There’s been a real “soul searching” discussion within Harvard Business School about it’s responsibility in having trained many of the people whose business practices got the world into our present still worsening economic crisis. It was reported today on NPR.
It seems they have discovered they should teach business leaders to take some responsibility, not just make as much money as humanly possible and push the risks on others… That’s great if you believe it. I wonder it is even possible for people making money not to want to push their risks on others, to not “optimize” the making of money? That is not being asked yet as far as I can tell.
Another thing not being asked yet seems even more telling. Still clearly missing from the public eye, and the professional soul searching all around, is the question of why our economic system produces catastrophic systemic risk at all.
missing from the professional “soul searching” is asking why making money has always so regularly created systemic risk
On a ClimateConcernGroup thread, “Can 350.org save the world?
In response to Maria Guzman’s:
Admirable efforts, but of dubious efficacy. Nothing is likely to make a real difference until everyone in the industrial societies personally feels the impact of a disaster in the making. How long this will take is hard to predict.
http://tinyurl.com/pobspv Maria Guzman
Maria,
Yes, that seems more and more likely, if even then. I think what will make people personally feel the problem is feeling that we have all been entirely misled on the limits of our current path. We’ve been misled about the real limits of growth. We can now it’s for all parts of the system to come into conflict with each other.
We’ve been misled about the real limits of economic growth,
all the parts of the system coming into conflict with each other.
Almost anyone who logically thinks about a system of independently growing things in a confined space can see and make sense of that. It’s more the scientists who can’t (1). Continue reading Everyone feels it in the making!→
On a 5/14 Global Foresight thread Wolfgang Spendel had said:
Phil,
I call it Capitalism Plus. The old rules don’t work anymore. Many of multiple persuasions are in denial about the lack of utlility for business as usual. Given the load on the planet and the desire for many to improve their standard of living we have to change how we do things. Change won’t be easy, since those that have made out well by the old rules will fight change. The problem becomes even more difficult because the new rules will be written as we go (pleasant or not).
Are we going through the beginning of birthing pains or death pains. I hope and will work for birthing. Pain there will be.
….
When organisms switch from immature growth to maturing their strengths and finding roles in new environments.
Wolfgang,
Yes, I agree. But would you go for “Capitalism Plus Plus” maybe??
The natural systems physics points clearly to “birthing pains” as a time when new beginnings emerge, as “the main event” at the end of compound growth. IF people were to recognize that the end of compound growth is always *the beginning* of what we’d call adult “life” some interest might develop. Continue reading Capitalism Plus Plus?→
On the LCA list Simon asked: Are there any tangible examples of where something meaningful was created (not necessarily materially produced) by humans undertaking a “whole systems accounting” approach? I had offered the obscure example of one of my proud little examples, a whole system account of money exchange in a 1985 paper for SGSR proving that learning lags would be a limit for economic growth, and later the following. P.S.
Simon,
Perhaps better examples of “whole systems accounting” would be the more common ways that the whole systems are accounted for. One is energy budgets the way the physicists do it, like for the climate models.
They divide up a pie they already know the total of
They don’t just add up the totals. They divide up a pie they already know the total of, measuring the system from both inside and out. That forces them into doing what is needed to explain the difference. Continue reading Examples of “whole systems accounting”→
On the CCG list RML had posted a good article on how public engagement is critical to solving climate crisis. It overlooks the special problem we have, that science still tries to describe uncontrolled systems with control theory…
RML,
Well, one of the major barriers to using science to communicate the choices available to people is that scientific models, confusingly, represent the parts of economic systems as having no individual choices…
Responding to: 4/26/09 “Again, I find myself agreeing with you.”
BB
Brian,
You started this thread by saying you thought long term forces such as “natural cycles” would overwhelm any local developmental processes. What I had said was fairly directly that all long term forces were the accumulation of local developmental processes.
There actually seems to be excellent evidence of that, as good as the evidence for evolution. True, I can’t get it published because the tyranny of “natural law” as a philosophy of science is only frayed at the edges rather than torn in the middle, but I can lead anyone to enough of it to make it quite hard to erase.
It’s certainly made hard to speak clearly about these things,
The big shift in thinking about our impacts you suggest looks to me to have some interesting features. What seems hard for me, though, is finding an inviting way to lead people into thinking about the problems their solutions will later create.
Finding “solutions” usually results in there no longer seeming to be a problem (!) so we solidify our emotional connections to it and take the issue “off our to-do list”. Once you arrive at a “solution” revisiting it is itself a problem, but that’s just when nature begins her own continuous revisiting of it. Continue reading Ending “fix it and forget it”?→
On a Global Foresight thread Tom Abeles asked if scientific models, based on a reliable “bandwidth” for natural systems, might somehow have predictive properties. He noted:
The problem we have is exemplified by the poem, “The Theory that Jack built” which was published in an insightful set of “nonsense” poems called The Space Child’s Mother Goose: This is the theory that Jack built; this is the flaw, this is the constant covering the flaw; this is the “x” justifying the constant. . . und so weiter.
Tom,
That’s a great insight and question. Part of the paradox seems to be in the word “like”. It is exactly models made “like” the ones for deterministic systems that don’t work well at all to imitate accumulatively self-organizing systems.
For new “unlike” models to still be useful, I think we need to no longer use models only as something we build to independently represent nature. I think we also need to use models for the opposite,
Many feel frustration about the failure of our “guardians” to act on the needs of our environments. They display, our own frozen helplessness when facing obvious threats. That’s great as just the kind of observation that is the stimulus for new kinds of thinking. “Changing Normal” for a planet stuck in the past, you might say.
In acknowledging Steve’s frustration with the crime of silence by our guardians was reserving the possibility that “masters of the universe” responsible might not be “the usual suspects”. It could also refer to anyone who thinks of their being a “master of their own fate”.
Frank then offered a nice way to prompt his students,
“Hmmm, each year for the past 20 or so, in orientation week, i greet my new crop of students with: “i am a green but the wilderness i am interested in is not in East Gippsland (Oregon?) but behind the eyes looking at me across this room. If i can make you wilder, i.e. LESS predictable to me, by the time you leave this room, i have done my job.” Continue reading Turning takers into healers….→
re: Mr. Soddy’s Ecological Economy NY Times Op-Ed, Sun 4/12, mentioned by Tom in a LinkedIn “Global Foresight” conversation.
Tom,
Thanks for mentioning the Times Op-Ed, It’s just great some mention of Soddy and the “physical world problem” finally appeared in the Times. As I find so often, I agree with his analysis of the problem, about 110%, but that I find is as far as it goes!
You might be interested to know that J.M. Keynes and Kenneth Boulding also came to very similar end conclusions. Each used their own language for it, but each at least would agree firmly that 1) economies are physical systems, and 2) at natural limits something would need to be done about excess savings of financial capital.
