Three Identical Strangers

It is very rare that I see a movie in the theater.. or even at home. For my birthday, I watched The Spy Who Dumped Me because Kate McKinnon is in it, so is the guy from Outlander, and it's directed by a woman.  It was fine.. too violent for me. After seeing the movie, I vowed only to go to independent theaters where they don't assault a viewer with trailers for shitty movies for half an hour before the actual movie is shown. I digress.

A friend invited me to the documentary Three Identical Strangers. As promised, we went to an independent theater where I was not assaulted by shitty trailers. Good start.

This movie is not what I expected. It was so chilling, and thought-provoking, definitely not a feel-good show even though it starts out really happy. I cannot stand violent movies but I do not mind movies that are sad or like this one, disturbing, especially if they make you think.

I won't reveal the twist but the movie has lots of themes including which has more power: nature or nuture. A friend of mine once said that she didn't think you could change a child for the better ( however you define better ). Encouraging them to practice violin more or work harder on math usually has no outcome on the child's adult life other than hating music or math or the parent who pushed it. Ask Andre Agassi how he feels about tennis and/or his dad.

However, she said, you can hurt a child or change her for the worse by treating her poorly (belittling, berating, excessive punishing, limiting freedom, general meanness). You can exacerbate whatever genetic weakness may be lurking especially in the realm of mental health.

This movie seems to support that premise.

Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus

I've heard the author of this book, Douglas Rushkoff, referred to as a futurist. I think that means someone who can see trends and extrapolate them to create a vision of the future. He's a professor of something that sounds like liberal arts but he clearly understands a lot about technology -- both the specifics of how it works and it's implications for our lives.

His premise is that corporations exist for growth. They must grown infinitely. Now, however, they have reached maximum growth. There is nowhere else to grow. No new markets, no extra planet. Even if that isn't true, he says the corporate model is broken because it does not serve humans. I think he'd say that the corporate model has more responsibility for the decline of the American worker than automation.

He suggests that we create businesses for reasons other than growth, and that growth as a strategy is already failing. Oddly, his solutions sound idyllic. We could live in a world where people are not overworked and anxious about their jobs. They are paid a good wage and have time to enjoy their lives because business will serve human interests.

I liked his ideas so much I joined his email list.

The title refers to the futility that most people in our economic system feel. He claims even CEOs do not like running a business with only the next quarterly investor call setting their priorities.  Maybe but we all perpetuate the system because we don't have a lot of choices.. CEOs could lead the way but they don't.