Decomplexity #1

How the heck are Baywatch and tech billionaires connected? Today, we’re going to look at Pam Anderson’s 2024 memoir “Love, Pamela” against “Survival of the Richest” Douglas Rushkoff’s non-fiction 2022 jaunt into the doomsday prepping of tech billionaires. The dekomplexity between them actually ends up challenging our very techno solutionist existence. Big ideas here, and yeah, not even kidding. Pam Anderson might just hold the key to humanity’s survival. So let’s go kittens, let’s dekomplexify Baywatch and Billionaires.

Hello there, I’m your host Tom Hoffman and welcome to “Dekomplexity.” The podcast where we de-komplexify the world. And this prompts the question, what the heck do you mean by “dekomplexity?” Well, think about when anyone says it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Anyone saying it’s like comparing apples and oranges, they’re just not trying hard enough. For example, did you know apples and oranges both release ethylene gas? Yeah, which on top of being useful for welding is also a primary ingredient in most plastic things that I would bet are within an arm’s reach of 100% of our listening audience. So on this podcast, apples and oranges aren’t about difference, it’s about connections and what’s in common. That is dekomplexity.

So in each episode, I look at two seemingly unrelated books, an apple book and an orange of a book which could be anything. One might be a book of contemporary French fiction, and the other a non-fiction book about ethical cheese production. The point being that there should be no obvious connection between them. And that is our challenge, to uncover the hidden links and common ground between them with the goal to reveal how their connection is relevant to us all. Let’s challenge our initial assumptions to continually prove that apples and oranges actually have way more in common than we give them credit for. Then at the end of each episode, I try to come up with a two-word pitch that is an all-encompassing definition of the dekomplexity we uncover. So join me and let’s find some fresh dekomplexity between Baywatch and billionaires.

Quick disclaimer, in the world of AI now, it’s increasingly hard to tell what’s real or not. And that’s why I support transparency in AI. I absolutely totally love and use generative AI to help me with much of my life, including producing a podcast. That’s what allows me to operate as a team of one because in the immortal words of Orson Wells, a writer needs a pen, a painter needs a brush, but a podcaster needs an army. Well, maybe he said it was a filmmaker that needs an army, but I have no doubt if he was alive and podcasting he’d need an army for this as well. So I do use AI tools as my army to create these podcasts. It’s my script editor, my producer, my engineer, my composer, but I am forever a recovering English major and I always 100% deeply read these books cover to cover. But my army helps me to bring it all together, and I always include a full list of tools on my website, gembasolutions.ai/dekomplexity with a K. Where I give you the AI transparency, I myself would appreciate from the creators of the world, and maybe that might even inspire you, uh, some of you, to use AI to help bring your own cool ideas to life, because Wells was right it’s hard to do this stuff without an army. Okay, done, let’s get started.

Dekomplexity is about comparing apples and oranges in book form. So let’s get an overview of our fruits of the day. Book one is “Love, Pamela.” And it isn’t just your average celebrity memoir, it’s a raw, honest, poetic at times, unflinching look at Pamela’s life from her small-town Canadian roots to global stardom. Her story is one of resilience navigating early childhood trauma and her search for meaning beyond the glitz and glamor of fame.

Then for book two, in stark contrast, Douglas Rushkoff’s “Survival of the Richest” explores the mindset of the ultra-wealthy, their obsession with escaping the very problems they helped create, their apocalypse bunker plans, escape fantasies, and deep-seated anxiety about the future. It’s a kind of Black Mirror-ish look at the world, of inequality, climate change, and the extraordinary lengths the elite will go to survive.

Now that we had know what books we’re working with, I’d like to start with some alternate titles for this episode, that AI actually helped me come up with. But these are trash titles. I I threw them out because they kind of suck. And they don’t quite capture the essence of the episode. I call them Almost_Titles. And as pointless an exercise as this might seem, believe it or not, sometimes these crappy title suggestions offer some clues to finding our dekomplexity. How these books are connected. So just, whatever, just just trust the process. My favorite almost title on the list is:

Baywatch The Apocalypse

And I, I almost used this one because I can vividly imagine douchy crypto bros watching Baywatch reruns in their big screens, down in their luxury bond villain caves. Uh and I might still make that poster and throw it on the website. But uh, other runners up, these almost titles, let’s just bang through them quickly. Uh they they suck. See what I’m doing.

Baywatch Meets Doomsday

Okay yeah.

Love & Loot
Pamela Versus the Preppers

That’s not bad, a little alliteration there.

Silicon Valley, Meet Malibu

Corny but okay.

Riches & Redemption

Generic basic.

From Beaches to Bunkers

That’s actually not too bad.

Billions and Bombshells

Could work with that too.

Love, Lust, & Lockdowns

Again with the alliteration. You know, AI loves alliteration. So do TV producers.

From Playboy to Paywalls

That’s kind of a stretch. Um, Douglas Rushkoff is talking specifically about tech billionaires. So thus, you know, we start to get things in the recommendations here like…

Malibu Dreams, Silicon Nightmares

Uh, that that only, it actually sounds like a Baywatch episode title. But uh…

Fame, Fortune & Fallout Shelters

That’s not bad. Fame, fortune and fallout shelters. Yeah that that’s not bad. Again, with the alliteration you see. And and for more alliteration…

Hearts & Hedge Funds

Yeah, all right. And then finally, on this list:

Bunkers, Beaches & Billionaires

Okay so there you go, there’s our Almost_Titles. So you see what I mean? Even just a list of bad titles, at least starts to create some dekomplexity images in our heads which makes it a great place to begin.

In Pam Anderson’s world, her journey is definitely not your average tale. It’s a rocket ship from a small town in Canada to global stardom. Her book really lays out all the details of this, and what that journey was really like. Her, her looks were a magnet for bad boyfriends as you can imagine. Her resilience is what really strikes you though. I mean, she went through some really tough stuff early on. Even with all of that, uh, she comes out of it really really strong. Just, just really, she’s very determined. It really makes you think twice about those assumptions we make about people, particularly those in the spotlight. Pam, for example, probably reads more books than this humble podcaster here. Uh she’s, she’s, she’s smart. She’s a smarty pants. Anyway, in the memoir, you see this young girl described as unmanageable, struggling with her parents tumultuous relationship. Uh, I, I could be wrong, and I can’t say for sure but it’s kind of getting like images of Canadian trailer park boys in my head as I was reading it. But anyways that boom, you see Pam engaging with all these complex ideas in the face of that, like philosophy, psychology. Not exactly what you picture about Pam Anderson, right? It’s like two sides of the same coin that make her story so captivating. She breaks the mold. She, she, she’s not just a set of, she has this hunger for, for, for knowledge, wanting to understand the world.

And then bam, the whole Hollywood whirlwind hits. She got discovered as this hot chick in the stands at a sports game. And then suddenly, she’s at the like the Playboy Mansion, navigating all the pitfalls of fame and fortune. In a way, it’s it’s like a classic Hollywood story, but it’s got this extra layer. She’s searching for something more, like something with real meaning. Her experiences shaped how she sees things. And her desire to find meaning beyond the superficial leads her straight to things like activism. Uh she becomes a voice for um animal rights and the environment, and she actually visits the Kremlin to advocate for like animal welfare at some point.

She’s constantly pushing the boundaries, pushing herself and she’s, she’s just pushing the world around her. This isn’t just about fame and fortune, it’s about using what you’ve got, your platform, whatever it is, to stand up for what you believe in. Which makes you wonder, what happens when that drive and that desire to make a difference, crashes head-on into the world of mega wealth and power.

That leads us straight into book two, the, the orange to our Pam apple, “Survival of the Richest.” Douglas Rushkoff’s take, he takes us to a whole different world. Where, where the ultra-wealthy, like tech billionaires, they’re obsessed with escaping the very problems they help create. It’s a world of bunkers, escape fantasies, and deep-seated anxiety about what’s coming next. Uh it it’s not fiction. This is, this is non-fiction. He actually got invited to these guys to like interview them and kind of consult on like what they should do in the apocalypse. So this book it’s, it’s like stepping into a dystopian novel with these billionaires that, that are terrified of what he calls quote the event, a catastrophic societal collapse. They think it’s inevitable, and they’ll go to extraordinary lengths to survive.

But it’s more than physical safety. They they want to escape the social fallout too, the moral consequences of their actions which hits kind of hard. Following the recent assassination of the United Healthcare CEO, uh by that internet lotted Batman guy, uh Luigi Mangioni. Anyways whatever, uh in this book, Rushkoff covers the messy reality of a world dealing with inequality and climate change. Driving these billionaires to build elaborate bunkers and stock up on resources. Some even considering hiring private armies.

Yeah, so this might sound crazy, but like look up this other book called “The Mastermind” by Evan Ratliff. It’s about this now incarcerated real-life billionaire, like bond villain guy. He was at one point allegedly building his own army of mercenaries to take over a sovereign island nation in the Indian Ocean. Yeah, so it’s, bad guys.

What Rushkoff is touching upon it’s, it’s like the ultra-rich want to create their own little reality bubble. Where the problems of the world just disappear, gone. This is where Rushkoff brings the idea of quote “the mindset.” It’s a belief that technology can solve all their problems. Even human connection. Uh, they’re trying to build a digital fortress to keep the rest of humanity out. Missing the things that make life meaningful I would say, like compassion, empathy, and responsibility. It’s a contrast to Pam Anderson. The billionaires are all about isolation, and, and she’s out there engaging with the world and pushing for change. It’s not just about grand gestures either, it it’s about everyday choices, like, she raised her sons with a strong sense of social responsibility. It’s totally a different approach to the wealth and influence.

Now, if we rewind a bit back in uh Pamela’s story, her life, like really before her global fame, it, it already intersected with this world of like mega wealth and, and power. And power is a key part of this here. Her relationship with John Peters, which, which, which was over a long period of time. He’s a Hollywood producer, google him. He’s like 79 now, and as recently as this year, he’s been quoted as saying, there are no more guys like me in Hollywood. So uh, she, she, she met him uh, I don’t know what that means. I don’t know what he’s trying to say by that. Maybe I should read it more in like an old-timey voice, like, “Hey kid, you’re never going to make it uh, in this town. There’s no more guys like me in Hollywood.” Anyways, she met him at the Playboy Mansion when she was like 19, and boom, he’s immediately like showering her with gifts. Uh, Cartier, Ralph Lauren. He, he lets her use his like luxury cars. Um, gives her a place to live. But, but there’s more to it than just generosity. There, there’s like a power dynamic that, that Pam kind of points out. She’s still this teenager fresh off the Greyhound bus, uh, and he’s he’s he’s kind of tries to control her career. Uh, offering her double the money to not become a Playmate.

It’s a classic example of how wealth can be used to manipulate and exert control. And even though she pushes back against his control you, you see similar things pop up in her relationship with like Tommy Lee. The rock star lifestyle, the excess, the media frenzy. It’s a world that glorifies wealth and power. And even though this might seem miles away from the billionaire bunkers, there’s a common thread. The idea that wealth and status make you exempt from the rules, and above consequences. Yeah, I think we’re starting to see a dekomplexity here.

That’s where Rushkoff’s analysis of “the mindset” really hits home. He argues that this whole escape thing is fueled by technology. I want to emphasize something here too. I’m, I’m a technologist. I love technology. Big, big tech dork. I believe that technology, possibly more than anything, is what shapes generations. And there’s actually a good book about that from 2023 called “Generations” by Jean Twenge who I had the privilege to hear speak last year to a group of entertainment professionals. Maybe we’ll dekomplexify her book in another episode because it’s worth it. She really understands and has studied the data behind the different generations and really she’s saying it’s technology that’s shaped us from the say, “okay boomer,” from, from the zoomers and Gen Z’s, and Gen Alpha’s and all that.

Anyways, the problem isn’t necessarily the technology. Tech is a tool. So it’s how it’s being used. And and that’s what Rushkoff is talking about when he talks about the mindset. He’s observing that tech is a fuel for this mindset. So we need to be careful.

To really understand the limits of the mindset, we, we, we have to look at other perspectives. Ways of thinking that are outside of the mindset’s logic. So um, let’s talk about this guy named Ian McHarg. He’s the opposite of these billionaire escapists. He was a pioneer in ecological planning. Kind of crunchy. He argued that we need to shift away from our human-centered view of the world. So instead of seeing ourselves as masters of the universe, we should see ourselves as a part of this larger web of systems. McHarg believed that we need to design our environment with an understanding of natural systems, not try to dominate them. Think about, think about buildings. We need to survive as humans. So McHarg wasn’t telling us to live and work in caves. Technology to build and shape our environments is a privilege and a power that, that should be wielded thoughtfully. And and unfortunately, in the mindset, where total efficiency and profit at all costs is prevalent, that thoughtfulness gets tossed to the side with increasingly high stakes and ironically, high costs.

A great example is is is not developing on coastal sand dunes. Uh, I live in New Jersey, so let’s talk Jersey Shore. Beyond it being the iconic brand of Snooki and company, the shores are beautiful and expensive, prime oceanfront real estate. As a naturally existing geographic object, the, the sand dunes there serve as a better and prettier hurricane buffer than anything humans could engineer. So don’t build on them. The mindset says, uh, F that. If we want to build inland, we would just build inland. The dunes are where people want to be right at the water, right? And of course, the mindset destroys the dunes, builds for profit on them. And when a hurricane hits, there’s exponentially more inland damage to homes and property because nature’s natural barrier has been, it’s been decimated along with the new expensive houses that were built in their place.

Yeah, so McHarg’s work it, it really challenges that whole endless growth idea that’s so central to the mindset. He says, just don’t kill the dunes. Limit development on these, on these dunes. Study and understand their function ahead of quick profit that will lead to exponentially larger loss over time. And for what? Temporary wealth sanctuary, and, and that’s the mindset.

The mindset is all about pushing limits. A smart guy like McHarg on the other hand is saying, just respect the limits. Uh, true progress means working within the limits of our environment not to escape them. It’s like that degrowth movement where they, where they say that our obsession with constant economic expansion is actually unsustainable and we need to find ways to live well within our means. It’s logic, right? Uh, while billionaires are building bunkers and dreaming of Mars, this Ian McHarg is saying that, guys let’s just figure out how to thrive here on earth and not just survive.

So back in “Survival of the Richest” Rushkoff talks about the dumbwaiter effect. Where, where tech is used to shield the wealthy and from the realities of the world. It’s like a barrier, artificial sand dunes if you will. Look at online shopping for example. Uh, we get our stuff delivered, right? We don’t see or touch the apparatus, or the environmental impact of the back end of this monstrous system. One click equals IRL stuff right at our door. We become disconnected from the consequences of what we do. And here’s the contrast again. Pamela is, is actively engaged with these issues. The billionaires, they’re trying to engineer one-click solutions to escape them. It’s like she’s embracing the messiness of the world and they’re trying to create a perfect, sanitized controlled little environment.

It’s crazy. And that’s what makes this whole Baywatch versus Billionaires thing so interesting. We’re forced to look at this uncomfortable truth. How wealth and technology are shaping us, our values, what we prioritize. Even, you know, what it even means to be human.

Pam Anderson and Douglas Rushkoff, two totally different worlds, but they land on the idea that technology can’t solve everything. They’re both pushing back against this techno-solutionism. The idea that we can just buy or engineer our way out of anything. Climate change, inequality, whatever. Boom, technology will solve it. Climate gonna kill the earth? Just, just, build a rich guy garden of Eden sanctuary on Mars, we’ll go live there, right? But but, but isn’t this just laziness masquerading as ambition? Pamela’s activism shows it, it shows how important it is to actually get involved. To get your hands dirty. She’s not just writing checks or tweeting about it. She, she’s out there on the front lines, connecting with people, trying to make a real difference.

And Rushkoff makes a good point about that too. He compares it to philanthro-capitalism. The idea that if you’re a billionaire you could just throw money at a problem and boom, you’re done. No more responsibility. Congrats, rich guy. You’re making the world a better place, right? That magic check that just fixes everything. But like the complexity hidden behind one-click buttons, uh, they, they miss the opportunity of the human element in the world’s problems. Empathy, understanding, even ambivalence. Where where you might have two conflicting feelings at the same time. Which now that I think about it if dekomplexity was an emotion, it would probably be ambivalence. Anyways uh, I, I digress.

Real change needs a shift in human values. Not, not some fancy new tech gadget. And again I’m probably the guy that that that, I’ll buy that new fancy tech gadget because toys, I, right? I, I love toys. But, but, but tech gadgets and a shift in human values can exist together and need to. Pamela embodies that. She, she’s rich and famous and all that aspirational stuff. And she’s not afraid to get emotional. Uh, to speak from the heart, and prioritize the value of humanness. It’s so different from the data-driven super logical mindset in tech. Again, something that I kind of like and I even use. Uh, because, you know, there, you know, it helps. It’s a tool.

But, but, but these these particular, you know, doomsayers and, and ultra wealthy. They, they’re so busy measuring and optimizing everything, they, they forget about the things you can’t put into a spreadsheet or in like a database table. Compassion, empathy, and shared human connections. Uh the the things that really matter. Uh I have yet to find a database that holds empathy as a data type. Uh it’s a little more sophisticated than JSON. Sorry, that’s, that’s some dorky engineering humor for you.

Anyways, but, this is what, this makes Baywatch versus Billionaires really interesting to me. Uh, it makes us ask these big questions about wealth, power, technology, and design. What kind of future are we building? Uh, are we going to hide away in our little bubbles? Not just the billionaires, but like us or, or you know everyb- everybody, you know, because we are, we do live virtually more and more. Are we going to recognize that we’re all connected? And actually work together to build something better? Something more sustainable. I know I’m starting to sound crunchy. But that’s, that’s a question for us all. Not, not just billionaires and celebrities, especially in this crazy tech world we live in. So take a moment to ponder that, before we wrap this dekomplexity up.

Okay, time for the two-word pitch. To wrap up, I like to try to define our dekomplexity in two words. Why two words? Two reasons. Number one, well one word isn’t enough and well three’s a crowd. So two words are possibly the most uncomplex means to represent a complex idea. And number two, I’ve just always loved the idea of a two word pitch. There’s this legend of Miami Vice’s birth as a two-word pitch before becoming a five season hit on NBC. Apparently uh, entertainment exec, Brandon Tartikoff, he scribbled MTV cops on a napkin for Miami Vice creator Anthony Yerkovich like in the early 80’s when MTV was all the rage. I’m like oh, those are the youths. I also read somewhere that Star Trek was pitched as wagon train in space. Now that’s technically four words, but who’s counting prepositions? And, and wagon train while while it’s two words, uh it is a single TV show. So, so make wagon and train one compound word and space wagon train kind of tells the same story. It’s that’s, that’s a two-word pitch, right? Anyways, whatever. MTV cops.

Our two-word dekomplexity pitch between Baywatch and Billionaires is ambivalent progress. Yeah. Yeah, not bad right? It it makes sense. Ambivalent progress. Uh, what’s more human than feeling two opposite things at the same time, right? Uh, and that’s a pretty untechnological state. We’re we’re amazing creatures who can be happy and mad at the same time, sad and optimistic. Ambivalence is important because it represents the complexity we face with solving problems instead of just escaping from them.

And progress is what Pam and Rushkoff both seem to believe we can achieve if we embrace that ambivalence. We’re not all famous blond bombshells or successful writers getting invited to billionaire circles, but we do all have a platform, big or small and, and it’s up to us on how we use it. Do we boost ourselves or do we use it to fight for something bigger? And if we’re taking Rushkoff’s warning seriously about “the mindset,” we’ve got to choose the bigger thing because the future is something we’re building right now with the choices we make every single day. So choose wisely and let’s make ambivalent progress together.

Thanks for listening. From the beaches of Malibu to the cold hearts of moguls, it’s been quite a journey. I hope this gave everyone something to think about. Until next time, I’ll leave you as always with an emphatic, keep reading books. It’s still the best way I’ve seen to dekomplexify the world.