The battlefield is a diverse patchwork of countries with distinct languages and cultures, varying degrees of connectivity infrastructure, diverse digital media landscapes, and contrasting political regimes with business environments that range from: mature but essentially open (Japan), barely connected and hence, in theory, up-for-grabs (India), effectively protected (South Korea), and outright walled off (PRC).

Against this vast and diverse tapestry of peoples and places, one of the biggest challenges for Silicon Valley folks is that not enough of them would find the title of this article absolutely preposterous. Having lived in “Asia” for 14 years, I find the very idea of Western minds attaching a single word to everything bundled into this mega-region increasingly absurd.

As I think the following case histories suggest, despite the relative ease with which the dematerialised nature of the web has allowed Silicon Valley’s star companies to scale-up faster than any others in history (Google became the world’s most valuable company in under 19 years), in order to play a big role in the future of the web in Asia, these companies will need to differentiate, decentralise and delegate control like never before, and hence become truly global in nature. Some will manage this feat, others will not, and we have already got some good evidence to suggest which they might be.

China’s Walled Garden

In Europe, Google has attempted to position itself as a “Growth Engine”, a vital and benign component of an industrial and cultural ecosystem that will create new business opportunities, innovation and, with them, much-needed new jobs and prosperity. In a continent that is going through its own “lost decade” that might well persist much longer, it seems like a well-tuned message to the bureaucrats in Brussels who seek to limit Google’s dominance through anti-monopoly rulings and punitive tax bills, but, whether this argument works in Europe or not, it is clear it would never work as a one-fits-all stance in Asia.

In China, for one, the CPC’s legitimacy to govern is in all practical terms the promise of continued economic growth, so you can imagine how they might react to Google attempting to assume a similar position. Of course, the CPC made this thought experiment academic by forcing Google’s hand on censorship, leading to Google—you have to say, to its credit—pulling out of China back in 2010, feeling that to remain would compromise its “Don’t Be Evil” corporate philosophy.

In the context of Asia’s emerging digital economies, and with Google’s growth engine claim in mind, the case for limiting the influence and power of global players to allow a healthy culture of  local entrepreneurship to emerge and with it locally owned businesses is by no means illogical or counter-factual. Again in China, where protectionism has been overt, the likes of Baidu, Tencent (WeChat), Weibo and Alibaba are dominating similar spaces that Google, WhatsApp, Twitter / Facebook and Amazon occupy respectively elsewhere.

The reality is that despite the extraordinary wave of Globalism that has proceeded since the 1990s, Asia’s spectrum of “regimes” still each need their own careful strategy that achieves cooperation without being collusive. And with America itself having elected its own “regime” recently, this need to have a regime-strategy may have come home.

Korea’s Protected Park

The price of protectionism has always been the fact that companies sheltered at home are unable to compete beyond the barriers erected to protect them, and so far China’s own web giants have confirmed, rather than countered, this pattern; although M&A activity by Alibaba in particular is at least diversifying their portfolio.

Although South Korea is no China, it is effectively protected by its unique language, relatively small size (50m population)—meaning that there is usually a more alluring prize (bigger fruit, or lower-hanging) to chase for global corporates—and, less passively, a government that makes it extremely hard for foreign companies to operate comfortably.

The continuing dominance of the NAVER platform, a web portal-style dinosaur that makes no pretence at offering organic search results that, to my web sensibilities, should have gone extinct when Zuckerberg was still wearing braces, is perhaps evidence of this effective protection, but then every Korean I ask tells me they find it very useful.

The story of Korea’s dominant chat app, KakaoTalk, run by DAUM, illustrates the sort of “regime risk” at which would-be inbound investors balk. With 35m users—70% of the entire population, or 93% of smartphone users—it is just the sort of “cultural infrastructure” which makes it seemingly indispensable to a society, and the same breed of soft hegemony that Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon profit from in the US and Europe.

In October 2014, it was revealed that KakaoTalk had been colluding, likely under duress, with President Park Geun-Hye’s increasingly authoritarian government in censoring statements that “insulted” or made fun of (i.e. criticised) her on the platform. In South Korea’s well-protected economy where economic success has been based on collaboration between government and industry, the question “did they have any choice?” is well worth asking.

Censorship in Asia is not limited to China or South Korea, but is practiced by most governments in one way or another, as the example of KakaoTalk in South Korea later on highlights.

How much are western companies willing to get along with governments?

It was clear though that many of KakaoTalk’s users were incensed with 1.7m of them voting with their feet  in just one week after the scandal broke, digitally emigrating to the privacy-guaranteed Telegraph app that offers privacy from prying governments (thanks to parking its servers offshore).

KakaoTalk backtracked and, in defiance of government intrusion, guaranteed their users they would not be the victims of government censorship; their user base, enjoying the ultimate of protective network effects, has not been significantly dented.

However, a year later, KakaoTalk’s co-founder and CEO was forced to resign after a government investigation found that he had failed to do enough to prevent the sharing of child pornography on the platform. This was widely seen as President Park exacting revenge. Who would want to be the CEO of a content platform in Asia?

Of course, since then, Park herself has had her comeuppance, deposed after a series of scandals that drew millions to the streets to demand her resignation, and now there is a new political reality for companies to deal with. NAVER and DAUM will no doubt be able to ride out these bumps in the road, but these incidentns are not making Korea any more appealing to market entrants, and stand for the sort of risks that Asia’s fragile democracies and autocracies pose to Silicon Valley and Western companies in general.

Japan Falls in LINE

Japan used to be accused of protectionism all the time—mostly around the car industry—and, like many other old conservative rallying cries, Donald Trump has recently brought it back from the dead. But, as the success of Germany’s luxury car brands in Japan proves, the main barrier is the eye for quality of Japan’s savvy consumers, who perceive U.S.-made cars as relatively poor quality and unreliable. Are they wrong?

The same appreciation of the beauty of superior function has helped Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon all enjoy excellent margins and globally significant profits from Japan usually #2 or #3 globally. But today Japan’s most popular digital platform is LINE, an offspring of the aforementioned Korean media monopolist NAVER. How did a Korean up-start steal such a prize?

According to the press release that heralded the launch of the LINE chat app, it was inspired by the 2011 Eastern Japan earthquake, since so many people were unable to reach each other over the jammed 3G networks that ensued. This spin seems to have been taken at face value by Japan’s press, but the real story was much less philanthropic. NAVER realised they had lost the Korean chat app market to their Korean rival DAUM’s KakaoTalk, and saw the nearest alternative user base—both in terms of geographical and cultural proximity—Japan, as their chance to make amends. Thus LINE is actually a copycat of KakaoTalk, imitating its cute sticker-based visual UI, and it now boasts 45m active users in Japan and 280m globally—far more than KakaoTalk, which never really got going outside of S. Korea.

LINE’s success in Japan is due to the fact that—rather than in any way representing a colonisation by Korean cultural forces—it is intrinsically colonizable by Japan’s own visual creative culture. Just like the way the AppStore liberated Japan’s cloistered developers years before, LINE’s stamp gallery represented a new and socially emotive creative realm within which to unleash Japan’s existing characters, many of them brand mascots, as well as invent new ones, within which they could gain notoriety and spin out of.

Despite the very Japanese expression found within LINE Japan, you have the only Japanese platform that could ever go global, because it is purely visual, and allows for complete positive co-option by any local culture, not just Japanese: a trait that is paying dividends in countries like Indonesia, Thailand and Taiwan, where the majority of chat app users are on LINE, and even in India, where it has a 25% share.

After several years of aggressively building out its product and platform its model is analogous to the Yahoo! portal model of the late ‘90s, being a one stop UI for mobile, incorporating photo app, shopping, job searches—you name it. Who cares which of Android or iOS you are using when it’s actually LINE that has got all your needs covered, and it all looks so cute and friendly too?

Although it is true that Japan’s relatively apolitical users are not as fussed about geopolitics or nationalism as many others in Asia, even so, the extent to which LINE feels Japanese to the average user despite its Korean parentage—given the ongoing tensions between the two countries on a political, territorial and increasingly economic level—is testament to the unique type of acceptance that brands which comprise platforms for culture win for themselves. As with KakaoTalk’s users in Korea, who, despite government collusion, could not really imagine life without its familiar way to communicate with friends, LINE is well and truly “adopted” by Japan, and while one day the evolution of technology will make it obsolete, as a brand, it is beyond love and hate: it is just there. In other words, it is unique cultural infrastructure.

Google’s global strength (and what killed its chances in China) is the neutrality of its search engine to language, culture and politics. According to its own algorithmic-based brand of content democracy, it surfaces useful information in the language of the user better than anyone else. Looking at it from the point of view of the content and the people that make it, Google’s search results pages are eminently “colonizable” by local content and content publishers, and as such the roots of its transcultural success are the same as LINE’s.

As we turn our attention to perhaps the greatest as-yet unclaimed prize of them all, India, this lesson about the route to soft-cultural power is one that should be well noted, although it is probably too late for Facebook.

India & South East Asia are Colonised No More

Nowhere does the battle for the internet come into sharper focus than in the context of the emerging consumer economies of India’s diverse provinces and the states comprising South East Asia.

In 2016 Google launched a new chat app named Allo, as far as I can make out with India squarely in mind. It advertises itself as being a “smart messaging service including stickers, emojis and text.” The smartness comes from the inclusion of Google Assistant AI, allowing users to have chat conversations, to pull up information and content from Google’s knowledge graph, and also easily set up daily message alerts with weather forecasts or traffic information. But it does not seem to be taking off, whereas Facebook continues to hoover up the newly connected.

For most of us old enough to have had Google as our tool of choice for finding and exploring the web’s immense ecosystem of content and services from before Facebook emerged, the idea of an internet without search makes no sense. Google has survived the transition to a mobile based experience, is stronger now than before the smart phone revolution, but it’s centrality to a connected experience is threatened by mobile apps, and it is less relevant in a country which has not built out a digital ecosystem of content and services.

This is why for the majority of those hundreds of millions of users jumping on “the internet” for the first time via their new phones, the internet equates to Facebook and Messenger, and this is deeply worrying to Google since it renders their search technology redundant and negates their principal business model for these emerging user segments, and it will not change much if the majority of content is created within a walled garden app. It is also worrying for the rest of us who value net neutrality and see the web as a realm of the people for the people, and are concerned if investor-governed corporates like Facebook use their walled-garden apps to constrain users’ curiosity and creativity within their networks. It’s scarier still if they have done deals with regimes as table stakes to be the game at all.

Facebook’s lead Trojan Horse in recruiting the newly connected users in developing countries is its NetBasics initiative. Although it is framed as an emancipating not-for-profit, Facebook’s NetBasics is a deal with telcos in developing markets where new phone contracts come with free “internet access”, which amounts to access to just a few apps, including Facebook, which invariably is where these users become engrossed—because for human beings, there really is nothing more sticky than other human beings, starting with friends and family.

Thankfully Facebook so catastrophically bungled their attempt to capture the future potential of “the Indian market” that their “NetBasics” model was banned on net-neutrality grounds by Indian regulators, and Zuckerberg has had to turn his focus to the still-collusive regimes of Sub-Saharan Africa to show his investors fresh user traction. As this excellent and deep piece of journalism reveals, Facebook was arguably culpable for treating the Indian government like a Banana Republic, trying to cynically leverage its huge existing user base to influence a government panel, and in general acting through seemingly neocolonial self-interest.

I do not believe that Facebook or comparable companies are evil, but the way it is wired as an organisation, with too much power centralised in the ivory towers of Silicon Valley, and too little entrusted to teams in countries like India which could have dealt with the complex challenges on the ground with empathy and sensitivity, condemned it to this fate. In my job, I see too many international organisations hobbled in this way: global in their operations but lacking a global nervous system and consciousness that would allow them to reach their potential in distinctive cultural and societal contexts.

Infrastructure: From piggy backer to the piggy backed?

It was never supposed to be this way. Silicon Valley companies acting like telcos? Cozying up to regimes. Playing politics. Perhaps it was always so? But in the race for user growth, context-specific adaptation and innovation is surely the only strategy, so doing things that would seem bizarre in the Valley should not, I believe, be off-limits. However, I suspect that the extent to which they are able to stretch their ways of thinking and operating while remaining comfortable—their agility as a brand and as an organization, in other words—will be their limiting factor.

Already the user growth scenarios that have been committed to are butting up against very real limitations, such as connectivity itself. Facebook’s Net Basics aims to address this fundamental impediment to speed of growth. Alphabet (Google’s parent) has developed Loon to provide network coverage to remote areas. In India, Google’s FreeWifi program will connect 100 train stations with Free-Wifi for 1 hr per day per user, delivered in partnership with one of India’s biggest rail networks. Piggybacking the existing rail infrastructure is smart: not just because of the instant scaleability it brings—connecting 14m people per day (and not the same 14m either) —but also because it is democratic, since the trains in India are one of the more inclusive services “enjoyed” by India’s rich and poor alike.

Google Station provides free wifi based on India’s rail network infrastructure

Silicon Valley companies want these infrastructural investments to be appreciated by the governments, key opinion formers and peoples of these developing markets, and well they might. They are going beyond their dematerialised low-marginal cost models, investing in bricks rather the bits to help developing countries climb out of technology poverty.

But the same actions can be looked at more cynically as simply long term investments, in the same way that utility companies laid wires and pipes decades ago in order to be able to charge me for my basic connective utilities today. The reality is that social networks have promised their investors user growth that is not now possible without these hard-infrastructure investments. Silicon Valley businesses have piggy backed someone else’s infrastructure in developed countries, and this worked because it made that infrastructure more valuable. No such win-win exists in developing countries. In fact it is likely to be the infrastructure that the Silicon Valley companies create that will be piggy backed. Only fair, right?

How brave Facebook and Google and others will be in building out infrastructural assets is open to question. Even if they only plan to play the crowd-in investor role, the one that Governments usually do to pull local private investors into the space, how much credit will investors and fund managers give them, since usually they like the companies they invest in to fit within neat categories. It helps them apply their risk models with less ambiguity. This will not be as easy when their growth potential is as much dependent on scaling existing business models as building ones in very different areas.

Infrastructure: social infrastructure

But it is not just hard infrastructure that needs to be developed and nurtured. The sort of soft, social infrastructure that the LINE success story demonstrates to be so important, and which is borne out in the now long-lasting success of platforms like YouTube, where charismatic YouTubers energise its content ecosystem, are also great examples of aligning the interests of a platform’s users with those of the platform’s owners. YouTube has long been the best example of an attention-based economy, one that is disrupting many entertainment industries, not least music. It works because the interests of the artists (being paid for their art), the users (discovering, following and supporting artists) and the platform (trading attention and context-specific credibility for advertising revenue) are perfectly aligned.

There was a similar harmony in the early days of the smart phone app stores as when they served as market places for digital creators and coders to monetise their passions and interests, although today, under the relentless pressure of hardware and software escalation, they have been industrialised to a large extent.

If Allo’s release had been supported with an outreach program among India’s designers and creators to kickstart an ecosystem around chat stamps / emojis, its trajectory might now be quite different, because if there is one thing that is more sticky for humans than their friends sharing the day’s web flotsam, it is the output of passionate and charismatic people on a creative journey in full view of a connected public, reflecting their societal, political and media context through their work.

Are the CPOs of Silicon Valley’s platforms dialled into these creative potentials to make the adaptive features that would allow their products to be platforms for an emergent creative and cultural space?

Human infrastructure is perhaps as important in judging a market’s potential as any other, and just as worthy a target for investment. A healthy and robust web ecosystem is based on educated and empowered web users. The Asian mega-region comprises wildly diverse levels of literacy around key issues such as privacy, security and net neutrality.

Precious few governments or companies are investing in the education that would bring their literacy up to the level where they can protect themselves and defend the entire ecosystem against exploitation. Google invests in programs that promote their values in Asia, in Japan for instance promoting women coming back to work; in India, “Helping Women Get Online.” These are driven out of Google’s Brand Studio network, which is just the sort of decentralised interconnected organisational structure that can give a global company and brand both local sensitivity as well as global coherence, but is it on a scale big enough to make a dent given the forces they are up against?

Is anyone winning the battle for Asia?

While the notion of battle in Asia over the internet is clearly hopelessly simplistic, if it were a battle Silicon Valley is finding it tough going. The main reason is the diversity of contexts in which they find themselves needing to adapt in order to reach ever more users is both eroding the low marginal cost advantage of their expansionary business models, and the same factors are regularly exceeding their ability to make smart informed decisions to meet local challenges and opportunities.

In contrast the Asian upstarts that are emerging as rivals on the ground, some getting regional footholds too, although not winning on a global level they are forging a new balance of forces that will arrests the expansionary trends we have seen over the last 2 decades, since they have no issues with adapting to local market conditions.

Discarding the neocolonial battle metaphor, and instead thinking about a company’s “fitness” in a competitive global x local context, fitness has a lot to do with how a company can remain true to its core values, true to its purpose, to be a coherent brand, despite a lot of dimensions in which the context is unique. Do they invest in decentralised adaptations, or cut their losses and focus on centralised efficiency? There is no simple answer, but which are even asking the question?

Although Silicon Valley’s global companies have the state-of-the-art communication, data and analytics systems to achieve this, and are not as burdened with legacies as most other companies, they still need to understand the nature of the challenges in a coordinated way in order to adapt and meet them—and this, in itself, is proving to be no simple task.

The post How Silicon Valley is losing the Battle for Asia appeared first on James Hollow's Blog about Hybrid Thinking.

Japan & Brazil getting closer together

Although the stereotypes associated with Japanese and Brazilians are poles apart, the two countries in fact share a special relationship based on the very human ties of historical emigration. Now they are starting to explore the potential of combining the mutual strengths of both nations in the future.

Japan’s is arguably the most “progressed”  society on the planet, demographically more mature than any other, and one of the most advanced in terms of technology, infrastructure, healthcare provision and with a massive, capital intensive economy.

In contrast Brasil (spelt the Portuguese on purpose!) has a young demographic, labour-intensive economy destined to grow into a superpower, but lacks many of the technological and infrastructural know-how that Japan has at its fingertips. Today they are becoming ever closer economic partners as they start to realise the potential to trade knowledge, goods and services, and potentially co-create culture too.

In a previous post concerning hybrid families, I came to the conclusion that “new types of humans” may be unique genetically, but it is the fact that they express a unique combination of two cultures that is probably the more interesting characteristic.

Among the possible cultural hybrids you can imagine, the Japan-Brasil hybrid is, for me at least, one of the most interesting to explore, simply because their stereotypical citizens are so contrasting. Personally both Japanese and Brazilian cultures draw me in, but in very different ways,  so this is a topic I am bound to come back to repeatedly.

The company I run, Profero Tokyo, is part of an international network that boasts a strong presence in Brasil, and in connection with that I was asked to pull together a factual summary of the special relationship Japan and Brasil enjoy, an abridged version of which you can see below.

(Many thanks to Chris Beaumont for his contributions to this document)

Historical bonds between peoples

• In 1907 a treaty was signed between the Brazilian and Japanese governments to grant the Japanese the right to live and work in Brasil.
• After 19th century emigrations, today Brasil is home to the largest population of Japanese outside of Japan ~ 1.5m
• Japan is home to 320k Brazilians,  the largest non-Asian group in the country
• Brasilians perceive a significant role for Japan in Brazil’s development, according to a nationwide survey in 2013 (link – Japanese only):
  • “Which country should be the most important partner of Brasil in the future: Japan (50%) came second after the United States (59%), and was followed by China (32%)
  • Regarding the fields in which Brazilians have expectations of Japan (multiple answers), transfer of technology (42%) came first, followed by such areas as the expansion of the import of Brazilian products (39%), increase of employment by factory establishments (38%), investment (21%) and the export of Japanese products (21%)

Diplomatic & bilateral agreements

During a meeting between respective foreign ministers in September 2013, the following points were agreed (source link):

• Both welcomed the advances being made in the two countries’ relations not only in political and economic relations, but also in a broad range of areas such as education, science and technology, cooperation in the international arena and culture and sports.
• Both ministers shared the view that 2015, which will be the 120th anniversary of the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between Japan and Brazil, will be celebrated not only by holding a large number of events in both countries, but also by strengthening and deepening bilateral relations further.
• During a meeting between President Rousseff and Prime Minister Abe, Brasil’s President praised the recent investments by Japanese companies in Brasil, welcomed more in the future
• Both premiers looked forward to strengthened cultural ties through future sporting events, as consecutive Olympic host nations, and Japan’s soccer team at Rio2014 (source link)
• A bilateral agreement on sharing Nuclear technology has been restarted having been on hold since the 3/11 earthquake and tsunami (source link)
• In 2013 a waiver of visa requirements has been agreed between the two countries for diplomatic & official passport holders.

Cultural touch points: Soccer

• Soccer has become Japan’s biggest national sport, and there are high hopes for the men’s national team in 2014 after reaching the quarter finals in 2010.
• Soccer is even a topic at summit meetings, as President Rousseff told Priminister Abe that she hoped Brasil would meet Japan in the final of the World Cup!?
• Japan’s women’s soccer team are reigning World champions, helping to expand the appeal and involvement to Japanese women and men alike.
• Japanese consumers are already excited by Brasil’s vibrant culture and the World Cup followed by the Olympics will provide the perfect platform for Brasilian brands to launch broad awareness and acceptance in Japan

Cultural exchange: The arts, entertainment & fashion

• Japan is a voracious consumer of foreign fashion brands, entertainment media and food exports. The culture is extremely dynamic, and brands can rise to prominence here much faster than in other markets.
• An example is the Brasillian flip flop brand “havaianas” that bore the Brazilian flag icon on all its products, which became a sell out success in Japan in recent years
• Perhaps seeded through the Japanese communities in Brasil, the Japanese originated manga (adult comics) and anime (animated TV / film) cultures have become mainstream in Brasil over the last 2 decades. Today Japanese anime song vocalists play to sell out 100k audiences in Brasil, and anime command large TV ratings among young audiences. This has inspired a generation of young Brazilian manga artists and animators, the fruits of which have become major cultural exports for Brasil.
• Brazilian culture is equally popular in Japan. The Asakusa Samba Carnival is one of Tokyo’s biggest summer festivals.
• Japan’s leading social mobile service LINE, today boasts 230m users globally, having broken all records in reaching this number in just 2 years since opening. It’s highly visual and vibrant interface is a natural fit with Brasillian users, and LINE places high priority on Brasil as an international market, and Brasillian portuguese will be one of the first languages to enjoy a localized experience
• Japan’s top EC platform, Rakuten, plans to expand its Brazil operation, opened in 2012, to 1,500 merchants in the 12months from October 2013, and is aiming to grow that number to 20,000 by 2018

Inbound investment from Japan Manufacturing & Technology

• Brasil is seen as a desirable place to invest by Japanese companies. Plans to boost production or acquire a local business in order to build a strong foundation for future growth are regularly announced in Japan.
• Brasil is set to overtake Japan as the world’s third biggest car market, and is the focus of a great deal of investment from Japan’s top 3 makers Toyota, Honda and Nissan:
• In 2011 Japan’s biggest beverage company, Kirin Holdings, took 100% control of Brazil’s second biggest brewer, buying the outstanding 49% of stock for $1.35bn. Now called “Brasil Kirin” the company has 15% market share, and in Nov 2013 Kirin announced a $150m investment plan in 2014 to dramatically increase capacity
• Honda decided in August 2013 to spend ~$450m to build a new assembly plant in Itirapina, Sao Paulo State, doubling its production capacity to 240,000 units / year
• Toyota Motor Corp. in August last year started producing the Etios compact model – tailored to Brasil’s growing car market – at its new factory in Sorocaba, Sao Paulo.
• A Nissan Motor Co. manufacturing facility is under construction in Resende in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Operations are slated to begin in the first half of next year creating 2,000 jobs and 200k units/year in production capacity. See this article for more background on Nissan’s Brazil strategy.
• Japanese business activity is not limited to the auto industry: the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Brazil has 354 member companies, the largest number in the group’s history, and they come from a diverse range of sectors.
• An increasing number of presidents running the Brasilian subsidiaries of Japanese companies now double as executive officers of their head offices in Japan, reflecting the strategic importance of Brasil in their international strategies.
• Japan’s leading credit card company, JCB, started issuing credit cards through Caixa in April. JCB already has a network of 1.2m stores in Brasil that accepts its cards.
• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and four other Japanese firms plan to join forces to invest in a Brazilian shipbuilder to better compete with South Korean and Chinese rivals in the lucrative market for resource-exploration vessels, buying a 30% stake in Ecovix-Engevix Construcoes Oceanicas S/A for about 30 billion yen by the end of this fiscal year.
• Technology is also an area of common interest and partnership:
  • Telcos will partner to test a global first 8k broadcast system at the Olympics in 2016
  • Japan is set to share its megafloat technology to support Brasil’s nascent offshore natural gas extraction opportunities

Trading & Agribusiness

• Japan’s large trading companies are further expanding into Brazil’s agricultural sector. Some companies are trying to boost their transactions with local producers and suppliers through acquisitions of Brazilian operations. Others are engaging in agriculture or handling logistics distribution.
• “We want to contribute to boosting Brazil’s presence as the world’s leading grain supplier,” said Seiji Shiraki, Mitsubishi Corp.’s executive vice president and regional CEO
• Trading company Mitsui & Co. have taken a 49.9% stake in a joint venture with SLC Agricola, targeting international exports and expansion of production to Africa
• Japan’s government has approved the large scale import of Brasilian pork, as of 2013.

Japan’s economic trajectory

• “Abenomics” – the name given to Prime Minister Abe’s didactic economic policies to stimulate economic growth, have so far proved very successful
• Today Japan’s economy is growing faster than any in the developed world, and consumer confidence is higher than at any time over the last decade.
• A cornerstone of Abenomics is to make it easier for international business to operate successfully in Japan, and for their international employees to live comfortably and prosper
• This goal is supported by the establishment of innovation zones in 5 major cities including Tokyo, with deregulation allowing fast establishment & profitable operation

The post Brasil x Japan: the ideal hybrid? appeared first on James Hollow's Blog about Hybrid Thinking.

Taking the UK as a yardstick, like Japan an island nation that was never colonised by immigrants in the way that say North America was, at least since prehistorical times, but which started its journey of multi-culturalization a good century or two before Japan did, in its 2001 census 85% of the population described themselves as “white british”. So Japan still has a long way to go, but it is on its way.

All immigrants contribute to the cultural diversity of a country, but not necessarily to the creation of hybrid families. Some do though. According this video, in 2010 there were 30,000 mixed marriages in Japan, and ~2% of children born in Japan were of mixed race. Again this is low compared to some countries, but compared to Japan not so long ago, it is clear that steadily things are changing.

Screenshot from video created by Hafufilm.com

Of course this trend is not unique to Japan. In fact, emigration and ethnic intermarriage is by far the most dominant force on the collective human genome. According to the pre-eminent biologist and evolutionary geneticist, E. O. Wilson, “The impact on humanity as a whole, even while still in this current early stage, is an unprecedented dramatic increase in the genetic variation within local populations around the world. The increase is matched by a reduction in differences between populations”.

So while locally variation is increasing, even in Japan as this video describes, statistically the variance of human genes around the world is going down, which worries some population geneticists. This seems to me like a small price to pay for the rest of us to enjoy “local variety”!

For those like myself who struggle with statistical ideas like variance, imagine the distribution of humanity’s genes say 500 years ago as mountainous islands with big stretches of oceans in between them. With modern emigration and intermarriage those mountains are being eroded down and the gaps between the islands are filling in, bridging between them, with a myriad of new racial hybrid humans.

The areas that are being filled in represent uncharted territory for human genotypes – the space between anglo saxon and Japanese for instance is being filled in with each “half” Japanese half anglo-saxon who is born. Multiply that up by all the combinations of race and you have an explosion in the number of ‘types of human’ on the planet.

But if this trend continues to its logical conclusion, the landscape will end up completely flat with no gaps, valleys or mountains anywhere. There will be many more “types of human” around than before, but the variance will be nil.

This eventuality seems a long way off, but it is perhaps not so far fetched to imagine that two cosmopolitan cities geographically separated, say London and New York, could end up the same genetically when looked at as a population.

Why did these isolated islands of genes exist in the first place? Homo sapiens evolved into anatomically modern humans in Africa, and then set out to colonise the entire planet starting a mere 70,000 years ago or so, reaching as far as Australia by 50,000 years before the present, and finally jumping across the bearing straits to the Americas as recently as perhaps 22,000 years ago.

This is very little time indeed for selective evolution to act. Traits such as skin colour are adaptations to varying UV exposures at different latitudes, but actually, the vast majority of the genetic differences between what we call races is not due to local natural selection, but to random genetic differences in the bands of humans that set out from Africa at different times, and then diverged further through genetic drift, a phenomenon which as the term suggests, has no selective direction.

What all this means is that while race and population genetics is a really fascinating area of science on a global level, those of us who have mixed-race children should not try to read too much into their genetic combination beyond what they look like. Obviously, since this would amount to an affirmation of racial prejudice. And in this sense, the way we look at our “half” children is no different in any way at all to the way any parents look at their child who is genetically half them, and half their partner. Every child, every human is a new type of human, wherever they get labeled on that genetic map of the world.

However, where I think us mixed-marriage types do get to think of ourselves and our progeny as special is in the area of cultural hybridisation. What does it mean to be exposed to two quite distinct cultures from birth compared to a more homogeneous cultural upbringing? I am not exactly sure, but more than genes, this is the interesting question.

The post The explosion of hybrid humans, and what it means for us appeared first on James Hollow's Blog about Hybrid Thinking.