It’s almost Christmas, so perhaps acts of random kindness attract attention at this time of year. Maybe that’s too cynical. One of the most viewed images on the web last month was of a policeman helping a homeless man in New York. The man, a war veteran, was shoeless, so the policeman went to a local store and bought the man some boots – one assumes with his own money. He then helped the man to put them on.

So why is this image so heart warming? According to an experiment published in something called the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, someone that witnesses someone comforting someone in distress is more likely to be compassionate to another person themselves. I imagine the same is true too in the negative too. If you are the recipient of anger or rage you often pass the rage and anger on to someone else. This story has a twist because the man has been spotted shoeless once again. When asked “Where are your shoes?” the man said that they were too valuable to wear and would be taken from him. Turns out he isn’t homeless either. Nevertheless, it really is the thought that counts.

So be nice to someone you don’t know today, perhaps just smile at someone you don’t know, and make the world a nicer place for a few seconds.

I’m starting to miss Sydney. It’s probably the time of year. Blue sky, the ocean, warm air, and a quick swim before work. Or maybe it was the delayed and overcrowded 6.14 train to London Bridge a few days ago. Talk about a load of wet, grey and rather depressed looking people. And what’s with the frantic typing at 6.14am? What’s that important?

The ferry commute across Sydney Harbour was much nicer, especially the day that the ferry was late because we stopped to look at a whale. On the other hand it was snowing this morning and the nearby hills looked a bit like the Alps, albeit in a rather squashed form.

I was in Paris recently for the day (one upside of living in Europe!). Been thinking about privacy in a networked age. Malcolm Rifkind, a former British Government minister, was on the train (last week it was Sophie Ellis Baxter on the plane). It occurs to me that real time reporting of where well-known people are via Twitter and Facebook must reprint something of a security risk. If someone doesn’t like you…!

Anyway, I am no longer on the train and neither is Mr Rifkind. Almost out of the woods work-wise too, so I’ll be posting the second part of my scenario planning tips shortly. I’m also working on what might be a quite nice post on the death of quiet humility at the hand of exhibitionist individualism.

I’ve also written something (on the train) about innovation, which is a change from the future. Best of all, it was written totally out of my head with no reference back to previous thinking or published material. It’s also just a few words, no images of tricky graphics. I must try doing this again some time.

Anything for you today, dear reader? Not really, although I did hear a great quote last week about 217,000 people sitting down for dinner tonight that weren’t around (i.e. alive) this morning. It was part of what Lester Brown was saying about overpopulation in Milan. Somehow it was so much more real than talking about seven point something billion people – and rising – on the planet. I must admit that I totally disagree though. I’m getting a bit fed up of people saying that 7 billion is a real problem.

This is a very old and very tired argument that dates back to at least the 1700s and roughly says that because population (and economic growth) keeps on growing we are doomed because the planet is finite. Nonsense.

We are still around as a species because we are smart. We usually leave things too late, but history would suggest that we eventually invent our way out of any trouble that comes our way. Also, remember that the more people there are the more brains there are to solve any problems. Also, don’t forget that the reason there are 7 billion people around is not because we selfishly breed like rabbits, rather it is because we no longer drop dead like flies. Overpopulation, if such a thing exists, is due to a revolution in healthcare and this should be celebrated.

That’s far too much name-dropping for one post. I will return tomorrow as a more secretive, self-deprecating introvert hopelessly trying to sell to you yet another new book (today is the UK launch of The Future: 50 Things You Really Need to Know). But you probably knew that.

PS. Digital humiliation. The woman on the train next to me today was listening to an audio version of Fifty Shades of Grey. Only so was the rest of the carriage. She hadn’t pushed her headphone jack in far enough (possibly) and whilst the story was being privately read to hear through her headphones it was also being loudly told to the rest of the carriage via her built-in loudspeaker. We all listened for about 20-seconds and then someone pointed out to her that some passages could prove a little embarrassing.

Just got an email from Ross Dawson in Sydney who is thinking of doing an update of our now infamous extinction timeline. The timeline was thought of over lunch in Bondi just before Christmas 2006 and went live in early 2007. Its most famous feature is possibly the extinction of Belgium, which has cost me so much lost business from Belgians over the past 5 years it’s not funny.

Anyway, I’ve got about 20 new additions, for example…

Landline telephones
Door bells
Wrist watches for under-25s
Desktop computers
Printing photographs
Chain bookstores
Record stores
e-cards
Tipex
Typewriters
MySpace
Paper textbooks in schools
Cheap food, especially meat
Single child policy (China)

So I wonder what else might be put on the death list. Any suggestions? Note that by extinction we mean the general disappearance of something, not the absolute and total extinction. It should also be noted that it’s not 100% serious.

What a day. I’ve left my keys and phone in Copenhagen and my main computer has fatally crashed for the second time in ten days – so no email or access to any files until I get things up and running again (I know, I should have seen that one coming).

On this occasion the crash followed an argument with Eurostar’s website which insisted that I add a landline telephone number to a booking form (I, like many others nowadays, don’t have one). When are the designers of online forms going to understand that many people don’t have fixed lines?

Anyway, I eventually found a way around the problem only to crash everything fatally when the form wanted me to download an update of Adobe to print the tickets. Bye bye direct email and internet access and a bunch of stuff that hasn’t been backed-up. Not a big problem, but certainly a pain in the butt.

Oh, and the greenhouse off my new home office is now wetter inside than out due to leaks, we ran out of heating oil (no hot water or central heating) and one of my teeth broke (I mentioned the dead hamster and the sulky dog earlier right?).

On the plus side, I’ve been reading two really interesting pieces in the FT and Economist. The Economist article is about what the boom in Nordic crime writing tells us about globalisation. A key point is that physical location matters more than ever in a globalised and virtualised world. The FT article is about the rising extremism of politics in Europe and the dangers of German isolation. Key points include the fact that in France 1/3 of voters recently voted for extreme far right or left candidate, in the Netherlands (usually a place of liberalism and tolerance) far right and extreme left parties are running 1st and 2nd in opinion polls, while in Austria the far right is supported by around 30% of the population. Add mass unemployment, rising inflation, concerns over a currency (the Euro rather than the gold standard) and it’s feeling like the 1930s all over again. In Germany things remain fairly centrist for the time being, but all the conditions do appear to exist for an extremist revival.

Other news? I’ve started to think that I have been farting around with speaking engagements and consulting work too much and should get back to lowly paid writing.  When I get the home office functioning properly – or get my butt up to London – I will.

OK, I’m biased, but I think my new home office – the shedquarters – is coming along rather nicely. The log burner is working and the greenhouse through which you enter the office is now built. If I could just get the darned email to work. Pictures to follow soon.

Up to my eyes at the moment reading material for the next issue of What’s Next and sorting out the website for Futures House. Also a final few trips coming up – Copenhagen, Milan and Paris – then it’s get What’s Next and Brainmail up.

So what have I got for you today? How about a quote, a statistic, a research finding and an observation?

The quote: “The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off.” (Gloria Stein).

The stat: Drivers in the UK spent almost £8,000,000,000 on parking in 2011 (The Scotsman).

The Study: Researchers at Bristol University (UK) have found that beer drinkers drink faster when given a curved glass rather than a straight one. The reason? Possibly that it’s harder to tell how much you’ve drunk with a curved glass. (The Week).

The observation: Why am I starting to see so many people taping over their cameras on their iPads and laptops?

Here, as promised, is the link for the new timeline taken from my new book Future Vision that shows four alternative paths for the future. BTW, there’s a mistake. I’ve mixed up George Bush with George W. Bush. Too late to change now!

Have you noticed how ‘Bling’ is booming in developing countries such as Russia and China whilst at the same time ideas such as frugality and sustainability are taking hold in other parts of the world? Well apart from the economic situations being different, another reason could be that consumption patterns change significantly as prosperity develops.

A few years ago two economists called Kerwin Kofi Charles and Erik Hurst at the University of Chicago found that, all other things being equal, African Americans tended to spend more of their income on cars, clothes and jewellery. Another study has put a figure against this. Typically, an African American family will spend 25% more on cars, jewellery, clothing and personal care compared to a white counterpart, with the difference being made up by less expenditure on education.

This isn’t just a lazy racial stereotyping either. Looking at different countries similar patterns emerge with lower income groups spending lavishly on luxury goods. So what’s the explanation? According to the economists what’s going on is that poorer people spend on luxury goods to prove to others in their immediate peer group that they are not poor. Hence what a gold Rolex says is not “I’m rich” but rather “I came from a poor background and did well”.

As individuals (and nations) get richer this spending shifts from ostentatious products to more discrete services and experiences. A shift also occurs towards spending on goods that are externally directed (cars and clothes for instance) to goods that are less visible to the outside world. In other words countries, like people, want to show off how wealthy they are but eventually this need wears off.

This finding obviously has significant implications for luxury goods companies although one suspects that they know this already. As for what’s next, expect time and space to become the ultimate luxuries along with goods and services that are only available to a limited number of people that fulfil certain non-financial criteria.

According to a recent news story, 25% of them have difficulty walking and many of them are becoming disabled by rapid weight gain and a lack of proper sleep. The story in question is about battery-farmed chickens, but it could equally be about our children.

In the UK, 25% of children between the ages of eight and ten years old have never played outside unsupervised. Meanwhile, Australia is in the middle of an allergy epidemic. According to the government, 40% of Australian children suffer from an allergy of one kind or another. Holy guacamole.

One reason for this is probably because our houses have become too clean and our kids are not exposed to enough dirt. Filth yes, there’s plenty of that on the various screens we allow them to sit in front of, but kids (and chickens) need to scratch around outside. But I don’t think blaming technology is fair. The real culprit here is parental paranoia. We have become afraid of life itself. For example, back in 2003 there were less than 200 non-food anti-bacterial products launched onto supermarkets shelves worldwide. By 2006, this had jumped to 1,610.

And it’s not just microbes we’re trying to ban. Many schools now have a strict policy relating to food allergies. Bags are searched every morning to identify illegal foodstuffs, which can include yoghurt, homemade cakes and, of course, anything that has ever come into contact with – or might have once said hello to – a nut. Nuts? I’d say so. But we are putting fear in front of fact.

The food allergy epidemic is largely a myth. According to the US Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FANN) around 150-200 people die each year in America due to allergic reactions to food. But according to the US Centre for Disease Control the actual figure is closer to 10. That’s a big difference. And let’s put this into perspective. Around 40,000 people are killed every year on American roads, including more than 2,500 kids. I suspect the ratios would be similar in other countries.

Don’t get me wrong here. Food allergies are real and  do kill. A few years ago a fourteen-year-old Melbourne boy died whilst on camp due to a food allergy. However, exaggerating the risk could be doing more harm than good because it feeds a culture of fear where children are overwhelmed by anxiety. Moreover, nothing can ever be 100% safe and squeezing the risk out of one area only displaces it somewhere else. Risk will not disappear simply because you regulate it.

I think we are creating a false sense of security and learned helplessness in other areas too. In some schools, running in the playground has been banned because children might bump into each other or fall over. Some schools have even gone so far as to introduce soft, impact-absorbing surfaces to replace old-fashioned dirt or tarmac.

The same thinking has resulted in games such as conkers and even skipping being banned on health and safety grounds. Perhaps this is working – when was the last time you saw a kid with grazed knees or a broken arm? These kids exist but they are an endangered species. This is a shame because these accidents actually have a benefit. They teach kids to push the boundaries, but to be careful. They also teach resilience. Moreover, according to some experts, these surfaces may actually cause more serious accidents because children believe that they are safe.

Our protectionist and interventionist impulse may be harming us in other areas too. For instance, schools are now asking parent helpers to supply personal information that will be used to conduct criminal background checks. Good idea? Possibly, but the implication is that all adults are guilty until proven innocent. The plan could also backfire in a number of ways.

First, the checks could result in less parent helpers. Fancy coaching football at the weekend? Well how would you feel about it if it meant ongoing criminal checks?

The argument in favour of checks is that if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about. But what worries me is that once we start to view all adults as potential sex offenders there will be subtle changes to how everything from policing to law making operates. Did you know, for example, that unaccompanied children on BA flights can sit alongside women, but not alongside men. All men, it seems, are now suspect.

Second, spontaneous acts of random kindness could disappear under a mountain of bureaucratic red tape. Fancy baking a cake for the school raffle? You can’t. The cake may have come into contact with nuts and we can’t tell whether you’re a nutcase until you fill out a form.

To be civil means to be polite or courteous and civilisation is built upon the idea of mutual trust, which has started to evaporate. But most people are still trustworthy and most things are not dangerous, but if we teach our children that they are not we are laying the foundations for a society where fear becomes an epidemic.

Where to start? A number that recently jumped out for me was that a charity called the Child Poverty Action Group in the UK spent £1,551,000 of its income of £1,990,000 on wages (Daily Telegraph). So the primary activity of this non-profit is its own existence?

Also spotted was a piece saying that almost 50% of parents impose a gadget-free days on their children each week and another from last month about expensive electronic gadgets displacing low-cost and free outdoor play.

However, my favourite article over the past days has been a post on the Fast Company website about the benefits of silence – or at least why some of the quietest people at work can be the most productive.

I’m now off. I’m going to listen to the album Grace by Jeff Buckey and seeing which combinations of words come out of my fingertips…

(PS Thanks Orkneylad).