The key difference

Thinking on my last post (Homer-Dixon): the key reason why I like working with Steve DeAngelis is that, like me, he worries about all the same bad things I do (and Homer-Dixon) does, but his answer is always to fix, improve, innovate, make more resilient, etc. He motivates through profit and does not seek to profit from fear.

The differences between the way Steve and I talk to clients and partners and mil and intell and so on, and the way the fear-mongers do is actually very small in terms of content but huge in terms of tone.

And that's because, in the end, we peddle a product, we have an answer, we seeks solutions.

You're always going to be called "naive" when you argue that complexity can be conquered, and you're always celebrated for your "realism" when you argue for limited-regret, firewalling strategies.

But all human progress is based on the former, and all historical retreats on the latter.

And I guess we just prefer the forward motion.