I was going to write something about the reviews of my book but something else has caught my eye. Did you see that Damien Hirst has sold a diamond-encrusted skull for US$100 million? Really? Funny that amount. Rather round isn’t it? Reminds me of online newsletters that have 10,000 readers. Not 9,657 but 10,000 dead. Now I could be wrong about this (and I’ll apologise if I am) but I don’t believe a word of what I’m reading in the newspapers. So Damien Hirst has sold his skull to an ‘investment group’ that wishes to remain anonymous and Hirst still retains a stake in the skull?

Well I’d like to suggest that the reason that the ‘investment group’ wishes to remain anonymous is because it doesn’t exist. That’s right, this is a bit of PR puff but no newspaper has seen through it. They’ve just reprinted the press release without question. More specifically, no newspaper has the time or money to question it.

My friend Oliver just stuck this up on homepagedaily.com. I think it hits a nerve….apologies about the cut and paste Ollie.
David, a financial services manager for Deloittes, spent 8 hours in a car park above a beach when on holiday in Italy as it was the only spot in which he could make mobile contact with his office. They were on a big deal and his virtual presence mandatory.”Where would I be without my Blackberry?” he reflects. Well, actually, you’d be on holiday with your family and be able to have a break from work – with the slight possibilty of then returning with the benefit that reflection and distance provides for balancing the here and now.

After slow food, let’s welcome slow work.

My book launch is getting close…next Monday.

Meanwhile, I’ve been in Melbourne talking at Innofuture (www.innofuture.com.au). If by any chance you’re in Melbourne tomorrow get down there for the second and final day and hear Tom Kelley from Ideo speak about how the legendary design firm works.

I was speaking on future trends and caused a few sharp intakes of breath by suggesting that Climate Change was a fad. Actually I didn’t say that (although that’s how I’ll be quoted). What I did say was that the panic reaction to Climate Change was out of all proportion. Basically it’s a problem but we’ll solve it through a mixture of innovation, regulation and attitudinal change. It is also not our biggest long-term problem. Resource and materials scarcity (including people) will prove to be a much bigger challenge if the current rate of development continues.

What really interests me about Climate Change is this. Why do we currently take worst-case scenarios to be most likely outcomes and why do we run from one mad panic to the next all the time? Last year it was global flu pandemics and before that (in no particular order) we had deep vein thrombosis (on long-haul flights), asteroids impacting the earth, Y2K, acid rain etc etc. One theory is that, historically speaking, apocalyptic thinking tends to occur during periods of rapid social and technological change. Is that what’s going on?