SD indicators need one more, the World SDG<\/em><\/span>
\nso Innovators can design their goals
\nin relation to the whole<\/h3>\nMy comment is as an expert on both system design and natural science indicators<\/strong>, on how innovative organization develops in both natural and intentional complex systems. \u00a0 There is a great depth of professional design practice that has yet to be consulted regarding the plan for the SDG\u2019s<\/p>\nThe general model of innovative transformations is that the emerging\u00a0culture change, starting from some “seed pattern”, and then going through the classic phases of their\u00a0own life-cycle of internal growth and changing roles in their environment (fig 1). \u00a0There are of course many kinds of invasive systems and life-cycles.\u00a0\u00a0 The type\u00a0we are most often concerned with innovative transformations of human design, whether our own educations, or our society’s struggle to become\u00a0“sustainable”,\u00a0succeeds or not.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0earliest visible\u00a0pattern is the emergence of an “inspiration” or\u00a0\u201cdesign\u201d, looking for an opportunity to take hold, to\u00a0have a\u00a0starting organization that gets going by using environmental energy for building up\u00a0the design.\u00a0\u00a0 That energy flow for formation then tapers off as the transformation progresses, toward refining the\u00a0\u201cnew capability\u201d, or \u201cnew culture\u201d or \u201cnew business\u201d etc.<\/p>\n
The natural goal is generally to stabilize the design as it begins its real work at a peak of vitality,\u00a0beginning\u00a0a long productive life. \u00a0 So in general, it’s to first grow and then make a home, to have a life. \u00a0 This\u00a0model developed from study of natural change patterns , applying constraints of\u00a0physics principles for energy use,\u00a0that for designs to develop or change they need to develop new energy uses too.<\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/issues\/GroSysOptEnergyFloW.jpg\")
<\/a>Fig 1. The stages of organization to build systems and their energy uses<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nI\u2019ve been attending the UN SDG meetings for four years, first for the Institute for Planetary Synthesis, and then with CIVICUS, learning a tremendous amount, but also noticing the very distinct lack of systems thinking in the design of the SDG\u2019s.\u00a0 The main reasons seem to be that systems thinking is not taught in liberal arts educations, and that the design of\u00a0the SDG\u2019s was mainly shaped by demands for change, by issue focused groups from governments and civil society, not experienced with how organization relies on designs to\u00a0join\u00a0differentiated\u00a0parts.\u00a0\u00a0 So ideas of how to\u00a0organizing the differentiated parts when undiscussed and\u00a0were mostly\u00a0left out.<\/p>\n
So the process produced\u00a017 idealistic \u201cgoals<\/a>\u201d and 36 main \u201ctopics<\/a>\u201d discussed mostly separately, arising from a profound concern with the whole global pattern of culture change and economic development. Personally I had a wonderful time, but was also sad I never got to talk about\u00a0my main expertise, i.e. on how the parts of whole systems connect. \u00a0 From a natural systems view the SDG\u2019s may be spoken of\u00a0as separate, \u00a0but are all indicators of \u201cholistic\u00a0cultural growth\u201d. \u00a0 They’re not really indicators of \u201ceconomic growth\u201d, as it’s\u00a0whole culture growth that brings value to\u00a0an economy not the reverse.<\/p>\nWith the process lacking systems thinking resulted in\u00a0missing systems indicators: for how differentiated parts connect, for how cultures develop unity and\u00a0cohesion. \u00a0 The diagram below is mainly for\u00a0study, a \u201csense making tool\u201d, a “map of questions” to help guide innovative changes.<\/p>\n
The challenge is our usual mental confusion, with our minds working with disconnected bits of information and but\u00a0actually\u00a0working in holistic organizations and trying to engage with holistic systems of our world. \u00a0 So our “maps” and our “worlds” show a “mismatch of variety”. \u00a0 So we need to constantly\u00a0study and learn from new experience. \u00a0 \u00a0To succeed with an\u00a0SD partnership, the organizers first need to find a “start-up match” between its “own abilities” and “an environmental opportunity”. \u00a0Usually it takes “a study of the context”, identifying “forces to make whole” with a “unifying\u00a0response” ( a reference to “pattern language”) . \u00a0 In terms of the 8 kinds of indicators for planning change, it’s\u00a0matching type IV indicators of whole system potential, one set within the organization and the other in the environment. \u00a0 The actual initiative might focus on one or the other…<\/p>\n
The\u00a04 quadrant map \u00a0has\u00a0\u201ccondition indicators\u201d for \u201cstates\u201d (how things are) and \u201cguides\u201d (what can change). \u00a0It has \u201ccontext indicators\u201d, \u00a0\u201clocal\u201d and \u201cglobal\u201d. \u00a0 The four quadrants are repeated for the Organization and the Environment as a 3rd<\/sup> dimension for the array. \u00a0 \u00a0This arrangement borrows a bit from David Snowden’s Cynefine “place” centered holistic complex system\u00a0business design practice. \u00a0 \u00a0It fits with the long lists of indicators of functionally different kind needed for the SDG’s<\/p>\nThere are also other\u00a0advanced\u00a0holistic system design traditions to choose from. \u00a0In all of them design proceeds\u00a0in\u00a0“stages” of team\u00a0“learning”, “work” then “review”. \u00a0 With\u00a0each cycle all the indicators being worked with are reviewed. \u00a0 All the\u00a0indicators the organization uses to\u00a0guide it are consulted in the learning phase of each cycle. \u00a0 \u00a0The architectural, product design and performance design professions have ancient traditions of how they do their work. \u00a0 Newer traditions of system\u00a0design where this\u00a0kind of learning is studied\u00a0include\u00a0\u201caction learning\u201d,\u00a0“pattern language”, “object oriented design”, and “permaculture”. \u00a0 None of these traditions of advanced\u00a0design practice seem to have been consulted for the SDG’s for some reason.<\/p>\n![\"Fig](\"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/issues\/IndicatorsInnovativeTran.jpg\")
<\/a>Fig 2 Three dimensions of planning for innovative change, Organization\u00a0& Environ, States & Guides, Local & Global<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n <\/p>\n
I do hope the above is helpful
\nfor where SDG\u00a0implementations\u00a0can go for advice.<\/h3>\n
My real reason for writing<\/strong>, …and offering this\u00a0way of understanding transformational change,… is the oddly disastrous pattern of excluded indicators in\u00a0the official statistics for the SDG’s. \u00a0The measures of ESG\u00a0impacts that businesses are told to report as measures of their responsibility, have many more exclusions than inclusions.<\/p>\nIt is\u00a0possibly unintentional but oddly very boldly \u201chidden in sight\u201d, the clear exclusion of all responsibility for the disruptive impacts of business and investor money decisions. \u00a0 It comes from the modern continuation\u00a0of the ancient practice of excluding all business responsibility for economic \u201cexternalities\u201d of the choices for what to profit from. \u00a0 Some\u00a0impacts\u00a0of what to profit from no one in the past would have know about. \u00a0 Now we really do know most of them.<\/p>\n
The very largest exclusion from business impact reporting, though, is one that anyone would always have known about. \u00a0 It’s all the human consumption that business\u00a0revenue pays for to obtain human services, ALL of it, as if those impacts had no environmental cost. \u00a0 That one accounting exclusion is commonly five or ten times the impacts the rules say businesses should count. \u00a0 The indication is that we have not started doing any form of sustainable development yet, systematically making decisions as if 80-90% of the impacts don’t exist.<\/p>\n
At the UN and in writing to people I\u2019ve been finding most people\u00a0understand all this fairly quickly, …but then avoid engaging in discussion, the worst of all possible responses\u00a0for our world. \u00a0 The cover-up and avoidance is always the bigger crime.<\/p>\n
I urge you to respond to the challenge.<\/h3>\nThere’s a simple way, too,
\ninclude in SD reports one new indicator, \u00a0“global share of GDP\u00a0impacts” proportional to share of global\u00a0GDP<\/span><\/h3>\nIt\u2019s really important to start the discussion.<\/p>\n
Thanks for all your dedication and work
\nMost sincerely,<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Jessie Henshaw<\/p>\n
______________<\/p>\n
The\u00a0next more detailed introduction,
\nto the \u201cmostly uncounted\u201d SD impact indicator problem, with references.<\/span><\/p>\nfyi \u00a0–<\/p>\n
I\u2019m writing as a scientist, and expert on the design of natural systems and natural science indicators.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>I had wanted to attend the Ethiopia EAG meeting on Indicators, due to the major neglected issues I need to raise.\u00a0\u00a0 Not having a sponsor I thought to pass on some of it to others who may get there.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s about reliable filling the unusually large gaps in the SD impact indicators used for decision making.<\/p>\nAs a consulting systems scientist I\u2019ve has been attending UN meetings for four years, observing the SDG process, and noticing the big gaps in systems thinking being built into the plan.\u00a0\u00a0 One in particular is that our impact measurement methods are not holistic, but actually quite fragmentary.\u00a0 \u00a0Just having better information on visible impacts won\u2019t tell us about the growing system-wide \u00a0impacts, so SD decisions will still be unable to avoid traditional pitfalls of economic planning.\u00a0 \u00a0Going ahead with just fragmentary indicators could really then make the SDG effort backfire, perhaps badly, adding to the \u201cexternalities\u201d of the economy not reducing them.<\/p>\n
That we are not yet doing holistic impact assessment is fairly easily documented, as whole categories left out of the accounting. \u00a0There\u2019s \u00a0an amazing list of things the economists (at the direction of the OECD it seems) have arbitrarily left out of the list of things to count.\u00a0\u00a0 The peculiar result is that the exclusions add up to nominally 90% of the real total.\u00a0 The biggest category of exclusions is usually the largest category of business environmental impacts.\u00a0 It\u2019s the impact of paying business people for their human services, and for professional services, financing and public services.\u00a0 As a result SD decisions to maximize profit are being made unaware of nominally 90% of the future impact costs of those decisions. \u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s surely a long standing habit we can\u2019t change all at once, but we desperately need a recognition of it.<\/p>\n
The economists have historically counted the business impacts as only things the business specifically directs.\u00a0 That then treats the “consumption for production” of human services as having zero impact, the usual largest of costs and of lasting environmental impacts of any business.\u00a0 The same is the case for all other supply chain impacts that are packaged as \u201cservices\u201d, all counted as having zero environmental impact.. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Having so little information on the lasting direct costs of business profits has always been a problem, and when combined with not feeling responsible defining \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0Today SD decision makers are still trying to maximize returns with a similar lack of information, though, as if just feeling responsible would compensate for the misinformation.\u00a0\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
I think most important is not to pick fights but to raise discussions of our common responsibility to address our common interests, to begin to include ones we\u2019d been blind to.\u00a0 The caution is that It\u2019s common for people whose sight is suddenly restored to be in shock, so it\u2019s caring for them not making demands that lets them see.<\/p>\n
If you or others would like to follow this up, you might start from watching my video comment to the UN on July 11 (1), and read the short \u00a0\u201cImpacts Uncounted\u201d circular (2). \u00a0I found it very effective for explaining the details when talking with people at the UN.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0There\u2019s also a quite surprising scientific solution that makes holistic accounting possible, first reported in a peer reviewed 2011 paper (3). \u00a0How to use that principle that \u201cshares of the economy are directly responsible for shares of its impacts\u201d, because of globalization, actually, is shown in a general 2014 proposal to the UN called the \u201cWorld SDG\u201d (4).\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s not getting discussed much yet, \u00a0apparently due to the shock.\u00a0 Another caution, of course, is that we need the old economy to build the new one, part of why transformations are complex.<\/p>\n
The big mental shock seems to be realizing the lasting impacts of using money are not close to \u201czero\u201d at it appears.\u00a0 They\u2019re actually very likely close to \u201caverage\u201d, for being so unusually widely distributed the way an efficient economy works, that to do most anything takes everyone\u2019s service.\u00a0 \u00a0That \u201creassessment\u201d is an almost infinite change of scale in our responsibilities<\/em>, after all.\u00a0\u00a0 It directly connects what we do innocently with money with all the disruptive things the economy increasingly does as our growth model collides with the limits of the earth, \u00a0..hurting the distressed communities the most.<\/p>\nSo what we need is for people to keep doing what they\u2019re doing, and begin to assume they have a real responsibility for what\u2019s going wrong with the economy and the world, in approximate direct proportion to their share of the economy.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I hope that connects with your thinking and gives you a start with mine.\u00a0\u00a0 Please send me anything you think is relevant.<\/p>\n
Good luck your good work!\u00a0 Thanks so much for your time.<\/p>\n
\n- JLH at UN HLPF –\u00a0comment on Growth & Impacts Uncounted, 11 Jul 16
\n– https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=CxSmEixz5WQ<\/a><\/li>\n- Impacts Uncounted circular
\n– http:\/\/www.synapse9.com\/_SDinteg\/ImpactsUncountedl.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n- Henshaw et. all. 2011,System Energy Assessment (SEA).\u00a0Sustainability\u00a02011,\u00a03(10)
\n– http:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2071-1050\/3\/10\/1908\/<\/a><\/li>\n- World SDG proposal
\n– http:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/2014\/02\/03\/a-world-sdg\/<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n <\/p>\n
JLH<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Re: 18 – 21 Oct 2016\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (research ref’s at the bottom) Fourth meeting of the IAEG-SDGs SD indicators need one more, the World SDG so Innovators can design their goals in relation to the whole My comment is as an expert on both system design and natural science indicators, on how innovative organization … Continue reading Guiding Innovative Change – Holistic applications of the SDGs<\/span>
The general model of innovative transformations is that the emerging\u00a0culture change, starting from some “seed pattern”, and then going through the classic phases of their\u00a0own life-cycle of internal growth and changing roles in their environment (fig 1). \u00a0There are of course many kinds of invasive systems and life-cycles.\u00a0\u00a0 The type\u00a0we are most often concerned with innovative transformations of human design, whether our own educations, or our society’s struggle to become\u00a0“sustainable”,\u00a0succeeds or not.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0earliest visible\u00a0pattern is the emergence of an “inspiration” or\u00a0\u201cdesign\u201d, looking for an opportunity to take hold, to\u00a0have a\u00a0starting organization that gets going by using environmental energy for building up\u00a0the design.\u00a0\u00a0 That energy flow for formation then tapers off as the transformation progresses, toward refining the\u00a0\u201cnew capability\u201d, or \u201cnew culture\u201d or \u201cnew business\u201d etc.<\/p>\n
The natural goal is generally to stabilize the design as it begins its real work at a peak of vitality,\u00a0beginning\u00a0a long productive life. \u00a0 So in general, it’s to first grow and then make a home, to have a life. \u00a0 This\u00a0model developed from study of natural change patterns , applying constraints of\u00a0physics principles for energy use,\u00a0that for designs to develop or change they need to develop new energy uses too.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been attending the UN SDG meetings for four years, first for the Institute for Planetary Synthesis, and then with CIVICUS, learning a tremendous amount, but also noticing the very distinct lack of systems thinking in the design of the SDG\u2019s.\u00a0 The main reasons seem to be that systems thinking is not taught in liberal arts educations, and that the design of\u00a0the SDG\u2019s was mainly shaped by demands for change, by issue focused groups from governments and civil society, not experienced with how organization relies on designs to\u00a0join\u00a0differentiated\u00a0parts.\u00a0\u00a0 So ideas of how to\u00a0organizing the differentiated parts when undiscussed and\u00a0were mostly\u00a0left out.<\/p>\n So the process produced\u00a017 idealistic \u201cgoals<\/a>\u201d and 36 main \u201ctopics<\/a>\u201d discussed mostly separately, arising from a profound concern with the whole global pattern of culture change and economic development. Personally I had a wonderful time, but was also sad I never got to talk about\u00a0my main expertise, i.e. on how the parts of whole systems connect. \u00a0 From a natural systems view the SDG\u2019s may be spoken of\u00a0as separate, \u00a0but are all indicators of \u201cholistic\u00a0cultural growth\u201d. \u00a0 They’re not really indicators of \u201ceconomic growth\u201d, as it’s\u00a0whole culture growth that brings value to\u00a0an economy not the reverse.<\/p>\n With the process lacking systems thinking resulted in\u00a0missing systems indicators: for how differentiated parts connect, for how cultures develop unity and\u00a0cohesion. \u00a0 The diagram below is mainly for\u00a0study, a \u201csense making tool\u201d, a “map of questions” to help guide innovative changes.<\/p>\n The challenge is our usual mental confusion, with our minds working with disconnected bits of information and but\u00a0actually\u00a0working in holistic organizations and trying to engage with holistic systems of our world. \u00a0 So our “maps” and our “worlds” show a “mismatch of variety”. \u00a0 So we need to constantly\u00a0study and learn from new experience. \u00a0 \u00a0To succeed with an\u00a0SD partnership, the organizers first need to find a “start-up match” between its “own abilities” and “an environmental opportunity”. \u00a0Usually it takes “a study of the context”, identifying “forces to make whole” with a “unifying\u00a0response” ( a reference to “pattern language”) . \u00a0 In terms of the 8 kinds of indicators for planning change, it’s\u00a0matching type IV indicators of whole system potential, one set within the organization and the other in the environment. \u00a0 The actual initiative might focus on one or the other…<\/p>\n The\u00a04 quadrant map \u00a0has\u00a0\u201ccondition indicators\u201d for \u201cstates\u201d (how things are) and \u201cguides\u201d (what can change). \u00a0It has \u201ccontext indicators\u201d, \u00a0\u201clocal\u201d and \u201cglobal\u201d. \u00a0 The four quadrants are repeated for the Organization and the Environment as a 3rd<\/sup> dimension for the array. \u00a0 \u00a0This arrangement borrows a bit from David Snowden’s Cynefine “place” centered holistic complex system\u00a0business design practice. \u00a0 \u00a0It fits with the long lists of indicators of functionally different kind needed for the SDG’s<\/p>\n There are also other\u00a0advanced\u00a0holistic system design traditions to choose from. \u00a0In all of them design proceeds\u00a0in\u00a0“stages” of team\u00a0“learning”, “work” then “review”. \u00a0 With\u00a0each cycle all the indicators being worked with are reviewed. \u00a0 All the\u00a0indicators the organization uses to\u00a0guide it are consulted in the learning phase of each cycle. \u00a0 \u00a0The architectural, product design and performance design professions have ancient traditions of how they do their work. \u00a0 Newer traditions of system\u00a0design where this\u00a0kind of learning is studied\u00a0include\u00a0\u201caction learning\u201d,\u00a0“pattern language”, “object oriented design”, and “permaculture”. \u00a0 None of these traditions of advanced\u00a0design practice seem to have been consulted for the SDG’s for some reason.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n My real reason for writing<\/strong>, …and offering this\u00a0way of understanding transformational change,… is the oddly disastrous pattern of excluded indicators in\u00a0the official statistics for the SDG’s. \u00a0The measures of ESG\u00a0impacts that businesses are told to report as measures of their responsibility, have many more exclusions than inclusions.<\/p>\n It is\u00a0possibly unintentional but oddly very boldly \u201chidden in sight\u201d, the clear exclusion of all responsibility for the disruptive impacts of business and investor money decisions. \u00a0 It comes from the modern continuation\u00a0of the ancient practice of excluding all business responsibility for economic \u201cexternalities\u201d of the choices for what to profit from. \u00a0 Some\u00a0impacts\u00a0of what to profit from no one in the past would have know about. \u00a0 Now we really do know most of them.<\/p>\n The very largest exclusion from business impact reporting, though, is one that anyone would always have known about. \u00a0 It’s all the human consumption that business\u00a0revenue pays for to obtain human services, ALL of it, as if those impacts had no environmental cost. \u00a0 That one accounting exclusion is commonly five or ten times the impacts the rules say businesses should count. \u00a0 The indication is that we have not started doing any form of sustainable development yet, systematically making decisions as if 80-90% of the impacts don’t exist.<\/p>\n At the UN and in writing to people I\u2019ve been finding most people\u00a0understand all this fairly quickly, …but then avoid engaging in discussion, the worst of all possible responses\u00a0for our world. \u00a0 The cover-up and avoidance is always the bigger crime.<\/p>\n It\u2019s really important to start the discussion.<\/p>\n Thanks for all your dedication and work <\/p>\n Jessie Henshaw<\/p>\n ______________<\/p>\n The\u00a0next more detailed introduction, fyi \u00a0–<\/p>\n I\u2019m writing as a scientist, and expert on the design of natural systems and natural science indicators.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>I had wanted to attend the Ethiopia EAG meeting on Indicators, due to the major neglected issues I need to raise.\u00a0\u00a0 Not having a sponsor I thought to pass on some of it to others who may get there.\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s about reliable filling the unusually large gaps in the SD impact indicators used for decision making.<\/p>\n As a consulting systems scientist I\u2019ve has been attending UN meetings for four years, observing the SDG process, and noticing the big gaps in systems thinking being built into the plan.\u00a0\u00a0 One in particular is that our impact measurement methods are not holistic, but actually quite fragmentary.\u00a0 \u00a0Just having better information on visible impacts won\u2019t tell us about the growing system-wide \u00a0impacts, so SD decisions will still be unable to avoid traditional pitfalls of economic planning.\u00a0 \u00a0Going ahead with just fragmentary indicators could really then make the SDG effort backfire, perhaps badly, adding to the \u201cexternalities\u201d of the economy not reducing them.<\/p>\n That we are not yet doing holistic impact assessment is fairly easily documented, as whole categories left out of the accounting. \u00a0There\u2019s \u00a0an amazing list of things the economists (at the direction of the OECD it seems) have arbitrarily left out of the list of things to count.\u00a0\u00a0 The peculiar result is that the exclusions add up to nominally 90% of the real total.\u00a0 The biggest category of exclusions is usually the largest category of business environmental impacts.\u00a0 It\u2019s the impact of paying business people for their human services, and for professional services, financing and public services.\u00a0 As a result SD decisions to maximize profit are being made unaware of nominally 90% of the future impact costs of those decisions. \u00a0\u00a0It\u2019s surely a long standing habit we can\u2019t change all at once, but we desperately need a recognition of it.<\/p>\n The economists have historically counted the business impacts as only things the business specifically directs.\u00a0 That then treats the “consumption for production” of human services as having zero impact, the usual largest of costs and of lasting environmental impacts of any business.\u00a0 The same is the case for all other supply chain impacts that are packaged as \u201cservices\u201d, all counted as having zero environmental impact.. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Having so little information on the lasting direct costs of business profits has always been a problem, and when combined with not feeling responsible defining \u201cbusiness as usual\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0Today SD decision makers are still trying to maximize returns with a similar lack of information, though, as if just feeling responsible would compensate for the misinformation.\u00a0\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n I think most important is not to pick fights but to raise discussions of our common responsibility to address our common interests, to begin to include ones we\u2019d been blind to.\u00a0 The caution is that It\u2019s common for people whose sight is suddenly restored to be in shock, so it\u2019s caring for them not making demands that lets them see.<\/p>\n If you or others would like to follow this up, you might start from watching my video comment to the UN on July 11 (1), and read the short \u00a0\u201cImpacts Uncounted\u201d circular (2). \u00a0I found it very effective for explaining the details when talking with people at the UN.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0There\u2019s also a quite surprising scientific solution that makes holistic accounting possible, first reported in a peer reviewed 2011 paper (3). \u00a0How to use that principle that \u201cshares of the economy are directly responsible for shares of its impacts\u201d, because of globalization, actually, is shown in a general 2014 proposal to the UN called the \u201cWorld SDG\u201d (4).\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s not getting discussed much yet, \u00a0apparently due to the shock.\u00a0 Another caution, of course, is that we need the old economy to build the new one, part of why transformations are complex.<\/p>\n The big mental shock seems to be realizing the lasting impacts of using money are not close to \u201czero\u201d at it appears.\u00a0 They\u2019re actually very likely close to \u201caverage\u201d, for being so unusually widely distributed the way an efficient economy works, that to do most anything takes everyone\u2019s service.\u00a0 \u00a0That \u201creassessment\u201d is an almost infinite change of scale in our responsibilities<\/em>, after all.\u00a0\u00a0 It directly connects what we do innocently with money with all the disruptive things the economy increasingly does as our growth model collides with the limits of the earth, \u00a0..hurting the distressed communities the most.<\/p>\n So what we need is for people to keep doing what they\u2019re doing, and begin to assume they have a real responsibility for what\u2019s going wrong with the economy and the world, in approximate direct proportion to their share of the economy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I hope that connects with your thinking and gives you a start with mine.\u00a0\u00a0 Please send me anything you think is relevant.<\/p>\n Good luck your good work!\u00a0 Thanks so much for your time.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n JLH<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Re: 18 – 21 Oct 2016\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (research ref’s at the bottom) Fourth meeting of the IAEG-SDGs SD indicators need one more, the World SDG so Innovators can design their goals in relation to the whole My comment is as an expert on both system design and natural science indicators, on how innovative organization … Continue reading Guiding Innovative Change – Holistic applications of the SDGs<\/span> ![\"Fig](\"http:\/\/synapse9.com\/issues\/GroSysOptEnergyFloW.jpg\")
<\/a><\/a>I do hope the above is helpful
\nfor where SDG\u00a0implementations\u00a0can go for advice.<\/h3>\nI urge you to respond to the challenge.<\/h3>\n
There’s a simple way, too,
\ninclude in SD reports one new indicator, \u00a0“global share of GDP\u00a0impacts” proportional to share of global\u00a0GDP<\/span><\/h3>\n
\nMost sincerely,<\/p>\n
\nto the \u201cmostly uncounted\u201d SD impact indicator problem, with references.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n– https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=CxSmEixz5WQ<\/a><\/li>\n
\n– http:\/\/www.synapse9.com\/_SDinteg\/ImpactsUncountedl.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n
\n– http:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2071-1050\/3\/10\/1908\/<\/a><\/li>\n
\n– http:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/2014\/02\/03\/a-world-sdg\/<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n