ethical and that’s Immanuel Kant, and his theory of Categorical Imperative. You have to have certain values as inputs, you shouldn’t just deal with outcomes to justify your behavior.
Of course, the trade war and piracy (of IP) are connected at the core, but that’s a discussion for another day…
The BBC program aired live on August 1, 2019 and my conversation with Scott Kupor took place in front of a live audience at the Commonwealth Club in Silicon Valley on June 10, 2019.
