“The world would be saved if we could just love one another.”

An airy fairy statement used by hippies and dreamers?

No matter how true the statement may be, it is hardly a pragmatic plan of attack to “Save the World”.

Defining love is difficult in many ways. It’s association with sexual intimacy, and it’s broad context of use where many contexts are deemed socially unacceptable to even have a hint of that association, make in depth discussion of love uncomfortable for many.

• Love your spouse
• Love your Children
• Love your Parents
• Love Trees
• Love a Business Idea
• Love a good Steak
• Love your God

There are so many different contexts where the word Love is used that it is impossible to determine if the world is increasing or decreasing in it’s level of Love.

In science, technology and business, when you have something you wish to measure, which is seemingly unmeasurable, you look for substitute characteristics, or if you are lucky, a substitute characteristic, which correlates strongly. Then you measure that. Interventions can then be trialled and reasonable assumptions on those interventions’ success or failure can be made from the analysis of data. Society moves in some direction or another as a result.

Pretty simple stuff, but what would be a measurable substitute characteristic for Love? I guess we are looking for an indicator or a “Symptom of Love”.

Furthermore perhaps we are looking to build the technology to provide the interventions, measure the results, analyse the data, and rework the interventions where appropriate to maximise the love.

Perhaps if this helped us practice the Symptoms of Love we could and would, over time, generate genuine love.

Use the old “Fake it until you make it” technique of self improvement on a global scale.

Now if I just had such a thing……….I reckon I’d call it Kahatika.

If the role of business is to identify an others pain and offer a cost effective solutions to that pain, one would suspect compassion would have a major role in business.

Should more businesses be embedding, or at least deriving inspiration from a Charter for Compassion when formulating the company mission and standard operating procedures?

Does the profit motive of business explicitly rule business out as vehicles of true love and compassion?

Lets assume for a moment that I have the solution that will save the world and an action plan to implement it.

If you think I have, you might invest in it. If you think I haven’t you won’t.

You’re a hard nosed investor, you’ve got no children to pass the world on to, you’re very self-centred and are only into what it returns to you.

Is the solution something that creates a return on investment?

The short answer is yes. (I think) The financial modeling I have done shows a Return on Investment of under three years.

What proof do I have other than the model it self?

None.

Ok, let’s assume for a moment that you are still interested.

What generates the return?

Increased efficiency is what I think produces the return. “More with Less”

We are talking about Saving the World why are you talking about ROI?

Because if I talk about Love, compassion, giving, family, communicating, justice, I become a “nut job” in your eyes, so I decided to speak your language.

Ah, so you’re starting some wacky religion?

See I told you.

It seems to me that Religion, from a practical perspective, is a set of guidelines to live ones life by. (Brand loyalty gives rise to a multitude of flavours; Judaism, Budism, Christianity etc)

I guess I have one of those.

I like to think I have derived them from first principles.  “If I was on the receiving end of the action I am taking, what would I think or feel about that action and the person taking it?” Karen Armstrong is doing her best to get us back to those first principles by advocating reviving the golden rule.

Being agnostic there is one overriding rule I feel compelled to live by “Don’t Recruit Followers to My Religion” , or in other words,  “Thou shalt not promote one’s Brand”. I have my own reasons for this rule.

• There is Power in Numbers.
• Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
• “He’s not the Messiah. He’s a very naughty boy!” – quote Brian’s Mother, Life of Brian (1979)

Even more compelling a reason is that someone I can assume carries a great degree of credibility, forbid conversion of Jews and Christians (people of the book) to Islam. Who am I to argue with the Prophet Muhammad ? Not until the 10th Century did it become legal to convert Jews and Christians. Obviously 400 years or so is sufficient enough time to corrupt a religion.

Someone else that holds a bit of sway in the Jewish community, Rabbi Hillel, stated that, “The Book” so to speak could be summed up by “The Golden Rule”. This guy died when Jesus was 10. Not sure how well teachings got around in those days, but I can assume that Jesus was pretty taken with the Golden Rule as well.

• Taking the advice of a the pretty switched on historic figures above as, likely to be “good”.
• That my religion (my system by which I make my moral decisions) is based on the golden rule.
• Q.E.D. No Recruiting Rule.

I can show you a man made plan but I can’t show you a miracle.