Monday, 10 June 2013

Who are We?

In this exclusive interview, we speak with Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE (Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and UN Messenger of Peace). We discuss her lifelong work with chimpanzees and great apes, and explore how her observations have shaped our understanding of the fundamental nature of humanity, and our definition of mankind.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, June 2013

"For the first time since life began," writes Mark Lynas, "...a single animal is utterly dominant: the ape species Homo sapiens. Evolution has equipped us with huge brains, stunning adaptability and brilliantly successful technical prowess." He adds that "...humans are now more numerous than any large land animal ever to walk the Earth, and the combined weight of our fleshy biomass outstrips that of most other larger animals put together, with the single exception of our own livestock.... In sum, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the entire planetary ‘net primary productivity’ (everything produced by plants using the power of the sun) is today devoted to sustaining this one species- us...."

As if these achievements were (in some way) underselling our species, Lyons also notes how, "...in May 2010, for only the second time in 3.7 billion years, a life-form was created on planet Earth with no biological parent. Out of a collection of inanimate chemicals an animate being was forged. This transformation from non-living to living took place not in some primordial soup, still less the biblical Garden of Eden, but in a Californian laboratory …this creator and his colleagues announced to the world that they had made a self-replicating life-form out of the memory of a computer. A bacterial genome had been sequenced, digitised, modified, printed out and booted up inside an empty cell to create the first human organism." (The God Instinct, 2011)

It is perhaps these astonishing capacities that have captivated humanity in its own image, separating our species (in our own minds) from the rest of the animal kingdom. We feel, perhaps inevitably, that with our faculties and capabilities - that we must be 'something more', that we cannot just be a highly adapted and evolved bald-ape.

As Prof. Robin Dunbar notes however, appearances can be deceiving. "...As the genetic revolution unfolded through the 1980s, it became increasingly obvious that, no matter how different we might appear from the other apes, our genetic make-up was rather similar. In fact, more than just similar: it was all but identical. By the end of the decade, our whole understanding of ape evolutionary history had been turned on its head. So far from being a separate evolutionary lineage with deep roots, we humans were in fact embedded within the great ape family. Indeed we were not just embedded within the great ape family, we were kith and kin to the chimpanzees... The universally accepted position is now that the big split in the great ape family is not between humans and other great apes, but between the Asian orang-utan and the four (or should it be five?) species of African great apes (one of which is us humans). Humans are now, strictly speaking, firmly ensconced within the chimpanzee family." (What Makes us Human - Pasternak, 2007)

With every advance in modern understanding comes a form of creative destruction as humanity ceases to be able to define itself. A fact that has led many to muse that "Monkeys are superior to men in this: When a monkey looks into a mirror, he sees a monkey. " (Malcolm de Chazal). So what is the true nature of humanity?

In this exclusive interview, we speak with Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE (Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute
and UN Messenger of Peace). We discuss her lifelong work with chimpanzees and great apes, and explore how her observations have shaped our understanding of the fundamental nature of humanity, and our definition of mankind.


Dame Jane Morris Goodall, is a British primatologist, ethologist, anthropologist, and UN Messenger of Peace. She is considered to be the world's foremost expert on chimpanzees, Goodall is best known for her 45-year study of social and family interactions of wild chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania


In July 1960, Jane Goodall began her landmark study of chimpanzee behavior in what is now Tanzania. Her work at Gombe Stream would become the foundation of future primatological research and redefine the relationship between humans and animals.

In 1977, Dr. Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute, which continues the Gombe research and is a global leader in the effort to protect chimpanzees and their habitats. The Institute is widely recognized for innovative, community-centred conservation and development programs in Africa, and Jane Goodall’s Roots & Shoots, the global environmental and humanitarian youth program.

Dr. Goodall founded Roots & Shoots with a group of Tanzanian students in 1991. Today, Roots & Shoots connects hundreds of thousands of youth in more than 120 countries who take action to make the world a better place for people, animals and the environment.

Dr. Goodall travels an average 300 days per year, speaking about the threats facing chimpanzees, other environmental crises, and her reasons for hope that humankind will solve the problems it has imposed on the earth.

Dr. Goodall’s honours include the French Legion of Honour, the Medal of Tanzania and Japan’s prestigious Kyoto Prize. In 2002, Dr. Goodall was appointed to serve as a United Nations Messenger of Peace and in 2003, she was named a Dame of the British Empire.

Q: What were your observations about social hierarchies in chimpanzee and great ape communities?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] The structures of their hierarchies may- I suppose- mirror some of what we see in human culture but the method of attaining the hierarchy resembles very closely what we see as humans attempt to get up the social ladder.

Chimp society is very male dominated, and when you have a strong top ranking or alpha male- there seems to be order in the rest of the community. When he is reaching the end of his reign and a young individual (or coalition) challenge him- then there’s a lot more fighting and aggression as those beneath him vie to see who will take over. The stronger ones may do this alone, and the intelligent males have a strategy of forming alliances.

One thing that’s been really fascinating over the years is that very often the male who takes over may do so as a result of some quite fierce fighting. He will go on doing that until the former alpha is really subdued and fearful. Then he will reach out and they will become friends. The one who’s been deposed will then support the new leader- it’s very obvious this is a good tactic because the new alpha knows that the previous has been so scared by him- that he’ll never do anything bad. Getting support from the new alpha is also very beneficial to the previous alpha.

Q: What did you observe about the role (and treatment) of children, young adults and adolescents in chimp and great ape communities?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] First of all, we only recently have known who the fathers are. There are no long-term pair bonds between adult males and females unless it’s a mother and her son (in which case there’s no mating). In a way, all males act in a paternal way to all infants in their community and will- for example- go to their aid if they are in trouble. From the collection of faecal samples, we have been able to identify who the father’s of young are- and a new field of study is emerging about whether any special relationship exists between father and biological child and- of course- whether any of them even know there’s a relationship as females in these communities are promiscuous.

One of the things I have been fascinated with for a very long time is the fact that in chimp society- as in human society- there are good and bad mothers. It’s also very clear that good mothers in chimp communities are attentive, protective (not overly protective), playful and- perhaps most importantly- supportive. They will give a degree of freedom, but also impose discipline where needed. For example, even if you know you’re going to get attacked by a higher ranking female who is the mother of your child’s playmate… if the children are squabbling you will nevertheless go in- and even rescue your child if they’re in a meddle with one of the bigger males.

That element of support really seems to make a big difference. The offspring of good mothers tend to be more assertive with males reaching a higher position. The offspring of the less-good mothers have a more difficult time in their society and don’t do as well.

Q: Did you observe any familiar social structures in the chimp and great-ape communities?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] There are siblings- brothers and sisters, who know they are their mother’s offspring (as they don’t know who their fathers are). The offspring of one female can form strong relationships- particularly brothers- for their entire lives (which can last 60 years or so). This also applies to mothers and their offspring.

The only thing that breaks these bonds is when a female emigrates to a neighbouring community as an adolescent. That’s the only time- as far as we know- that a chimp can move from one community to another. The relationship between neighbouring communities is otherwise extremely hostile- with males patrolling the boundary, taking any opportunity they can to enlarge their territory. There are also patrols where chimps may come across strangers- maybe hunters- and treat them like prey animals, leaving them to die of their wounds.

Within the community, it’s usually family and sibling bonds. There are temporary bonds between mothers and infants up-to a certain age. They sit and groom each other and just do nothing… and the young ones- instead of pestering their mothers, play with each other.

Q: Did you see examples of “love”, “compassion”, “respect” and “altruism”?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] Absolutely! True altruism occurs where an unrelated male will adopt an infant who’s mother has died. Usually it’s an older brother or sister who will adopt an infant, but if the infant is more than 3 years old- it will have a chance of survival independently. Usually between 3 and 5 years of age, infants are very gradually weaned off their mothers. Until this age (or until the next baby is born) they will not leave her nest, and may ride on her back when they are scared.

Between brothers and sisters we see very strong bonds, and even a male will be an excellent care-giver to an orphan who’s often his brother or sister. Unrelated males may do the same.

It is very clear that we see compassion in these communities- that’s very clear. When a mother was lying there dying of her wounds, her younger daughter came and groomed her, comforted her and did her best to keep her comfortable.

With regards love… There are so many ways you can describe love. In our language, love can mean many things! Copulation in chimps does not take long, it’s ever so short. Sometimes it can be quite a rash courtship where the male swaggers about swaying branches. He doesn’t force the female- it’s not rape- but nevertheless he does intimidate her, which is likely to make her accept his advances. The bond chimp’s share between mother and child, and even brother and sister… I guess you could call that love!

Q: What did you see with regards the ‘sex life’ of chimps and great apes?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] It’s a normal thing between males and females in just about every species. The male courts the female when she’s sexually receptive and not in between. During this period, the males will sometimes line-up to mate with her… sometimes one after another… sometimes they fight. Sometimes they even sneak off for a little secret mating behind a bush!

Q: What did you observe in terms of individual personalities and sense of self in the chimp and great ape community?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] There are extremely distinct personalities. You could identify individuals by reading their behaviour. Sense of self has been shown in captivity, although I don’t know how you could demonstrate this in the wild. In captivity, we know chimps (along with one or two other animals) can identify themselves in mirrors and respond to a mirror image.

In the past, some chimps were raised as human! A practice which- thankfully- is not done any more. Little Viki is the famous case. She grew up in a house, and was raised in the same way as a human infant. She loved sorting things. They gave her a pile of photographs of people from different cultures all over the world and different animals (ones she knew and ones she didn’t). She put them all perfectly in the right pile ‘animal’ or ‘person’ except for her own picture- that went to people! A picture of her father (who she never met) went to animal.

Q: What were your observations of communication in the chimp and great ape community?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] There was no ‘verbal’ communication, that is- perhaps- what separates us from them. They communicate with touch, gesture and a whole series of calls (usually related to the emotion of the moment… so for example ‘here’s good food’, ‘I’m frightened’, ‘I’m hurting, please come and help me…’). In captivity they even learn sign language, allowing us to learn more about how their minds are working.

Q: What were your observations of war and conflict within the chimp and great ape communities?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] We have read an account of some people who went into an isolated forest in Uganda, where people and chimps came into contact in an aggressive way. The people were actually nearly as frightened as the chimps- who very obviously came at them with hair bristling and ready to chase them away. They [chimps] are so much stronger than us!

In the more natural situation and surroundings, you have a territory and a community of around 50 individuals. Within this, you have 6-10 adult males who patrol the territory and strangers will be attacked. If you meet a group that’s bigger than yours, you’d better retreat otherwise you will be attacked.

You also see a lot of conflict for dominance within the community between males, with losers often ostracised.

Q: Do chimp and great ape communities recognise any sense of mourning or loss for the dead?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] There’s an element of fear if they find a dead body, and a sense of urgency to try and find out what the cause of death was. They sniff the vegetation, and even high up in the trees….

Grief is often shown by a mother who loses her child. In this case you see her becoming very listless and apathetic. She may wander off somewhere, seem to forget why she went there and come back. When a mother dies, the offspring are devastated. They groom her, and sometimes there are unexplained observations. We once saw an adolescent daughter who lifted up her mother’s arm and appeared to put her ear to the chest. Whether she was listening to a heartbeat or not would be difficult to say…

Q: Did you note the existence of any cultural artefacts or behaviours?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] Chimps tend to do wild displays near falling water, such as waterfalls. They are very rhythmic and very different to a normal displays. You see them swaying from foot to foot, getting into the spray in the vines, and just watching the water. There are also times when they sit in the trees and appear to be observing a sunset- whether they are or not of course, we have no idea.

Q: How do chimps relate to other species (including man) and their natural environment?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] When I arrived, the chimps were initially frightened. They had never seen a white-ape before and they ran away. When the fear began to subside, they became belligerent and treated me as they would a predator- shaking branches, screaming and trying to make me go away. When I didn’t, they gradually moved on into a position of acceptance and- eventually- trust. It was a gradual change.

With other animals they may ignore them… the young ones may even try to play. The fact is, though, that those animals may eventually become prey- chimps are hunters after all.

They are very protective over their resources. They may attack if you try to take the fruit out of a fruit tree, but then you see sharing during times of abundance.

Q: Have your experiences of chimps in captivity yielded any surprising insights about their intelligence?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] In captivity, you can design tests to understand their intelligence. There is a 3 year old chimpanzee called ‘Ai’ in Japan who works with Professor Matsuzawa's institute. She can do things with her touchpad, remembering the position of numbers on a screen in the most extraordinary way. Her son (who has never been taught by a human) has people coming from all over to try and defeat him! He can take one look at a screen of randomly arranged numbers from 0-9, and start to replicate it before you’ve even noticed where one of the numbers is! He has a total photographic memory! An enfant savant!

Chimpanzees love our technology- touchpads, computer screens and so on. They can also learn more than 400 signs of American sign-language. The Bonobo have quite long exchanges with their keepers! Things like asking to be let out…. (and when they’re told no), asking for food… (and when they’re told no), asking for a tickle! It’s extraordinary

Q: How has your work with chimpanzees and great apes changed your view of humanity?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] Louis Leakey wanted me to go and study chimps because he believed that 6 million years ago, we had a human-like common ancestor. He was interested in stone-age man, their skeletons, tools and so on- not behaviour. He felt that if there was similar behaviour exhibited between humans and chimps today, that perhaps that behaviour would also have been present in the common ancestor and- arguably- in stone-age men and women.

From my perspective, it was a bit of a shock to find that chimps can be brutal and violent and even have a lot of warfare. I had expected them to be like us but nicer. Because we send this tendency toward violence in certain situations, one can probably assume this trait [to be violent] has been with us in the long course of our evolution. Violence, at least some of it, is probably genetically based. You don’t have to think much about humankind to realise that we are a very violent species.

The difference between us and chimpanzees (with whom we share 98% or more of our DNA) is not a sharp line. It’s a blurry line. We are part of the continuum of evolution, and are not the only beings on the Earth with personalities, minds, thoughts and feelings. That observation has had a profound impact on science, as- when went to get my PhD, I was taught none of that was true.

We now realise how alike we are… kissing, embracing, holding hands, patting on the back, family bonds, war… but at the same time, we understand we are different. But what is it that’s made us different? If you’ve got something that is as like us as chimps, you have somewhere to stand and observe the biggest differences. For me, our sophisticated way of communicating- with words- is that crucial difference. It meant that for the first time, we could teach another about something that wasn’t present… whereas young chimps just learn by observing. We can read books about the distant past, and plan the distant future. Chimps can only plan the immediate future. As far as we know, they don’t have any concept of a distant future to plan for. Finally… we can bring together people from different walks of life, and backgrounds… bringing them together to discuss problems that may otherwise be difficult to solve.

For a long time, humanity thought there was a sharp line, with us on one side and the animals on the other… a line which is still used by radicals who believe it to be true- often to justify doing not-very-nice things to animals

Q: What were your observations about social hierarchies in chimpanzee and great ape communities?

[Dr. Jane Goodall] In addition to the long-term study of chimps- which is exciting and on-going, we realised (back in the 1980’s) that the only way to protect chimpanzees (who were disappearing very fast due to loss of habitat) was to improve the lives of people who were living in abject poverty around these last wilderness areas.

Gombe was isolated, and when I flew over in 1991 I was utterly shocked to see bare hills around this national park… areas that had once been forest. Even in 1970 it was forest…. After around 6 years, and following the introduction of programmes such as microcredit and agricultural support, we sat down with local people and mapped out patches of land in such a way that they acted as a buffer to the Gombe. The Gombe chimps now have 3-4 times more forest than they had 10 years ago… it grows very fast. We have also created a corridor linking Gombe to another group, and in fact- 2 weeks ago- the first chimpanzee came from the outside into the Gombe community, very exciting!

We’re replicating this in Uganda, DRC, Congo, Senegal and elsewhere. The method is working… people are coming out of abject poverty, their children are getting better educated… family sizes have dropped… women are empowered and farming methods have restored fertility to farmland without the use of chemicals… So no GMOs!

There wouldn’t be much point doing any of this if we weren’t educating future generations to be better stewards than we’ve been. Our Roots & Shoots programme is now in about 130 countries. Young people from pre-school through to university are all choosing projects to make the world better for people and for the environment.

Every one of us makes a difference, every single day.

--------------------------------------------------

"The implications of any investigation into what it means to be human are potentially immense." writes Joanna Bourke "...after all, two of the most distinguished traditions of modern times- theology and humanism- were founded on espousing hierarchies of humanity. According to ‘the great Chain of Being’, everything in the universe was ranked from the highest to the lowest- from Divine to human, then to the rest of the animal kingdom and finally incorporating inanimate objects… my point is not simply that there is a porous boundary between the human and the animal (although there certainly is), but that the distinction is both contested and policed with demonic precision. In complex and sometimes contradictory ways, the ideas, values and practices used to justify the sovereignty of a particular understanding of ‘the human’ over the rest of sentient life are what create society and social life. Perhaps the very concept of ‘culture’ is an attempt to differentiate ourselves from our ‘creatureliness’... the compulsive inclination to demarcate the territory of human from that of the non-human, is one of the great driving forces of history." (What it Means to be Human, 2011).

We have even seen such attitudes pervade within our species. If we look back at the first encounters between Europeans and the indigenous peoples of Papua New Guinea, you observe the viewpoint of the Europeans (exploring new worlds filled with valuable resources and exotic peoples) and the indigenous people (who see these encounters as deeply unsettling, and of apparent cosmological origin).

"These were encounters not between individuals, but between cultural systems- embodied in culturally organised groups of people." write Schieffelin and Crittenden. They go on to describe the moment of first-contact "...the raw shock of Otherness- a dimension of experiences that is present to some extent in all encounters with other people (Sartre 1966) but is especially poignant in first contact situations. Here one is confronted with a paradoxical familiarity of the alien: a being who appears human but is at the same time so radically unfamiliar that one is thrown into doubt- or senses that the ordinary categories for understanding human behaviour may be inadequate to the task of grasping the nature of this one. Such an encounter throws one's own conception of humanity and hence of oneself into question... we momentarily glimpse the epistemological edges of our own social understanding, leaving us in dread and fascination." (Like People You See in a Dream: First Contact in Six Papuan Societies, 1991)

Even in more contemporary versions of society, these essentialist attitudes have pervaded.

"Industrialising America needed to explain the calamities created by unbridled westward, overseas, and industrial expansion...." wrote Lee D. Baker , "Although expansion created wealth and prosperity for some, it contributed to conditions that fostered rampant child labour, infectious disease, and desperate poverty. The daily experience of squalid conditions and sheer terror made many Americans realise the contradictions between industrial capitalism and the democratic ideals of equality, freedom, and justice for all. Legislators, university boards, and magazine moguls found it useful to explain this ideological crisis in terms of a natural hierarchy of class and race caused by a struggle for existence wherein the fittest individuals or races advanced while the inferior became eclipsed." Baker continues by describing how this hierarchy became a science. "Professional anthropology emerged in the midst of this crisis, and the people who used anthropology to justify racism, in turn, provided the institutional foundations for the field. The study of 'primitive races of mankind' became comparable to geology and physics. These institutional apparatuses, along with powerful representatives in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), prestigious universities, and the Smithsonian Institution, gave anthropology its academic credentials as a discipline in the United States. In January 1896, Daniel G. Brinton, the president of the AAAS and the first professor of anthropology in the United States, wrote in Popular Science Monthly that 'the black, the brown and the red races differ anatomically so much from the white... that even with equal cerebral capacity they could never rival its results by equal efforts'."

We are not an ancient species. If you were to condense the history of the Earth (around 4.54 billion years) into one year, modern humans have only been here for around 1400 seconds. Our nearest ancestors (chimpanzee's) have been around for almost a day and a half.

We are the youngest explorers of an ancient and unblinking environment that we do not fully understand. As Charles Pasternak notes, "we seek scientific explanations for natural phenomena, we search to create works of art. There is no need to find the source of the Nile or journey to the Moon, to comprehend the nature of fundamental particles or the structure of proteins, to compose The Trout Quintet or to paint The Girl with the Pearl Earring, to write Hamlet or Madame Bovary.. "

Being young and naive, we selected arbitrary criteria to differentiate ourselves from the rest of existence , but our actions mean that we have to now grow up. Humanity is more than partially culpable- for example- in creating what is now being described as the Earth's sixth mass extinction, "The worst since the ecological calamity that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago".

Primatologist Roger Fouts writes that maybe the time has now come for us to “accept the reality that our species is not outside of nature and that we are not gods. We might lose the illusory heights of being demiurges, but this new perspective would offer us something greater, the full realization of our place in this great orchestra we call nature." (The God Instinct, 2011)

For us to grow up, the first step is to gain a true understanding of where we come from- our heritage. And for that we must look back down the tree of life towards the wonderful extended family whom we have treated so badly in our short time with them.

When it comes to the role of humanity in nature, we are the only species arrogant enough to suppose that we are elevated above natural order, by virtue of being blind to it.


Click to read full article...

Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Charity, Philanthropy and Society

In these exclusive interviews, we speak to Jeff Raikes (CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Eli Broad (Founder of the Broad Foundations) and Anousheh Ansari (Trustee of the X Prize Foundation, and title sponsor of the Ansari X Prize) . We discuss the fundamental nature of charity and philanthropy- looking at why these phenomena exist together with their role and impact on society. We also talk about their individual journeys in philanthropy, and how their organisations are aiming to tackle some of society’s greatest problems.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, May 2013

Traditional societies…” wrote Jared Diamond, describing the iterations of humanity considered a prelude to our own, “…in effect represent thousands of natural experiments in how to construct a human society.” Some of these experiments were more successful than others, and what we have been left with (at this current stage of progress) is a seemingly diverse and flourising civilisation underscored by the unrelenting growth of economic monoculture.

In his book 'What Money Can’t Buy' Michael Sandel notes how, “…in a society where everything is for sale, life is harder for those of modest means. The more money can buy, the more affluence (or the lack of it) matters.” He continues to assert that, “…putting a price on the good things in life can corrupt them. That’s because markets don’t only allocate goods; they also express and promote certain attitudes toward the goods being exchanged…” This is a view supported by many observers. Levitt and Dubner in their seminal piece 'Freakonomics' also describe how “…morality represents the way we would like the world to work, and economics represents how it actually does work.” This is not a new phenomenon. Since the very first economic or social barters were made by man, a disconnect has existed between the creation of individual and social wealth. This gap has been filled by ‘giving.

At every stage of our species’ development, ‘giving’ has been with us. Whether one sees this phenomena as evolutionary (manifest from pro-social behaviour) or spiritual (an urge from deep within our souls), the fact remains that giving- in all its forms- has been one of the greatest factors in the success of humanity and spans all the domains of ‘human’ assets; the intellectual (knowledge, experience, emotion and insight), economic (wealth in all its forms), cultural (arts and language), social (time, group structures) and even biological (from simply strength to the very body in entirety).

In reality, there are few (if any) beings on our planet who have not been touched in some way by giving (regardless of whether that is a small act of generosity from a stranger, or being lifted out of poverty with a microloan), and few (if any) who could argue-away the profound legacies left by the outcomes of man’s urge to improve the present and future position of his society. Without some form of giving, many of mankind’s greatest achievements simply would not have occurred. Giving is also one of the few activities mankind often undertakes without the geographic, cultural, social and political prejudices applied to other aspects of life.

Giving, like love, is an element of both charity and philanthropy; love sometimes is left out, but giving is essential….” writes Robert Bremmer. “Getting is important, too, but giving comes first. We can scarcely open our mail, answer the telephone, or walk down a city street without encountering opportunities to give. In addition to tangible things, we give- or withhold- love, trust, friendship, encouragement, sympathy, help, and advice. What we give to alleviate the need, suffering and sorrow of others, whether we know them or not, is charity. What we give to prevent and correct social and environmental problems and improve life and living conditions of people and creatures we don't know and who have no claim on us is philanthropy…” (Giving – Charity & Philanthropy in History, 1996)

So what is the role of charity and philanthropy in society?

In these exclusive interviews, we speak to Jeff Raikes (CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Eli Broad (Founder of the Broad Foundations) and Anousheh Ansari (Trustee of the X Prize Foundation, and title sponsor of the Ansari X Prize) . We discuss the fundamental nature of charity and philanthropy- looking at why these phenomena exist together with their role and impact on society. We also talk about their individual journeys in philanthropy, and how their organisations are aiming to tackle some of society’s greatest problems.

Jeff Raikes is the CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (the world’s largest charitable foundation, with an endowment of over US$36 billion). He and his wife Tricia are also co-founders of the Raikes Foundation.

The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. Talking about the foundation, it’s founder Bill Gates writes, “Our foundation is teaming up with partners around the world to take on some tough challenges: extreme poverty and poor health in developing countries, and the failures of America’s education system. We focus on only a few issues because we think that’s the best way to have great impact, and we focus on these issues in particular because we think they are the biggest barriers that prevent people from making the most of their lives. For each issue we work on, we fund innovative ideas that could help remove these barriers: new techniques to help farmers in developing countries grow more food and earn more money; new tools to prevent and treat deadly diseases; new methods to help students and teachers in the classroom. Some of the projects we fund will fail. We not only accept that, we expect it—because we think an essential role of philanthropy is to make bets on promising solutions that governments and businesses can’t afford to make. As we learn which bets pay off, we have to adjust our strategies and share the results so everyone can benefit.

Jeff leads the foundation's efforts to promote equity for all people around the world. He sets strategic priorities, monitors results, and facilitates relationships with key partners for all four of our program groups.

Before joining the foundation, Raikes was a member of Microsoft's senior leadership team, which sets overall strategy and direction for the company. He joined Microsoft in 1981 as a product manager and was instrumental in driving Microsoft's applications marketing strategy. Promoted to director of applications marketing in 1984, Raikes was the chief strategist behind the company's success in graphical applications for the Apple Macintosh and the Microsoft Windows operating system and the creation of the Microsoft Office suite of productivity applications. Before joining Microsoft, he was a software development manager at Apple Computer Inc.

Raikes, a Nebraska native, holds a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering-economic systems from Stanford University. He and his wife, Tricia, have three children. They are founders of the Raikes Foundation and are active members of the United Way of King County, where they served as co-chairs of the 2006-2007 fundraising campaign. Raikes also serves on the board of directors for Costco Wholesale Corp. and the Microsoft Alumni Foundation, where he is chair of the board.

In June 2008, the Board of Regents at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln renamed the J.D. Edwards Honors Program in Computer Science and Management to the Jeffrey S. Raikes School of Computer Science and Management. Raikes, a longtime supporter of the highly selective and renowned school, was a part of the initial conceptualisation and has served on the board since its inception in 2001.

Eli Broad and his wife, Edythe are founders of The Broad Foundations, which they established to advance entrepreneurship for the public good in education, science and the arts. The Broad Foundations, which include The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and The Broad Art Foundation, have assets of $2.4 billion. Eli Broad is a renowned business leader who built two Fortune 500 companies from the ground up over a five-decade career in business. He is the founder of both SunAmerica Inc. and KB Home (formerly Kaufman and Broad Home Corporation).

The Broad Foundation’s major education initiatives include the $1 million Broad Prize for Urban Education, The Broad Superintendents Academy and The Broad Residency in Urban Education. The Broad Foundation also invests in advancing innovative scientific and medical research in the areas of human genomics, stem cell research and inflammatory bowel disease. In an unprecedented partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University and the Whitehead Institute, the Broads in 2003 announced a $100 million founding gift to create The Eli and Edythe Broad Institute for biomedical research. The Institute’s aim is to realise the promise of the human genome to revolutionise clinical medicine and to make knowledge freely available to scientists around the world. They gave a second $100 million gift to The Broad Institute in 2005, and in 2008, they gave an additional $400 million to make the world’s leading genomics institute permanent.

Over the past four decades, the Broads have also built two of the most prominent collections of postwar and contemporary art worldwide: The Eli and Edythe L. Broad Collection and The Broad Art Foundation. The two collections together include more than 2,000 works by nearly 200 artists. Since 1984, The Broad Art Foundation has operated an active 'lending library' of its extensive collection. Dedicated to increasing access to contemporary art for audiences worldwide, The Broad Art Foundation has made more than 8,000 loans of artwork to nearly 500 museums and university galleries worldwide.

Mr. Broad was the founding chairman and is a life trustee of The Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, to which The Broad Foundation gave a $30 million challenge grant in December 2008 to rebuild the museum’s endowment and to provide exhibition support. He is a life trustee of The Museum of Modern Art in New York and of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where the Broads gave a $60 million gift to build the Renzo Piano-designed Broad Contemporary Art Museum, which opened in February 2008, and to fund an art acquisition budget. In August 2010, the Broads announced plans to build a contemporary art museum and headquarters for The Broad Art Foundation on Grand Avenue in downtown Los Angeles. The new museum, to be called The Broad, will be designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro and is scheduled to open in early 2014. Broad also spearheaded the fundraising campaign to build the Frank Gehry-designed Walt Disney Concert Hall, which opened to worldwide acclaim in October 2003.

From 2004 to 2009, Mr. Broad served as a Regent of the Smithsonian Institution by appointment of the U.S. Congress and the President. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and in 1994 was named Chevalier in the National Order of the Legion of Honor by the Republic of France. Mr. Broad serves on the board of the Future Generation Art Prize. He received the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy in 2007 and the David Rockefeller Award from the Museum of Modern Art in March 2009.

Mr. Broad is also a bestselling author with the publication of his first book, 'The Art of Being Unreasonable: Lessons in Unconventional Thinking,' released by Wiley & Sons in May 2012.

On September 18, 2006, Anousheh Ansari captured headlines around the world as the first female private space explorer.

Anousheh is a serial entrepreneur and co-founder and chairman of Prodea Systems, a company that will unleash the power of the Internet to all consumers and dramatically alter and simplify consumer’s digital living experience. Prior to founding Prodea Systems, Anousheh served as co-founder, CEO and chairman of Telecom Technologies, Inc. The company successfully merged with Sonus Networks, Inc., in 2000.

To help drive commercialization of the space industry, Anousheh and her family provided title sponsorship for the Ansari X Prize, a $10 million cash award for the first non-governmental organization to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks.

Anousheh immigrated to the United States as a teenager who did not speak English. She earned a bachelor’s degree in electronics and computer engineering from George Mason University, followed by a master’s degree in electrical engineering from George Washington University. She has an honorary doctorate from the International Space University. She is currently working toward a master’s degree in astronomy from Swinburne University.

Anousheh is a member of the X Prize Foundation’s Vision Circle, as well as its Board of Trustees. She is a life member in the Association of Space Explorers and on the advisory board of the Teacher’s in Space project. She has received multiple honours, including the World Economic Forum Young Global Leader, the Working Woman’s National Entrepreneurial Excellence Award, George Mason University’s Entrepreneurial Excellence Award, George Washington University’s Distinguished Alumni Achievement Award, and the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award for Southwest Region. While under her leadership, Telecom Technologies earned recognition as one of Inc. magazine’s 500 fastest-growing companies and Deloitte & Touche’s Fast 500 technology companies.

Q: Why does philanthropy exist?

[Jeff Raikes] Philanthropy plays at least four key roles in society.

First, it can help fill the gaps created by market failures. The private sector is an effective mechanism to allocate resources in society and to produce better products, goods, and services. But capitalism has its weaknesses. Sometimes markets fail. It’s at those times and in those areas where philanthropy is best suited to step in. In the same way that capitalism is an effective way to produce goods and services for society, I think private philanthropy is a good way to produce social benefit.

Second, philanthropists can take risks that others won’t. The public sector produces goods and services to help improve society, but they do that with tax monies. Taxpayers don’t love it when their governments take significant risk with their tax payments. They want wise stewards of public money and resources. The private sector, on the other hand, is unwilling to take risk without the potential of profit. Philanthropy is not risk constrained in the same way.

Third, philanthropy can help scale good ideas: With our partners, we can identify innovative solutions to challenging problems, test them out, develop the evidence of their efficacy, and then share what we learn and help demonstrate opportunities that can be scaled up and sustained by the private sector, the public sector, or both. Let me give an example: If we provide the “risk capital” to figure out how to reduce rotavirus vaccine prices dramatically, possibly through new scientific formulations, and then share widely how to achieve the price reductions, organisations such as GAVI, which are largely government-funded, can take these innovations and save hundreds of thousands of additional lives.

Finally, philanthropy allows us to connect and share values. I believe that it’s ultimately our hearts and values that draw people to philanthropy, whether that’s working at a foundation or as an individual giver of money or volunteer time. People are moved to help others.

Q: What is the motivation for philanthropists to give?

[Jeff Raikes] Warren Buffett often says that he was the winner of the “ovarian lottery.” He was born in a place and at a time that allowed him to achieve all that he has. My wife and I believe that we won a “career lottery” of sorts – we were at Microsoft during the early high-tech boom. We wanted to invest the wealth we acquired back into society.

We believe firmly that great philanthropy is not about writing a check. It’s about giving your time, your energy, and your talents to create the kind of world you want to live in.

At Microsoft, I learned that if you really want to make an impact on the world you need big aspirations. We had the dream of a computer on every desk and in every home, and that was a very motivating vision for us. I pursued that dream for 27 years. As my Microsoft career developed, so did my interest in philanthropy. Together with Tricia, who was also a Microsoft employee, we participated in the Microsoft United Way campaign. Together we co-chaired the largest United Way campaign in history, delving into local issues such as homelessness. And, at the urging of Mary Gates (Bill’s mother) Tricia helped start a local Boys and Girls Club.

The Gates Foundation is also a place where we dream big. Our work is guided by a simple belief that all lives have equal value, and in the potential of each individual life. We believe that whether a child is born in Brazzaville or London shouldn’t determine whether she will have access to health, education, and opportunity.

Around the world today, there are a growing number of people who have amassed considerable wealth who are exploring the possibilities of their own philanthropic journeys. We have an incredible opportunity to encourage each other to become philanthropists and have a positive impact on the world.

What excites me most about philanthropy today is that we’re not standing still. We are finding new ways to pursue and measure our impact. We are sharing best practices. We are getting better at what we do. But we need to accelerate progress by embracing technology, encouraging greater transparency, and engaging our grantees, partners, and critics as a team.

Q: How does philanthropy sit alongside other forms of organisation?

[Jeff Raikes] The issues we are trying to address at the Gates Foundation are certainly big enough and difficult enough for many funders and partners to be involved. Even within the areas where we invest, we are just one of many players. There are significant needs around the world and close to home where funders have ample opportunity to make aligned, complementary or entirely distinct contributions.

I believe the philanthropic sector functions best when we are keenly aware of and clear about our own and others’ passions, interests and capabilities. We learn faster. We combine efforts or go our separate ways sooner because we are more conscious of when it makes sense to do so. Intentional crowding in or crowding out is a good thing for the sector.

The foundation emphasises partnerships, and looks to foster innovation, often pursuing new technologies or delivery schemes. For example, in India, we have enjoyed a tremendous partnership with the National AIDS Control Organisation to expand HIV prevention through the Avahan India AIDS initiative.

Q: What can philanthropy learn from entrepreneurship, business and enterprise?

[Jeff Raikes] Government, business, and philanthropy make up a “three-legged stool,” where each leg can be mutually supportive of one another and promote social good. There are things each sector can learn from one another and areas where each can make a unique contribution.

That said, we often say that it’s harder for foundations to measure impact because we don’t contend with market forces and the reliable feedback markets provide. But even at Microsoft we had to go for long periods of time without any real market indicators. Sometimes you just have to set your own milestones, learn as much as you can from available data, and then go by instinct.

There are some aspects of the private sector -- long-term R&D, for example -- that are very similar to the work of philanthropy. In that type of situation you have to have a clear vision, define milestones, and track progress using a mix of best judgment and self-criticism, accepting and trusting that it may take a long time to see any meaningful impact.

In philanthropy, we don’t have sales results or stock prices to measure success. There also isn’t competition, at least not at first glance. We’re all here trying to change the world, right? But I have learned that while maybe we can’t say that we have competitors, we do have opponents. People and organisations that fight against the very change that we believe is necessary to positively impact the world. And they often have a very legitimate, different point of view about achieving the same goal, or they may believe it’s just not the right goal.

In this sense, competition is good in philanthropy. Opponents are good. They help foundations make smarter choices. They test conviction and theories of change. They can be seen as part of the “team” that will drive us forward to greater impact.

[Eli Broad] Philanthropy is not charity. Charity is simply writing cheques- and while we do some of that also, philanthropy is different, Larry Summers (who is on our board) once said, “…if it’s going to happen anyway, we’re not going to do it.

We’re looking to do things that nobody else is willing to do, we want to make a difference 20-30 years from now and we need to find the people who have the ability to make it happen.

Our foundation is different to most others in that 90% of what we do is driven by ideas we have internally rather than from people coming to us.  We’re continually looking for opportunities across the broad range of activities from education, scientific and medical research and the arts.

George Bernard Shaw once said, “…the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man”.  That might be a little bit of an exaggeration, but my wife gave me that as a plaque some years after we were married- and I believe it’s right. What we’re doing in education reform and in other areas is not always popular.

You have to have a deep belief and a commitment to do what’s right, even if it’s not the popular thing to do and even if you get pushback from established interests that don’t want to see change.

Q: What is the role of philanthropy in global policy and advocacy?

[Jeff Raikes] One of the most important drivers of a foundation’s or philanthropist’s impact is access to knowledge of where to give and how to give. We should be thinking hard about how we share with others what we are doing and learning. Advocacy is one way for us to share what we’re learning, and to create support or momentum for social change.

At the Gates Foundation, we see a definite role for ourselves in shining a spotlight on inequity, and making sure policymakers see both the challenges and possibilities in tackling tough social problems. The foundation has capital at its disposal to create change, but it also has knowledge, leadership, and a voice. We can use those tools as much as we do grantmaking to help achieve our mission, in partnership with others around the world.

Q: What has been the impact of the giving pledge?
(Editor’s Note: The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy)

[Eli Broad] I was at that first meeting at Rockefeller University with David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and others. The idea was to get a lot of people interested in giving, and that we would all be examples of why to do it... by telling others how we got great satisfaction from it. Our hope was that others would emulate what we were doing.

The giving pledge started with just 15 individuals, and now has over 80 people.

Q: How is philanthropy leveraging technology?

[Jeff Raikes] Technology and social media today are making the capture and sharing of data, information, and knowledge easier, faster, and cheaper. These help us develop stronger feedback loops, and create stronger, more efficient philanthropy. Let me share a couple of examples.

In the U.S., the Council on Foundations and TechSoup Global have developed an online repository called NGOSource for collecting basic information about individual charities around the world. This online knowledge sharing could streamline an inefficient, redundant, and costly process called “equivalency determinations” and help more philanthropic dollars get across borders to where they are most needed.

A couple of years ago, as part of a U.S. Department of Education effort to invest in innovative education programs, we were part of a collaboration of education funders that developed a website called the i3 Foundation Registry. This is an online proposal repository for applicants to the U.S. government’s grant funding pool for education to share their plans simultaneously with interested private foundations and individual philanthropists. The registry enables funders to privately share with each other what proposals they are considering, which organisations and projects they are interested in, and which ones they ultimately fund, all via Facebook or Twitter-like status updates. In a few short months, the participating funding community grew from the original 12 to 46, and the successful applicants to the U.S. Department of Education program raised their required private match dollars in record time.

Philanthropy should do more to harness the power of technology to make us all more effective and efficient. We should have every tool to create change at our disposal and that includes the use of technology, information, and data on par with that of industries. Technology itself is not a “silver bullet” – but we can add it to our other strategies to help accelerate and improve our efforts.

Q: What does philanthropy mean to you?

[Jeff Raikes] Tricia and I believe that our success, and the opportunities we’ve been able to provide for our family, have been supported by societal institutions – schools, communities, health institutions, and more. Philanthropy is an opportunity to invest our resources back into society to build the social, spiritual, and material wealth that can help the lives of others. Our passion for humanity leads us to philanthropic choices and investments to share our wealth for others.

[Eli Broad] This city and country have been very good to me, and my family, and because of this we have a desire to give back through philanthropy. We do this in a number of areas; education reform, scientific and medical research, and the arts.

Andrew Carnegie said one time, “…he who dies with wealth, dies with shame…” I think you have an obligation to give back, to make things better and to create institutions that didn’t exist before.

Everyone can contribute something. If people don’t have the financial resources, they can certainly commit their expertise and their time to various organisations. We have been very fortunate and have quite a staff at our organisation to do the things we are doing, but everyone can do something at different scales.

[Anousheh Ansari] I feel that I've been fortunate in so many different ways. I was born and raised in Iran, and lived there during the early part of the revolution and war. I come from a middle-class family, and we were never very wealthy and when we moved to the US, we faced many difficulties. I know how it feels to be on the other side of the table, and understand how some of the programmes and projects that were available to me- such as scholarships, student loans and so on- helped me and family establish a new life in a new country. We didn't just establish, but we were able to reach out for our dreams and really succeed. All this tells me that with a little help and support, things can change- not just on an individual level- but at a global level too.

I look at philanthropy as an investment. I don't do it to gain brownie points with god. I do it because I believe in investing within the community and world I live in. It may be an investment in an individual, or an idea that can change the world.

The terminology I prefer is social investment, but many people use charity and philanthropy interchangeably. Ultimately it's an investment- a high risk one- where the return you get may not be monetary, but rather the satisfaction of change or success.

Q: How did you choose the areas [and methods] of philanthropy you engage in?

[Jeff Raikes] As parents, Tricia and I have a strong affinity to the opportunities and challenges for youth – they are the future of our society, of our world. With our own children we have observed the challenges that middle school children face – that tough period of early adolescence – when bullying and other negative social behaviors can develop. At our own foundation, the Raikes Foundation, we call this period the “Middle Shift”. We discovered relevant research on “student agency” – the academic mindsets and learning strategies that help students focus on positive behaviors that support better performance in the classroom, and ultimately success in life. So now we’re deepening our work on assessments of student agency, teaching behaviors that instill it, and classroom context that supports it.

In parallel to this, and through our work with United Way and the Gates Foundation, we learned there are multiple segments of homelessness, such as chronic homelessness and family homelessness. And we discovered a gap in how our communities address another segment, youth and young adult homelessness. So Tricia took a leadership role in our community to drive toward a systemic change in addressing this need, and was recognized as a White House Champion of Change for the innovative approach she and other leaders are taking.

[Eli Broad] It came about in different ways… I started by giving money to Michigan State- where I went to school- establishing an endowment for the business school and graduate school of management. We’ve always enjoyed arts and we began collecting, and eventually I became the founding chairman of the Museum of Contemporary Art. This led to our creation of an art foundation where we lend works of art to museums and University art galleries around the world.

Education came later, as did science and medicine. Education came about as a result of my travels to India, China, Korea, Japan and Northern European nations. I saw how well they educate their young people and how poorly we were doing. I felt this was the biggest problem America had- it was the civil rights issue of the 21st century. It was a security issue- financially and otherwise. That’s how we got involved in education reform. We got involved by creating a number of programmes in different cities, and eventually the biggest prize in education to showcase school districts that are doing a good job.

Scientific and medical research was really opportunistic. It started with the fact that one of our sons has Crohns disease. After going to UCLA medical library, I saw that nobody really knew the cause of Crohns. With everything going on in medical science, there are many young investigators and PhD’s with theories, who can’t get funding. This led us to get into the venture research business- it’s been very successful. We’ve given over 250 grants in 12 years, and many of these people have gone on- after getting our seed money- to get funding from federal sources such as the NIH and National Cancer Institute and many global institutions. The Broad Institute (a partnership between Harvard and MIT) was a great opportunity that we saw.

In terms of our civic activities… Cities are not remembered for their lawyers, business-men or accountants- they are remembered for their arts- and architecture is the mother of all the arts. This is why we’ve been involved in many architecture projects, and we feel very good about that.

Q: What attracted you to prize-philanthropy?

[Anousheh Ansari] Prize philanthropy has a high-multiplier. It's not just a project- but a way of inspiring people with common goals to go after something and make it happen... making a reality of something that could otherwise have just been a dream. That's why I like the prize model... it allows you define a specific target, and that brings focus and brings people out of the woodwork. It also helps collaboration. One of the things that impressed me during the Ansari X Prize was that we saw different competing teams helping each other! They saw the end goal of going to space and realised that regardless of who succeeded, everyone's dream would come true.

Q: What attracted you to 'space' for your X Prize?

[Anousheh Ansari] It started from my own personal wish- as a young girl- to be an astronaut. I wanted to solve the mysteries of the universe by gaining knowledge about space. I continue to believe that the future survival of humanity depends on how-well we become a space-faring species, and how we can learn to live and take advantage of resources in space. That belief, my own personal interest- and a very passionate pitch by Peter Diamandis (founder of the X Prize foundation) all came together at the perfect moment in time and we became partners with him in his endeavour.

X Prize as a foundation has now expanded into many different fields and areas. We continue to bring value to our society through inspiring innovation in critical areas that benefit people around the world. We have a very global board and look at problems worldwide. We also have an amazing group of people who genuinely feel anything is possible and go after crazy ideas. That kind of attitude is often missing in the corporate world where they have shareholder responsibilities, regulators and so on. You also find sometimes people are scared to do audacious things because others may think they're crazy! X Prize is a fertile ground for people who want to explore audacious ideas together, innovate, inspire young people and more.

Looking back at the Ansari X Prize, when we first started- everything was unknown. Most people didn't even want to touch it. I remember how difficult it was for Peter to raise funds. He always appreciates us stepping us to be his partner- with the other founding members. It was a proof of concept, and a very successful one. We have been able to expand on this in other areas.

Q: Has your own visit to space influenced your philanthropy and attitude?

[Anousheh Ansari] On a personal level, having that experience [going to space] really changes you at your core. It really gives you a new way of looking at your life, your relationship with the environment and even with other people. It gives you a global perspective, you cannot look at earth and your own city, town and country in the same way again. You really do feel like a citizen of the world.

I think the first group of people we should send to space are politicians. I watch and listen to what's happening around the world, and see the laws and policies that are passed.... and sometimes feel like saying, "if you've seen what I've seen, you would not be sitting there arguing about these things...." If someone has the physical capability to have this experience, they should be able to do it. Over time I hope it becomes as inexpensive as taking a normal plane trip.

Q: How do you approach the big game opportunities in philanthropy?

[Eli Broad] In education, our aim was to improve student achievement and close the gaps that existed because of income and ethnicity. That’s how it all started. We really like to see change and therefore we support change agents... people who sometimes are disruptive.

In the arts- we want to see arts enjoyed by a broader part of our population, it stimulates creativity and society.

In scientific and medical research, whether genomics or stem cell research, we want to see solutions to a lot of the physical problems that mankind has.

Q: Have you taken inspiration from any other foundations or historic philanthropists in your own journey?

[Eli Broad] I like to mention Andrew Carnegie because of what he did, establishing a number of institutions, a library and an education foundation but we like to learn from all of them.

We’re really- probably- more aggressive than any other foundation in America, especially in education reform. The things we’ve done in science and medicine didn’t exist before. We were the first ones to get Harvard and MIT to do something together! That project now has over 1800 people, a US$280 million research budget, and we’re number one in the world now in genomics.

It all gets down to people, you need to find great leaders… people you can identify with, who have a plan, that have the ability to make it happen, and who can present you their plans and ideas. If you like their plan? You give them the resources... We don’t then walk away, we make sure they’re following the plan and that things happen... It’s not simply writing cheques.

Q: What are the key lessons you’ve learned in your journey in philanthropy?

[Eli Broad] Firstly, philanthropy has given us the opportunity to meet great people outside the world of business and so on. Secondly, it has given us many ideas, and it’s been very educational.

There are also big challenges every day. What we’re doing in education reform gets a lot of pushback and criticism from the established old interests, whether that be teachers unions or others. They want to maintain the status-quo and are uncomfortable with change. That is not so in science…

Q: Is philanthropy a family endeavour?

[Eli Broad] My wife and I are involved, but our children really are not. If you look at today’s foundations... whether it’s Gates, ourselves, or others. The fact that the people that founded them were entrepreneurs means they operate a lot differently to the historic foundations, whether it’s Rockefeller, Ford or others.

Q: What do you think are the biggest challenges faced by our society that philanthropy could impact?

[Anousheh Ansari] The most pressing issues that face us can all benefit from philanthropy.

X Prize not only inspired people to go after the dream of building spacecraft but also it changed a whole paradigm of policies around spaceflight, and changed how policy-makers looked at private space exploration. That accomplishment is perhaps even more valuable than winning the prize itself. We had to educate the FAA (who now have a division dedicated to spaceflight) and even change the way that NASA thought about public-private partnerships.

There are many challenges facing us in terms of energy, water, food, education and more. Every aspect of these problems can seriously benefit from prizes. They are complex problems that don't have a simple solution. Through publicity and paradigm changes, they can benefit. With prizes, we can make leaps in efficiency not just with technology- but with visibility about the problem, education and so on. We can become the link between innovators and policy makers. This is not a short process, it takes years of continuous involvement...

A lot of problems that have not been solved are problems that somehow get stuck with politicians and policymakers. It's not that we don't have the answers, but policy making has created an environment where solutions cannot be implemented.

Q: What would be your message to others wishing to engage in philanthropy?

[Jeff Raikes] The most important thing is to commit your resources, whether it’s money or time, to a cause that you’re passionate about, whether that is a local school, supporting an environmental project, or helping poor kids in Africa. One of the most important things about philanthropy is to really understand where you want to invest back into society, and how you want to do that. By finding the things that you’re passionate about, and learning from others’ successes, you’ll experience the greatest satisfaction in helping, and probably achieve your own capacity to support the greatest impact on society.

[Eli Broad] You’ll find it’s very rewarding. You’ll feel very good about making a difference and you’ll get a lot of respect from a lot of people for what you’re doing. It’s hard work, but it’s incredibly enjoyable.

[Anousheh Ansari] I would like to see more people look at their philanthropy, and their projects, as long-term investments. You get so many people asking for support, and so many projects asking for your help... they all seem important on the surface and with good intentions... but if you look at a long-term view, you can sometimes solve the big problem that will also solve the smaller problems too along the way.

My philosophy is to look at root-cause problems, and to try to solve the root cause issue that would then cascade to solve or help the smaller problems. I would like to see more people look at those issues and spend more time on those instead of sometimes just putting their name on a building, university or hospital.


--------------------------------------------------

As we identified earlier, wealth can take many forms; intellectual, economic, social and biological. Where we consider wealth (in any of these forms) in isolation; at an individual, organisational or even national level, we see that each act of charity or philanthropy is- in effect- executed at the will of a benefactor. Where we consider this wealth (correctly) in abstract however, we see that it is really an asset owned by the whole of society. Each and every member of this global family contributes to the wealth and well being of the others, and it is with this spirit that we have advanced from being a species like all others, to one like no other.

Some of this has been positive, we have made great advances in science, communication, engineering and medicine. We’ve conquered practically every biological and intellectual limitation we have to be able to view our planet from another celestial body, and even create experiments that could yield the answer to the origins of our very universe.

However, much of this remains less resolved.  For example 80% of humanity still lives on less than US$10 a day, 22,000 children die of poverty related causes each and every day and nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

Charity and philanthropy can thus be considered a form of creative destruction. A method by which wealth returns from society to itself, and also a method by which it is transferred between generations; like collecting sand and throwing it back to the sea. As C. S. Lewis once said, "Nothing that you have not given away will ever be really yours."

At a philosophical level, one could even consider charity and philanthropy as antidotes to the 'human condition'.

Each one of us was harmed by being brought into existence….” wrote David Benatar. “That harm is not negligible, because the quality of even the best lives is very bad- and considerably worse than most people recognise it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people. Creating new people is thus morally problematic.” He justifies his position by stating that, “…Both good and bad things happen only to those who exist. However, there is a crucial asymmetry between the good and the bad things. The absence of bad things, such as pain, is good even if there is nobody to enjoy that good, whereas the absence of good things, such as pleasure, is bad only if there is somebody who is deprived of these good things. The implication of this is that the avoidance of the bad by never existing is a real advantage over existence, whereas the loss of certain goods by not existing is not a real disadvantage over never existing.” (Better Never to Have Been, 2008)

Benatar’s views may seem extreme, but there is some element of truth. The majority of our species exist in conditions that the minority simply cannot comprehend, and the only sure-fire way of eliminating this suffering in entirety is for humanity to simply not exist. This option is abhorrent on practically every level, and we must continue our introspection with that in mind.

If we put-aside the enormous odds pitted against our very existing having occurred in the first place, the odds by which we are in a position to not- in some way- be at need of the generosity of others are also extraordinarily similarly slim. It is in recognising this good fortune that we should be called to action.

By not acting, we are also inadvertently placing a moral-price on the lives of our peers. The philosopher Peter Singer once postulated, “What is a human life worth? …you may not want to price tag on it, but if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of human life. With a large proportion of humanity still trapped in conditions of life-threatening poverty, we might ask ourselves how these two beliefs- that a human life, if it can be priced at all, is worth millions, and that the factors I have mentioned do not alter the value of a human life- square with our actions.” (Giving Well - The Ethics of Philanthropy, 2012)

Charity and philanthropy are essential components of a healthy and functioning civilisation. We will never eliminate all the problems we face, but as a society, we have shown that we can go a long way. In under a decade, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have saved the lives of over 6 million people with their healthcare interventions, and countless millions more individuals around the world, each and every year, are fed, sheltered, clothed, supported and empowered by countless other donors and philanthropists.

As an African-American proverb states, “God makes three requests of his children: Do the best you can, where you are, with what you have, now”.




Click to read full article...

Friday, 8 March 2013

The Role of Music in Human Culture

In these exclusive interviews, we speak to Moby (Multi Award Winning International Recording Artist, DJ and Photographer) and Hans Zimmer (International Award Winning composer and music producer who has composed music for over 100 films). We discuss the fundamental question of 'what' music is and the role of music in human culture. We also explore the business of music, and how technology has impacted the production and consumption of music around the world. Digging deeper, we discuss the secrets of what makes a great piece of music and look at why music is fundamental to our very experience of being human.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, March 2013

"... Whenever humans come together for any reason, music is there," writes Daniel Levitin "....weddings, funerals, graduation from college, men marching off to war, stadium sporting events, a night on the town, prayer, a romantic dinner, mothers rocking their infants to sleep and college students studying with music as a background...." He continues to note that, ....music is and was [always] part of the fabric of everyday life. Only relatively recently in our own culture, five hundred years or so ago, did a distinction arise that cut society in two, forming separate classes of music performers and music listeners. Throughout most of the world and for most of human history, music making was as natural an activity as breathing and walking, and everyone participated. Concert halls, dedicated to the performance of music, arose only in the last several centuries. Understanding why we like music and what draws us to it is therefore a window on the essence of human nature...." (This is Your Brain on Music, 2006)

This may seem like undue hyperbole, but the fact is that music is one of the most primal and fundamental aspects of human culture with many researchers even arguing that music (at least in a primitive form) pre-dates the emergence of language itself... A fact (ironically) not lost on some of the greatest writers in history, as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow once observed, "....music is the universal language of mankind

Given our understanding that most (if not all) of our physical and social faculties are adaptations for success in our environment, the origins of music remain an enigma. Prof Oliver Sacks (in his book Musicophilia) notes that even "Darwin himself was evidently puzzled [about the origin of music in culture], writing in The Descent of Man: '...as neither the enjoyment nor the capacity of producing musical notes are faculties of the least use to man… they must be ranked among the most mysterious with which he is endowed....'" Sacks continues to explain that, "We humans are a musical species no less than a linguistic one. We integrate all of these and 'construct' music in our minds using many different parts of the brain. And to this largely unconscious structural appreciation of music is added an often intense and profound emotional reaction to music." He then quotes Schopenhauer who said "The inexpressible depth of music... easy to understand and yet so inexplicable, is due to the fact that it reproduces all of the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain… Music expresses only the quintessence of life and of its events, never these themselves."

Alongside the social and philosophical context, music plays an important economic role. Conservatively it is estimated that the broad industry of music contributes over US$ 160 billion to global GDP- around the size of the entire New Zealand economy.

So what is the role of music in human culture?

In these exclusive interviews, we speak to Moby (Multi Award Winning International Recording Artist, DJ and Photographer) and Hans Zimmer (International Award Winning composer and music producer who has composed music for over 100 films). We discuss the fundamental question of 'what' music is and the role of music in human culture. We also explore the business of music, and how technology has impacted the production and consumption of music around the world. Digging deeper, we discuss the secrets of what makes a great piece of music and look at why music is fundamental to our very experience of being human.

Richard Melville Hall, known by his stage name Moby, is an international award winning musician, DJ, and photographer. He was born in New York City, but grew up in Connecticut, where he started making music when he was 9 years old. He started out playing classical guitar and studied music theory, and then went on to play with seminal Connecticut hardcore punk group 'The Vatican Commandos' when he was 14. Moby then played with post-punk band 'AWOL' while studying philosophy at The University of Connecticut. At this time, he also started DJ'ing, and was a fixture in the late 80's New York house and hip-hop scenes, DJ'ing at clubs such as Mars, Red Zone, MK, and The Palladium.

Moby released his first single, 'go' in 1991 (listed as one of Rolling Stone's best records of all time), and has been making albums ever since. His own records have sold over 20,000,000 copies worldwide, and he's also produced and remixed scores of other artists, including The Smashing Pumpkins, The Beastie Boys, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Daft Punk, Brian Eno, Pet Shop Boys, Britney Spears, New Order, Public Enemy, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, and others

Moby has toured the world extensively, playing well over 3,000 concerts in his career. He has also had his music used in hundreds of different films, including Heat, Any Given Sunday, Tomorrow Never Dies, and The Beach, among others.

Hans Zimmer has composed music for over 100 films, including award winning film scores for The Lion King (1994), Crimson Tide (1995), Gladiator (2000), The Last Samurai (2003), The Dark Knight (2008) and Inception (2010). He has received four Grammy Awards, two Golden Globes, a Classical BRIT Award, and an Academy Award. He was also named on the list of Top 100 Living Geniuses, published by The Daily Telegraph

Composer Hans Zimmer was born September 12, 1957 in Frankfurt, Germany; after relocating to London as a teen, he later wrote advertising jingles for Air-Edel Associates, and in 1980 collaborated with the Buggles on their LP The Age of Plastic and its accompanying hit "Video Killed the Radio Star." A stint with Ultravox followed before Zimmer next surfaced with the Italian avant-garde group Krisma; he then formed a partnership with film composer Stanley Myers, and together they founded the London-based Lillie Yard recording studio. Zimmer and Myers' movie work of the period, which included material for pictures including Moonlighting, Success Is the Best Revenge, Insignificance, and the acclaimed My Beautiful Laundrette, made significant strides in fusing the traditional orchestral aesthetic of film composition with state-of-the-art electronics, and proved highly influential on countless soundtracks to follow.

In 1986 Zimmer joined David Byrne and Ryuichi Sakamoto on their Oscar-winning score to The Last Emperor; his work on the apartheid drama A World Apart was his first major solo credit, and led to his Academy Award-nominated score for 1988's Best Picture-winning smash Rain Man. The following year Zimmer again composed the soundtrack for a Best Picture winner, this time Bruce Beresford's Driving Miss Daisy; a remarkably prolific writer, by the time the '90s dawned his music was a Hollywood staple, with a list of hits including Black Rain, Backdraft, Thelma & Louise, A League of Their Own, and Days of Thunder. Zimmer scored his biggest commercial hit in 1994 with his work on Disney's The Lion King; the film's soundtrack garnered countless awards, including an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and two Grammys. Later adapted for the Broadway stage, The Lion King took home the 1998 Tony for Best Musical as well.

In 1995, Zimmer also earned a Grammy for his work on Crimson Tide, which was honored as Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture. Another Academy Award nomination followed for 1996's The Preacher's Wife; that same year, he earned BMI's prestigious Richard Kirk Award for lifetime achievement. 1997 saw Zimmer earn another Oscar nomination for his work on the James L. Brooks comedy As Good as It Gets, repeating the feat for the third consecutive year in 1998 with his score for the Terrence Malick masterpiece The Thin Red Line. His contributions to The Prince of Egypt also earned a Golden Globe bid earlier that same year.

The 2000s marked an auspicious time in the composer's career, as he continued scoring the biggest A-list films of the season, averaging two or three blockbusters a year, including Hannibal, Gladiator, The Last Samurai, and The Da Vinci Code. In 2007, Silva Screen Records released Film Music of Hans Zimmer, a double-disc set highlighting his achievements as a movie music-maker. Later in 2007, he reworked Alf Clausen's zany Simpsons theme into a traditional symphonic film score on The Simpsons Movie. As the 2000s came to a close and the 2010s began, Zimmer's name remained synonymous with blockbusters as he scored later installments in the Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Batman franchises, including 2012's The Dark Knight Rises. His score to Christopher Nolan's 2010 film Inception was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Music and Original Score, and also earned a Saturn from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films for Best Music.

Q: What is music?

[Moby] One of the really fascinating things about music is that technically- in a very literal way- it doesn't exist. A painting, a sculpture or a photograph can physically exist, while music is just air hitting the eardrum in a slightly different way than it would randomly. If you were a space alien trying to define music- you would define it as humans manipulating the way in which air molecules hit someone's eardrum.

Somehow that air- which has almost no substance whatsoever- when moved and when made to hit the eardrum in tiny subtle ways- can make people dance, cry, have sex, move across country, go to war and more. It's remarkable that something so subtle can illicit profound emotional reactions in people.

[Hans Zimmer] Music is organised chaos! ….but not necessarily in a bad way, as organised chaos can sound pretty good!

I feel music is an autonomous language. As you are speaking to a German in English here, I am trying to make sense of words- but there’s a whole bunch of things I can’t express in any language. I’m not Shakespeare or Goethe, so I have to resort to notes. Sometimes with two little notes, I can hit an emotional target with more precision than could ever be possible with words.

For me, the operative word in music is play. I’ve never been very good at ‘growing up’- and in fact, that was reflected in what I did last night. I went into a room with a bunch of musicians- we sat down and we just started playing, we didn’t even need to speak with each other. That level of communication, trust and friendship is phenomenal. It’s one of the most special things in my life, and I feel that anyone who can’t have experiences like that may be living a less fulfilling life.

I won’t be giving it up anytime soon!

Q: What is the role of music in our experience of being human?

[Moby] I think the human condition is just baffling for everybody. We are alive for a few decades in a universe that is 15 billion years old and vast beyond our imagining. We define ourselves as having a fixed age of 30 or 40 years when the truth is that at a quantum level there is no part of you that is less than 15 billion years old.

Music provides us with a strange self-generated celebration of the human condition in the face of a universe that is ancient and vast beyond our understanding.

[Hans Zimmer] Music is one of the few things we, as humans, are any good at. If you look at the history of music- way back- you will find things like the Balinese monkey chants. It starts out as a bunch of monkeys yammering in a forest, and turns into a chant. If you go to any rave, or any football event, you will find people chanting in a rhythm- human beings do that. We have this sense to participate and organise- this is music at its most crude form. We then go to something more sublime like the second movement of the Mozart Clarinet Concerto- you can’t fail to be moved by it!

Music lets you rediscover your humanity, and your connection to humanity. When you listen to Mozart with other people, you feel that somehow- we’re all in this together. This is, I suppose, what great poetry strives for.

Q: What makes a great piece of music?

[Moby] This is a question of whether there are any inherent or innate properties of music that affect people regardless of temporal or cultural context is one that people have been coming up against for a very long time. And the truth is, I have no idea.

I hear Indonesian Gamelan music and it makes no sense to me, but for someone who grew up with it? the same music can create a great emotional reaction.

[Hans Zimmer] I’m sure much has been written on this question, by academics and thinkers, but as for me- I’ve had a rotten education. I make music from my own instinct.

Let’s stay with the example of Mozart. Yes, he wrote remarkable pieces! But could anyone else have written them? I’m sure! It’s the initial idea… the balance between geometric form, mathematical precision and emotion- the aesthetic of the piece.

There’s a great Duke Ellington quote, “there are only two types of music- good music, and bad music…” I experienced this last week! Here I am, a film composer, talking with Pete Townsend and he’s explaining the last four Beethoven Quartets to me. We musicians are funny, we’re incredible snobs about music- but this is not dependent on style. We could have been discussing some fantastic country and western song, or a piece of electronica.

Q: What have been your inspirations?

[Moby] I've been obsessed with and in love with music since I was three or four years old, and I'm reminded of one of my favourite quotes from the movie "Almost Famous." At the very end of the movie, William Miller (the journalist) is interviewing Russell (the guitar player from Sweetwater) and the question he asks is, "what do you love about music?" and Russell's response is, "well, to start with... everything".

For me, music is an end unto itself but also a way of representing every aspect of the human experience. You can represent joy, despair, confusion, anger and so on.

[Hans Zimmer] There are many things that inspire me, but they’re usually not music.

The reason I went into film-music is that I love people telling a story. I love images. I love paintings. Let me tell you a story… When I started working with Ridley Scott- I realised he was really a painter- he would have been a damn fine painter too. The tragedy there was he was in the same year as David Hockney in the Royal Academy. He had to figure out that maybe he needed to do something else… This is a characteristic shared by Terry Malik too. I feel that we talk in colours, and these colours become the story you want to tell, and how you tell it.

Very often it’s the same story I get to tell. How many people have I had die on the screen, or kiss on the screen- and I have to find a different way of contextualising all of that.

If I reflect on the most successful things I have worked on, they keep asking the same questions- who are we? How do we all fit into this crazy world? …and these questions never get answered, and that keeps you writing.

Q: What is the relationship of music to language?

[Moby] This is an issue that western philosophy has been dealing with for millennia... the question of what can be known and how it can be communicated.

In the early 20th century when Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he basically tried to answer this question, saying that the only meaningful way that human beings can communicate is through mathematics. He felt this [Maths] was a language that left no room for interpretation or subjectivity. A few decades later, he almost refuted this. He didn't say that art, speaking and writing had no meaning- but rather that they were inherently subjective forms of communication.

Music transcends the limits of language. The English lexicon is vast, but still is limited. Music comes in to fill the gap. It looks at the way we can't express ourselves through the spoken or written word and makes up for the lack.

[Hans Zimmer] Music is definitely an extension of language.

Bernstein explained this beautifully in his Harvard Lectures where he talked on how music came about. We have one universal word, “mama….” If you sing it a little faster and a little louder, mama will hear you and come and feed you. In this sense, music had a survival necessity.

Like all good things- sooner or later we get past bare survival and turn things into art.

Q: What is the relationship of music to the wider arts?

[Moby] There is a symbiotic relationship that all the arts have with each other. Photographers listen to music, musicians look at photographs, and everyone can be friends.

One of the things I love about a pseudo-interdisciplinary approach to arts is that when a musician (for example) walks into an art gallery, they tend to have quite a lot of innocence when exposed to the art as they are not a visual artist. When a musician walks into an art gallery to look at paintings, they're not concerned with how they were made, nor are they jealous of the artists career, they are just having a very direct and honest reaction to the work. In this sense, some of my favourite musical opinions come from non-musicians as they tend to see things more innocently and naively- in a really healthy way.

If a painter walks into an art gallery where another painter is showing their works, the criteria by which that painter is judging the other painter's work rarely has much to do with the innocent way in which someone else might react to the work.

Q: How do you feel the concepts of aesthetic and beauty exist in music?

[Moby] This goes back to understanding whether these concepts are influenced by culture, context and such variables and whether there is a platonic idea of musical aesthetic and beauty.

I don't think there is such a thing. There's some music that I find incredibly beautiful which others may find dissonant and horrifying- and vice versa. Someone might play me one of their favourite songs and it may sound- to me- like nails on a chalkboard while to them it's a sublime expression of the time...

[Hans Zimmer] One of the things I love doing is to juxtapose truly horrendously ugly things. You can get away with a lot more in music than with other arts.

We live in the age of Dissonance… Dissonance in the form we have it now grew out of 1910, leading up to the First World War and ever-after. We live in a dissonant world, and there is a way of describing it in music that can become very exciting and very satisfying. Suddenly something as dissonant as the little thing I did for the Joker in The Dark Knight can become hugely commercial. I don’t think anything as obnoxious, crude and ugly as that- in any other art form- could hit such a nerve and zeitgeist.

Popular music hasn’t really developed that much. The sounds change a bit etcetera, but those same three chords can be immensely satisfying- and sometimes you throw a fourth chord in. You’re dealing with a very narrow pallet, and you can say an awful lot with that. Every composer tries to escape that pallet, find something new and move forward. Against this we have the very old fashioned notion the avant-garde- with all the baggage that comes with that. I feel sometimes they truly lost touch with who they were writing for.

This links back to something I said earlier where I was in a room with a bunch of musicians and we were having a great time playing together. There is another party you have to invite into your music- the audience- they have to become active participants in one way or another. People sing in the shower! I don’t think there is much poetry recited in showers, or much discussion of paintings…

The great thing about music is its humility. I am working on a score right now, and to achieve one of the sounds I am using a cardboard box and a rubber band! It just so happened that was the sound I was hearing in my head. Anyone can go make an instrument, tap on a table, and get people to participate.

Participation is important. I grew up in England, and was very shy. When I came to England, I could not speak any English. The only way I could communicate was to play a bit of Piano. This has happened to me time and time again where I would work with musicians and we wouldn’t be able to speak the same words- but when we start playing, hours would pass and there was no need to exchange words! We would know exactly where to turn, where to go, whether it was going well or not… and would know instinctively how to steer the music to reach an unspoken result that was aesthetically satisfying.

I believe this ability is intuitive. The idea that music is the universal language is only true insofar that it is music… but music has different meanings from culture to culture. Folk music is different from culture to culture… The word happiness doesn’t exist in German, so we have to make do with music to fill that void.

Q: Is genre an extension of culture?

[Moby] All the variables that contribute to the birth, sustenance and morphing of a genre- and the way in which people feel married to a genre- enter the realm of chaos theory. The variables are myriad and unknowable.

You could give a glib answer and say that Rock 'n' Roll came from white trash guys who liked black R&B- but it's so much more complicated than that.

I don't want to sound too esoteric, but I do think a lot of this has to do with neural plasticity. As time passes, neuroscientists become more aware of how fluid and plastic the brain can be- but research also shows there is a wilful desire to hold onto a degree of rigidity- maintaining things that are familiar, and to which we have allegiance. We see this a lot with patriotism and attachment to sports teams- but it also leads to genre. It's not just a preference, but an atavistic tribal allegiance.

There used to be a utilitarian aspect to this. When records were expensive and hard to come by- the purchase of one used to be an expression of allegiance to a genre. Now, music is ubiquitous and doesn't cost anything- so it seems that as time passes, genre is becoming more of an antiquated idea. If we were having this conversation 30 years ago, almost everybody you and I were friends with would have had genres they were very deeply attached to. When I think of all of my friends now? ...rarely do they speak in terms of genre, but rather in terms of music that they like.

[Hans Zimmer] Absolutely!

For example, I have always believed that rap music- in one way or another- grew out of the blues, and work songs. It’s a genre where pretty strong political and social ideas are expressed. European Art Music on the other hand comes out of a need to play nice music for people’s expensive dinner, or the opera. One is real and authentic and charges forward, while the other is becoming redundant and hanging on for dear life.

You have so many varieties… militaristic music- which I don’t think is music at all- in fact I believe it is a horrible proclamation, a misuse of music. There’s a reason why there are a million and one love songs… They all try and say the same thing, albeit in slightly different ways…. In popular music, you have the notion of the band. There is something about being young and coming together with three other guys to form a band and make music- it’s a natural thing.

To make great music, you have to have that certain recklessness which you have when you’re young. I think this is why a lot of bands fall apart… the recklessness and the adventurousness is there, but I don’t think they know how to be socially fair to each other… They have to behave as one single body, with collective responsibility for the sound they make.

Q: What is the role of the composer in music?

[Hans Zimmer] It really depends. I write so many different things and transgress so many styles. That’s what I love about film music- nobody is telling me to sound like my last hit single or something like that! I can go from a Thelma and Louise into Gladiator- they’re completely different sounds of music with the same Director.

My role is fundamentally selfish. I like playing music. That’s the thing I like doing more than anything else- at the expense of anything else. I am not good at parties… it’s tough to get me to go to dinner… all I want to do is sit in my room and write music, I’m very, very, dull!

At its most basic, you are giving impetus. You throw three or four notes into a room and say, “…where can we go with this?” or I can get into my German dictatorial thing where everything is written out and nobody can even change an inflection. Composition lies somewhere between creating a possibility that allows other people to express themselves and making something which is a single minded point of view.

Q: Is the challenge of composing based on the blank slate?

[Hans Zimmer] I have a blank slate, always- even in movies.

There are many ways to interpret anything. Part of the job is to be a little ahead of everyone else. This creates its own problems… As someone once said to me after I had written something particularly offensive, “..it’s called show-business and not show-friends…

At the end of the day, what keeps me sane is that I always know I am serving the film. When we sit around and have conversations about music, you see that people are kind. They come up with ideas. They see you sitting there staring- like a Deer in the headlights because you have no idea what to write. You have to re-interpret these suggestions at best… The job of a composer is not to do the thing they can think of, but the thing they can’t imagine.

What it comes down to is that you should never ask an audience or a director what they want to hear. That’s not their job to answer! If you ask an audience what they want to hear in film music, they may answer, “we want to hear another Star Wars… another Gladiator…” – your job is to invent, to be ahead of things.

Music is no good if it doesn’t get a little scary, there has to be some controversy going on.

Q: What is the role of different instruments in music?

[Moby] You have to take this on a case-by-case basis. The criteria by which a performance is judged has everything to do with the individual piece of music. Sometimes a wonderful guitar part may be transcendent, emotionally resonant and wonderful and other times a wonderfully played guitar part may seem like the most inappropriate thing in the world. The musician has to figure this out on their own.

When you're playing music for other people, you quickly become aware of the reaction that people are having. The best musicians are able to stay true to themselves but also remain open to the opinion of other people. If you are rigid and closed off to the opinions of other people, you end up with music that nobody wants to listen to- and if you're 100% based on the opinions of others? you end up with pablum...

Q: To what extent do you draw influence from areas outside music (such as politics, religion and so on)?

[Hans Zimmer] It’s all one thing!

If you take the three Batman movies I worked on, the music can be seen in a very political way. It’s about a post-capitalist society and its ideas. At the same time, all I tried to do is write from the moment a boy witnessed his parents get killed- and see where he got to three movies later- that’s my arc.

You can go off left, right and experiment- and you try to create a sonic world. That’s part of the fun of it.

Q: To what extent does music influence politics, religion and other social phenomena?

[Moby] The challenge is to understand the extent to which music informs culture, and the extent to which culture informs music.

If you look at the late 60's, it's very hard to figure out which was the primary driver. Was it cultural change? technology? or music? It seems in reality to be a messy symbiotic relationship between all of those elements. The music reflected the culture, the culture reflected the music and nobody can really tell which was the chicken or the egg!

Music has a way of being informative, and has a lot of capabilities. When I think of the Neil Young song Ohio - it's informative, but also provides an emotional connection to a specific political and personal experience. I wasn't at Kent State- but when I listen to that song? I can get emotional and choked up. Even though I didn't know anyone who was killed at Kent State in the early 70's and I don't know much about what happened, I can still have an emotional reaction to it.

For decades music has also legitimised certain world views. Music has taken-in world views that are often time left of centre and made them seem legitimate in the political, hedonistic or public realm. I think of John Lennon's song Imagine. There are hundreds of millions of people who have been affected by that song, and it's changed- to an extent- the way people see themselves, relate to people around them, understand the world cosmologically and more. It's not a 'Paul on The Road to Damascus' way but rather more subtle- shaping the way we perceive ourselves and our world

Q: How have the internet and technology impacted music?

[Moby] It's almost hard to remember how it was when I was growing up. Then, in order to listen to music, you had to be listening to the right radio station at the right time, you had to save up all your money to buy a record, ride your bike over to a friend's house to listen to their records and so on. Music was scarce.

It's really ironic that the music business was technically a lot healthier when it was a lot harder to access music. The record business did great when it involved people travelling great distances to go to record stores and spend lots of money on pieces of plastic. Now that music is ubiquitous and available everywhere, the record business is suffering. It's a strange paradox.

It may sound clichéd, but technology has democratised music. The music business of the 80's was a strange third-world country where 0.0001% of musicians controlled all the success and wealth. Now, the music business has become a lot more like Scandinavia where there isn't as much wealth- but it's spread more evenly among the people. It's a long-tail effect. There's a lot of musicians now who can make records inexpensively, who can distribute their work inexpensively and who- if they're clever enough- can figure out how to have some semblance of a career. Before, there were literally a handful of musicians who were selling millions of records, and everyone else was left out in the cold.

There are so many successful music companies now, and most of them were started in the last 10 years. The paradigms of the climate in which music companies can survive or fail have changed dramatically in the past 15 years. The older companies are desperately trying to be Ostriches, hiding their heads in the sand and hoping things will get better one day. Newer companies like Kobalt are thriving because their business model is based on the climate as it currently is- whereas the old companies are all suffering because their businesses are based on economic and technological climates that disappeared a long time ago.

For the longest time, the criteria by which the success of music was calculated had everything to do with revenue. There were very specific physical metrics used to determine the success of a musician- how many records were sold? how many tickets sold?... now it's much more nebulous. I personally find that now we have an incredibly dynamic dialectic between the musician and the listener. The musician is informing the listener, and the listener is informing the musician. It's much less viably profit-driven. Musicians who are still out there desperately trying to just make money are not doing that well- whereas musicians who are embracing this new strange paradigm are personally, artistically and professionally succeeding more.

It's also forced me to ask questions of myself, for example- why am I dedicating my life to making music? For me, the answer is simple- it's because I love music, I love making music and I love doing what I can to get people to hear it. If I just focus on those three things and- without being egregiously stupid in the process- let the business side of things take care of themselves, then I will be successful.

In the new climate, when people are disingenuous, the audience becomes aware of it very quickly. In the olden days, artists and labels could be a lot more disingenuous and it would take the listener a long time to figure it out.

[Hans Zimmer] I would never have had a career without technology, I came at music from technology. I came at it not from doing piano scales, but from programming computers. I remember I had this little computer with 16K of memory, and everyone was astonished! What was I going to do with all this memory!

All musical development- in one way or another- goes hand in hand with technology. All musical instruments are advancements in technology. For a few hundred years they were mechanical advancements, then they became electronic advancements. I keep having the suspicion that society made a mistake when we learned to record music. We took away the eye watching the performance….

Then the internet came along and made us think of music in a completely different way. Digital has made music instinctively disposable. You just know that if you write something on a piece of paper, and someone digs it up in 2,000 years- they will probably be able to play it. If you found a hard-drive with some data on, I don’t think you would find a computer that could go and play that back.

Music has always had a sort of redundancy built into it. Music only happens in the moment, it’s not like a painting that you can stand in front of. It only exists in its relationship with time.

I aim not to create something that lasts, but rather something for the moment. It took me years to get around to not throwing scores in the bin thinking, “..we’re done with that one, onto the next project…..

This has followed the story of knowledge in many areas of culture. I think the Church became very worried when Gutenberg invented print. Suddenly anyone could have access to books.

Ultimately, we can see this as having manifest in two ways. If we look at the consumption of music, there has been an incredible boom. In terms of people making music- I think there are just as many people making music as there were before. It’s more of a jumble now and very hard to figure out what you like…

Q: What advice would you give to the next generation of musicians?

[Moby] First and foremost, don't specialise. The days in which a bass player could have a 40 year career as a bass player are done. The music world as it exists now favours people who are prepared to do anything. My advice to musicians would be - learn how to make classical music, learn how to DJ, learn how to produce, learn how to play live, learn how to write songs for other people, learn everything.... dedicate your life to it... and hopefully love every aspect of what you do.

If someone is just being technical and business minded, they can figure out all these things- but there won't be any emotional resonance. If people love what they do, it increases the chances that they will work harder and also increases the chances that they'll be really good at what they do.

I consider myself almost disturbingly fortunate in the fact that every aspect of creating music makes me happy.... whether it's playing bass in a blues band, writing classical music, playing in punk rock group, making my own records or DJ'ing- there is nothing else in my life that excites me as much as making music, regardless of the context.

Q: What would the world be like without music?

[Hans Zimmer] A world without music would be unimaginable, a huge chunk of the social communication mechanism would be gone.

Music happens in very few other places. If you go to a football match,, you will see people rooting for the same team- for the same goal. Music does this effortlessly. You can have a few people around, play a piece of music- and everyone falls silent and gets carried along by the story the music tells.

Music tells a part of our story. That’s why it’s so important- to me- that orchestras get to survive. With all the modern technologies we have, it’s very easy to say “…we don’t need an orchestra…” but an orchestra is not just about the body of sound it makes… it serves a social function. You can beat Hollywood up about allsorts of things- quite rightly so- but one of the things you need to remember is that Hollywood is one of the last places on Earth where… on a big scale, you see the daily commissioning of orchestral music.

Look at the economy… one of the first thing that gets slashed is music and the art programmes from schools. This may seem like a tragedy but the inherent quality I know about musicians is that they’re born that way- they can’t help themselves- they have to pick up an instrument and learn how to play. My daughter once asked me what it was like to be a starving musician. It was the first time I’d ever really thought about this question…. Poverty sucks, but you never really thought about it because you were surrounded by other starving musicians and you just had a good time playing music! Somebody somewhere would figure out how we could pay the rent and get some food, but survival wasn’t the essence- playing music was.

Music is inherent in all of us. I don’t know what it’s like to not have music in my life, or live in a vacuum where there is no music. Years ago I asked a friend, “what music do you hear when you wake up?” …and they sort of looked at me funny and asked what I meant. To me it was inconceivable that someone could not wake up and be thinking of a new tune or something. I just assumed they were all more sensible and had real jobs… I’ve been told that there are people out there who have no affinity with music, but I think that is pretty rare.

To me, hearing and feeling music is the same as smelling, tasting or seeing- it’s just one of the senses for me.


--------------------------------------------------

In an essay for Harvard Magazine, the acclaimed biologist and author E. O. Wilson wrote, "...To create and perform music is a human instinct. It is one of the true universals of our species. To take an extreme example, the neuroscientist Aniruddh D. Patel points to the Pirahã, a small tribe in the Brazilian Amazon: 'Members of this culture speak a language without numbers or a concept of counting. Their language has no fixed terms for colors. They have no creation myths, and they do not draw, aside from simple stick figures. Yet they have music in abundance, in the form of songs.' ...Patel has referred to music as a 'transformative technology'. "

On the impact music has on our species itself, Wilson notes that, "... To the same degree as literacy and language itself, it has changed the way people see the world. Learning to play a musical instrument even alters the structure of the brain, from subcortical circuits that encode sound patterns to neural fibers that connect the two cerebral hemispheres and patterns of gray matter density in certain regions of the cerebral cortex. Music is powerful in its impact on human feeling and on the interpretation of events. It is extraordinarily complex in the neural circuits it employs, appearing to elicit emotion in at least six different brain mechanisms."

Leaving the neuroscience aside, we cannot ignore the abstract and profoundly deep emotional connection we have to music. It has an undeniable beauty, and a sense of truth- seeming almost as natural a part of our existence as breathing.

As humans, we can split our experience of the world into three domains. Firstly the domain of language (including writing) which allows us to exchange knowledge. Secondly, the domain of science (including maths) which gives our world comprehensibility. Third is the domain of the aesthetic (including art) which gives our world meaning.

Music is one of the few products of humanity which spans all three domains, giving it a unique position within our culture and existence. This is a phenomenon so fundamental to who we are, that it is inconceivable that we would have a world without it.

As Friedrich Nietzsche said, "...Without music, life would be an error."


Click to read full article...