River of Life
LF70 | Why innovators in longevity should be following efforts to clean up Melbourne's river
Three of the world’s most interesting players (in my view) working on financing systems change have come together to help make Melbourne’s river - the Birrarung (aka Yarra) - swimmable again. Specifically they’re developing this into a pilot case study for developing novel financing and governance structures for delivering this kind of diverse, multi-stakeholder transformational effort.
At the very least that would make it interesting for those looking to transform longevity and aging, however their approach is also inspiring for how it values the river as a whole, not the sum of its parts. Read on!
Fixing the Yarra
The first reaction when I mentioned to some (older) friends that I’d been to an event where people had committed to making Melbourne’s iconic river swimmable again was rather dismissive. They remembered it from decades past being polluted, dangerous and best avoided. Was this just a quixotic quest, with efforts best spent solving ‘real’ problems?
Happily, that type of thinking is not the preserve of RegenMelbourne who have made this cause their own. It’s ambitious (given its toxic history), it’s tangible (one can easily imagine many groups immediately benefitting) and it’s local. Moreover, unlike many impact projects, it should be relatively easy to attribute impact, given there aren’t that many other major initiatives doing the same thing.
A complex multi-dimensional problem
In some senses this sounds like a simple problem - get rid of toxic waste and off we go! But it’s actually a remarkably complex issue, as the river bends and twists through many different jusrisdictions, has competing uses and values, and exhibits many of the characteristics of common goods, which like a field for grazing sheep, can suffer from the tragedy of the commons.
There are multiple reasons to act which form the “demand side” of the equation - whether it’s for swimming, drinking, boating, fishing, tourism, or myriad other uses, including spiritual, ethical and moral reasons. And there are plenty of interested stakeholders, who form the “supply side” of the systems investing equation: governments, local businesses, charities and individuals. The not insignificant challenge will be to align these different groups together under a shared common goal, and ensure that the real capital starts to flow with an explicit goal of making a real difference in the lives of those affected.
The complexity vs. optimization trade-off
How this ‘impact’ actually materializes will be the subject of another post, but for now I want to highlight a fundamental insight for the longevity space at the core of the project overview provided by Genevieve Mortimer, the Systems Capital lead at RegenMelbourne, who also leads innovation projects at ClimateKIC Australia.
These remeandering projects are designed to reverse the detrimental effects that have resulted when rivers have been artificially straightened and ‘optimised’ to remove stormwater from streets and simplify urban design to more efficiently transport waste downstream. The way to create a healthier, more productive river is to slow it down. One of the most well-known examples is the rewilding of Yellowstone National Park - when wolves were reintroduced after an absence of 70 years, it led to a trophic cascade which created ‘niches’ for other species and habitats, allowing the river to regenerate. After reading the article I was left to ponder how many other parts of our lives have we devalued by speeding them up. Just as river systems need to slow down to allow richness to emerge, making the river swimmable means creating the space for ideas to percolate and meander.
Recognizing the complexity of the river of life
This sentence, “the way to create a healthier, more productive river is to slow it down” hit me between the eyes. I could replace the word “river” with “life” and we have a recipe for healthy aging and living. In particular, the way in which our lives are constantly being optimized and made more efficient is not for our benefit, but for the system, of which we are all too often operating as small, whirring and replaceable cogs.
As Gen points out, applying an engineering lens to a human problem is best avoided. This is particularly evident in the way that we (generally the western societies in which am most familiar) treat older adults. We remove complexity and compartmentalize and optimize all aspects of their lives. This manifests in a mindset from which is starting off on the wrong foot. From independent individuals with agency and personalities, after a certain age we become a bundle of problems to address; defined not by our strengths but by our limitations. Personal preferences become subordinate to the wishes of children, caregivers or the managers of the building in which we live. People are defined not by their names, experiences or contributions but by their clinical diangosis (-es) and worse, billing codes.
A lens for longevity innovation
This may feel abstract, but I would suggest that it should be the starting point for anyone wanting to innovate in aging and longevity. Are you recognizing the complexity and multi-dimensional richness of the individuals (and their families) you’re looking to serve with your solution, or are you treating them as problems to solve, processes to optimize and ultimately, resources to extract?
We can see what that mindset has done to our rivers, and hopefully the welcome efforts to redress our failings around natural capital will yield insights we can apply to human capital.
Really enjoyed this. Well said, sir!
The (QoL) x (Longevity) trajectory curve seems too simplistic. But then taking the time and making the effort to integrate things to create more QoL for everyone is hard to argue against. Can we have positive sum QoL creation economics? Are tube and cooler rafts allowed on the Yarra?