7 ms·

How to Change a System

91 points by rzk 3y ago

yamrzou 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20240226010607/https://www.enablingchange.com.au/blog/strategy-2/how-to-change-a-system/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240226010607/https://www.enabl...
ireadmevs 3y ago
“Hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, economic instability, unemployment, chronic disease, drug addiction, and war, for example, persist in spite of the analytical ability and technical brilliance that have been directed toward eradicating them. No one deliberately creates those problems, no one wants them to persist, but they persist nonetheless. That is because they are intrinsically systems problems – undesirable behaviors characteristic of the system structures that produce them.” – Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems, a Primer Oh no no, it already started with a flawed premise. There are big players that deliberately created many of those problems and that have much to profit with their persistence. You want to talk about change, please go ahead. Just don’t be blind to those who are responsible for the problems and the motivations behind them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- alexvoda 3y ago
  I can see where you might be coming from but I would argue Meadows is still correct and higher resolution. Do provide a concrete example so I can unpack it.
  - yabbs 3y ago
    Shock doctrine. Disaster capitalism. Economic hitman
    - 0thgen 3y ago
      none of what you just said would be a plausible explanation for the persistence of poverty, economic instability, environmental degradation, drug addiction, chronic disease, etc etc I'd bet even the authors of the 2 books you've hinted at wouldn't even make that claim. I'm sure they would see many of the problems listed as systems-level issues
      - vincnetas 3y ago
        One more example how medical company profited from addictive painkillers for profit (OxyContin) : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-tha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painkiller_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painkiller_(TV_series)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 0thgen 3y ago
  "There are big players that deliberately created many of those problems" Could you specify which ones? I'm curious who's profiting from hunger, poverty, economic instability, and unemployment -- and thereby perpetuating it (sounds like major speculation). Maybe war gets propagated by nations military industries (though that's probably only sometimes true). The remaining problems listed (environmental damage, drug addiction, chronic disease) seems like second order consequences of other pursuits, not problems perpetuated for their own sake. Whether they're first or second order consequences might seem like a semantics debate, but it's what distinguishes your model (problems are deliberate) from Donella Meadows model (externalities, collective action, structural issues, etc). And both models suggest very different solutions (police bad actors versus change structures/incentives)
  - southerntofu 3y ago
    I'm gonna play the devil's advocate, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. Like some other commenter noted, the "shock doctrine" for example is a very widely documented/theorized phenomenon and not a conspiracy theory. > hunger There's a huge agro-food industry that profits from hunger. Its profits depend on subsistence farming being impossible or illegal so that's what they do: outlaw peasant seeds (like in France), buy all land from the owners until the population can't feed itself and needs the supermarket to survive, arrange for economic structures that allow for massive foreign subsidies (eg. EU CAP) to compete with the few local farmers left... > poverty, economic instability, and unemployment Temp work is another major industry that can only flourish when better employment conditions are not available to the workers. For those who don't find work and/or caught in the judicial system for some reason, the prison industrial complex will make profit on their incarceration. Once incarcerated, some companies will employ prisoners without working rights and protections in quasi-slavery conditions, making a ton more money than if they needed proper salaries and safety conditions. To give an example, here in France prison labor is usually < 1€/hour compared to ~10€/hour minimum wage. > drug addiction European settlers in America used alcohol as a weapon against natives. Later, during the cold war, the CIA organized for crack cocaine to destroy black neighborhoods social tissue, while financing the "contras" fascist militias. We could go on. I'm not saying reforming incentives is wrong, it's certainly part of the solution. But it would be very naive to think that alone is enough to change society because nobody would want to harm others. Fascists very much exist and very much want to harm others, not necessarily out of a profit motive but also sometimes out of pure hatred.
- greggsy 3y ago
  I disagree. This is a common trope that ‘bad guys’ deliberately engineer global problems for their own good. There are bad actors - people who deliberately do or say the wrong thing for malicious purposes. There are also strategists who have learnt how to game the system. The net result appears to be a concerted, planned effort to create the problems we have in the world today, when in reality, they have mostly emerged is a result of complex issues - driven mostly by human behaviour and accidents - and that can’t simply be ‘engineered’. There are players who are trying to (for example) avoid a move away from oil, but it’s naive to think that the conflict and environmental problems that it causes have a solution that could allow them to be ‘fixed’. There is a cost to everything we do, and there are always winners. Same goes for war, water or poverty. I think your perspective is that the winners are taking home a disproportionate amount of the winnings - I agree. Michael Jackson [1] is the another Systems Thinking guru, and argues that ‘wicked problems’ like these can never be solved, and it’s irresponsible to claim otherwise. Instead, it’s only possible to improve the situation for those involved in it. It takes time, effort, leadership, a change in mindset - and almost always sacrifice - to instigate real change. You can’t just tell the bad guys to do the right thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson_(systems_scientist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson_(systems_scientis...
  - 0thgen 3y ago
    I'm curious if those pushing the "it's the bad guys keeping everything bad!" model actually believe it, or if it's just a narrative that helps people vent about their political frustrations. And who knows, their model could be correct. But the unwillingness to consider "tradeoffs" makes me think it's just political angst and not a serious take
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      I'd take a nuanced half and half approach. I think the majority of who people think are just the generic "bad guys" is largely out of ignorance and/or naivete of surrounding circumstance. But I also do think there are people who are pretty fine with doing some sociopathic things to enrich themselves. The typical example is big pharma. Imagine tomorrow a magic genie offered a big pharma exec a cure to cancer, and he got to pick which form it took: 1) A one time pill that not only cured any existing cancers in a user, but also permanently prevented any further ones. And to make it even better, it also is somehow relatively simple meaning it could be easily cloned and made extremely and globally affordable. 2) A complex (enabling a defacto monopoly on production), lengthy, and expensive treatment program that is 100% effective at curing any 1 type of cancer - that must be repeated per cancer and per individual as they emerge. I do genuinely think that all big pharma execs would choose #2. They'd probably rationalize it as something like 'Well I'm curing cancer, and now I'll ensure we have the funds to continue working to solve even more illnesses, and everybody wins." So I'm sure in their minds they aren't villains, but that's because humans are just really really good at cognitive dissonance.
- WhyUVoteGarbage 3y ago
  Yeah, they forgot regime change: remove leaders who are actively thwarting reform.
luis_cho 3y ago
From Donella Meadows [1]: PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM (in increasing order of effectiveness) 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards). 8. Regulating negative feedback loops. 7. Driving positive feedback loops. 6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection. 5. Information flows. 4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints). 3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system. 2. The goals of the system. 1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture — arises. Regarding point 2: What is the goal of the current system? [1] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-t...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  For all of you who are genuinely interested in Meadows' system theory here's the first two of a running cybershow series [0,1] talking about levearage points in a modern context. [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 [1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19
- harimau777 3y ago
  If we go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha..., then the goal of the current system is to create wealth inequality.
  - 0thgen 3y ago
    is the purpose of chemotherapy to make people lose their hair?
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      It usually cures cancer. The current government concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. Less than 1% of the population owns nearly 50% of the wealth.
oneshtein 3y ago
It's nice when you are in power to fix a system. It's much more challenging to fix a system which is hostile to you. Moreover, it's even harder when you are part of the system, which is hostile to you. Highly recommended to try.
- from-nibly 3y ago
  In those systems you have to start from the bottom (weakest) influences. It will burn you out quick.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    Yes, if you act in a dumb way, you will burn out. Even those who were at top cannot change a big massive system easily. I saw examples of that. Every change need some amount of energy. Big changes needs massive amounts of energy. Often, it's easier to regrow a new system from scratch than to change old one. To change a system, the changer must be more powerful that the system (happens sometimes, but not my case) OR be smart and ride a situation. Usually, system opposes any change, because risk out-weighs benefits. Very rarely, except in desperate situation, system will accept a shock therapy. So, for a system to accept a change, risks must be reduced. When risks are low and benefits are clear, resistance to change is low too.
zackmorris 3y ago
This is pretty much all I think about anymore. It's so easy to understand both from a secular and religious standpoint that helping the bottom helps everyone. But since the trickle-down economics era started in the 1980s, pretty much all of the economic gains have gone to the top. Wealth inequality has reached such a brutal level that I would argue that the American Dream ended sometime between 2001 and 2008. Everything since has been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Now rents and home prices are so high vs incomes that most Americans never get out from under the yoke, they just work until they die. And politicians openly call for malarky like raising the retirement age, rather than working towards actually solving problems. So assuming we can all agree on how bad things have gotten (we can't/won't heh), the solution becomes pretty obvious: We need to shift from profit to residual income and recurring resources. For example, a learning center in my city offers free electric car charging which I used just yesterday. Most places would charge a fee per kWh. But it's conceivable that a solar battery station could be mass-produced for under $5,000. It could be priced a nominal amount to pay itself off, perhaps $1/kWh, put out 5 kWh per day, and pay itself off in about 1000 days or 3 years. Then provide free charging to everyone for perhaps 20-30 more years. Then it becomes in everyone's best interest to own a station, so amortization loans/grants would become available where basically anyone can get a near-0% interest, $5,000 loan and get a station immediately, speeding rollout. The cost of true innovation approaches free, that's why we're trained not to see it. We could repeat this societal investment process with automatic dishwashers, Roombas, Gardyn/Rise hydroponic indoor gardens, that in-home pick and place OK-Robot that was on HN the other day, electric scooters/cars, and eventually vans and tiny homes. Everyone could transition from monthly bills to an automated lifestyle where most basic needs are provided by robots or UBI within a social contract akin to solarpunk. This is essentially FIRE or F-U money, but where primary expenses are provided scalably at an individual level so they can't be taken away by concentrated wealth. The reality I came from prevented all of this. When I was in my early 20s, fresh out of watching Fight Club and 8 Mile and The Fast and the Furious, the US had just voted for GW Bush instead of Al Gore in an effort to astroturf Peak Oil out of the public eye. We invested trillions of dollars into McMansions and SUVs to fight a War on Terror for 20 years and offshore 100,000 US factories, doubling down on globalization policies like NAFTA. When I mentioned even the most primitive cost-saving alternatives like solar thermal hot water heaters and heat pumps, I was met with scorn. That lasted until 2013 when Obama's reelection gave enough confidence to the auto industry that stuff like the Nissan Leaf and Tesla (maybe model S?) ushered in MVP electric vehicles. Which was great, but keep in mind that lithium-ion batteries were invented in the 1990s. We could have had a moonshot to get them to today's densities by 2000 and saved about 15-25 years. So in a very real sense, the private sector delayed the rollout of sustainable solutions for decades, especially considering that a similar moonshot could have happened for solar panels and keystone tech like blue LEDs, mRNA/CRISPR, basically all of the "ubiquitous" tools we take for granted today. I bring that up because Gen X remembers being ostracized for trying to make things better, and we have no loyalties towards worshipping ignorance. We're in the midst of the Fourth Turning, and when anyone younger than us takes the reins of government, it will be a watershed moment for sustainability. I think the rise in authoritarianism and proxy wars is about derailing progress long enough that minority rule can maintain control through sabotage until the New World Order can be cemented. So the most important things we can do are resist doublethink and not pay into systems of control. Which basically means looking at stuff like austerity with a critical eye to see how it stifles innovation and props up the status quo, under the guise of saving money which only flows to the top anyway.

91 points by rzk 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20240226010607/https://www.enablingchange.com.au/blog/strategy-2/how-to-change-a-system/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240226010607/https://www.enabl...

ireadmevs 3y ago

“Hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, economic instability, unemployment, chronic disease, drug addiction, and war, for example, persist in spite of the analytical ability and technical brilliance that have been directed toward eradicating them. No one deliberately creates those problems, no one wants them to persist, but they persist nonetheless. That is because they are intrinsically systems problems – undesirable behaviors characteristic of the system structures that produce them.” – Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems, a Primer Oh no no, it already started with a flawed premise. There are big players that deliberately created many of those problems and that have much to profit with their persistence. You want to talk about change, please go ahead. Just don’t be blind to those who are responsible for the problems and the motivations behind them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alexvoda 3y ago
I can see where you might be coming from but I would argue Meadows is still correct and higher resolution. Do provide a concrete example so I can unpack it.
- yabbs 3y ago
  Shock doctrine. Disaster capitalism. Economic hitman
  - 0thgen 3y ago
    none of what you just said would be a plausible explanation for the persistence of poverty, economic instability, environmental degradation, drug addiction, chronic disease, etc etc I'd bet even the authors of the 2 books you've hinted at wouldn't even make that claim. I'm sure they would see many of the problems listed as systems-level issues
    - vincnetas 3y ago
      One more example how medical company profited from addictive painkillers for profit (OxyContin) : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-tha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painkiller_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painkiller_(TV_series)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
0thgen 3y ago
"There are big players that deliberately created many of those problems" Could you specify which ones? I'm curious who's profiting from hunger, poverty, economic instability, and unemployment -- and thereby perpetuating it (sounds like major speculation). Maybe war gets propagated by nations military industries (though that's probably only sometimes true). The remaining problems listed (environmental damage, drug addiction, chronic disease) seems like second order consequences of other pursuits, not problems perpetuated for their own sake. Whether they're first or second order consequences might seem like a semantics debate, but it's what distinguishes your model (problems are deliberate) from Donella Meadows model (externalities, collective action, structural issues, etc). And both models suggest very different solutions (police bad actors versus change structures/incentives)
- southerntofu 3y ago
  I'm gonna play the devil's advocate, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. Like some other commenter noted, the "shock doctrine" for example is a very widely documented/theorized phenomenon and not a conspiracy theory. > hunger There's a huge agro-food industry that profits from hunger. Its profits depend on subsistence farming being impossible or illegal so that's what they do: outlaw peasant seeds (like in France), buy all land from the owners until the population can't feed itself and needs the supermarket to survive, arrange for economic structures that allow for massive foreign subsidies (eg. EU CAP) to compete with the few local farmers left... > poverty, economic instability, and unemployment Temp work is another major industry that can only flourish when better employment conditions are not available to the workers. For those who don't find work and/or caught in the judicial system for some reason, the prison industrial complex will make profit on their incarceration. Once incarcerated, some companies will employ prisoners without working rights and protections in quasi-slavery conditions, making a ton more money than if they needed proper salaries and safety conditions. To give an example, here in France prison labor is usually < 1€/hour compared to ~10€/hour minimum wage. > drug addiction European settlers in America used alcohol as a weapon against natives. Later, during the cold war, the CIA organized for crack cocaine to destroy black neighborhoods social tissue, while financing the "contras" fascist militias. We could go on. I'm not saying reforming incentives is wrong, it's certainly part of the solution. But it would be very naive to think that alone is enough to change society because nobody would want to harm others. Fascists very much exist and very much want to harm others, not necessarily out of a profit motive but also sometimes out of pure hatred.
greggsy 3y ago
I disagree. This is a common trope that ‘bad guys’ deliberately engineer global problems for their own good. There are bad actors - people who deliberately do or say the wrong thing for malicious purposes. There are also strategists who have learnt how to game the system. The net result appears to be a concerted, planned effort to create the problems we have in the world today, when in reality, they have mostly emerged is a result of complex issues - driven mostly by human behaviour and accidents - and that can’t simply be ‘engineered’. There are players who are trying to (for example) avoid a move away from oil, but it’s naive to think that the conflict and environmental problems that it causes have a solution that could allow them to be ‘fixed’. There is a cost to everything we do, and there are always winners. Same goes for war, water or poverty. I think your perspective is that the winners are taking home a disproportionate amount of the winnings - I agree. Michael Jackson [1] is the another Systems Thinking guru, and argues that ‘wicked problems’ like these can never be solved, and it’s irresponsible to claim otherwise. Instead, it’s only possible to improve the situation for those involved in it. It takes time, effort, leadership, a change in mindset - and almost always sacrifice - to instigate real change. You can’t just tell the bad guys to do the right thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson_(systems_scientist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson_(systems_scientis...
- 0thgen 3y ago
  I'm curious if those pushing the "it's the bad guys keeping everything bad!" model actually believe it, or if it's just a narrative that helps people vent about their political frustrations. And who knows, their model could be correct. But the unwillingness to consider "tradeoffs" makes me think it's just political angst and not a serious take
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    I'd take a nuanced half and half approach. I think the majority of who people think are just the generic "bad guys" is largely out of ignorance and/or naivete of surrounding circumstance. But I also do think there are people who are pretty fine with doing some sociopathic things to enrich themselves. The typical example is big pharma. Imagine tomorrow a magic genie offered a big pharma exec a cure to cancer, and he got to pick which form it took: 1) A one time pill that not only cured any existing cancers in a user, but also permanently prevented any further ones. And to make it even better, it also is somehow relatively simple meaning it could be easily cloned and made extremely and globally affordable. 2) A complex (enabling a defacto monopoly on production), lengthy, and expensive treatment program that is 100% effective at curing any 1 type of cancer - that must be repeated per cancer and per individual as they emerge. I do genuinely think that all big pharma execs would choose #2. They'd probably rationalize it as something like 'Well I'm curing cancer, and now I'll ensure we have the funds to continue working to solve even more illnesses, and everybody wins." So I'm sure in their minds they aren't villains, but that's because humans are just really really good at cognitive dissonance.
WhyUVoteGarbage 3y ago
Yeah, they forgot regime change: remove leaders who are actively thwarting reform.

luis_cho 3y ago

From Donella Meadows [1]: PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM (in increasing order of effectiveness) 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards). 8. Regulating negative feedback loops. 7. Driving positive feedback loops. 6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection. 5. Information flows. 4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints). 3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system. 2. The goals of the system. 1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture — arises. Regarding point 2: What is the goal of the current system? [1] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-t...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nonrandomstring 3y ago
For all of you who are genuinely interested in Meadows' system theory here's the first two of a running cybershow series [0,1] talking about levearage points in a modern context. [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 [1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19
harimau777 3y ago
If we go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha..., then the goal of the current system is to create wealth inequality.
- 0thgen 3y ago
  is the purpose of chemotherapy to make people lose their hair?
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    It usually cures cancer. The current government concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. Less than 1% of the population owns nearly 50% of the wealth.

oneshtein 3y ago

It's nice when you are in power to fix a system. It's much more challenging to fix a system which is hostile to you. Moreover, it's even harder when you are part of the system, which is hostile to you. Highly recommended to try.

from-nibly 3y ago
In those systems you have to start from the bottom (weakest) influences. It will burn you out quick.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  Yes, if you act in a dumb way, you will burn out. Even those who were at top cannot change a big massive system easily. I saw examples of that. Every change need some amount of energy. Big changes needs massive amounts of energy. Often, it's easier to regrow a new system from scratch than to change old one. To change a system, the changer must be more powerful that the system (happens sometimes, but not my case) OR be smart and ride a situation. Usually, system opposes any change, because risk out-weighs benefits. Very rarely, except in desperate situation, system will accept a shock therapy. So, for a system to accept a change, risks must be reduced. When risks are low and benefits are clear, resistance to change is low too.

zackmorris 3y ago

This is pretty much all I think about anymore. It's so easy to understand both from a secular and religious standpoint that helping the bottom helps everyone. But since the trickle-down economics era started in the 1980s, pretty much all of the economic gains have gone to the top. Wealth inequality has reached such a brutal level that I would argue that the American Dream ended sometime between 2001 and 2008. Everything since has been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Now rents and home prices are so high vs incomes that most Americans never get out from under the yoke, they just work until they die. And politicians openly call for malarky like raising the retirement age, rather than working towards actually solving problems. So assuming we can all agree on how bad things have gotten (we can't/won't heh), the solution becomes pretty obvious: We need to shift from profit to residual income and recurring resources. For example, a learning center in my city offers free electric car charging which I used just yesterday. Most places would charge a fee per kWh. But it's conceivable that a solar battery station could be mass-produced for under $5,000. It could be priced a nominal amount to pay itself off, perhaps $1/kWh, put out 5 kWh per day, and pay itself off in about 1000 days or 3 years. Then provide free charging to everyone for perhaps 20-30 more years. Then it becomes in everyone's best interest to own a station, so amortization loans/grants would become available where basically anyone can get a near-0% interest, $5,000 loan and get a station immediately, speeding rollout. The cost of true innovation approaches free, that's why we're trained not to see it. We could repeat this societal investment process with automatic dishwashers, Roombas, Gardyn/Rise hydroponic indoor gardens, that in-home pick and place OK-Robot that was on HN the other day, electric scooters/cars, and eventually vans and tiny homes. Everyone could transition from monthly bills to an automated lifestyle where most basic needs are provided by robots or UBI within a social contract akin to solarpunk. This is essentially FIRE or F-U money, but where primary expenses are provided scalably at an individual level so they can't be taken away by concentrated wealth. The reality I came from prevented all of this. When I was in my early 20s, fresh out of watching Fight Club and 8 Mile and The Fast and the Furious, the US had just voted for GW Bush instead of Al Gore in an effort to astroturf Peak Oil out of the public eye. We invested trillions of dollars into McMansions and SUVs to fight a War on Terror for 20 years and offshore 100,000 US factories, doubling down on globalization policies like NAFTA. When I mentioned even the most primitive cost-saving alternatives like solar thermal hot water heaters and heat pumps, I was met with scorn. That lasted until 2013 when Obama's reelection gave enough confidence to the auto industry that stuff like the Nissan Leaf and Tesla (maybe model S?) ushered in MVP electric vehicles. Which was great, but keep in mind that lithium-ion batteries were invented in the 1990s. We could have had a moonshot to get them to today's densities by 2000 and saved about 15-25 years. So in a very real sense, the private sector delayed the rollout of sustainable solutions for decades, especially considering that a similar moonshot could have happened for solar panels and keystone tech like blue LEDs, mRNA/CRISPR, basically all of the "ubiquitous" tools we take for granted today. I bring that up because Gen X remembers being ostracized for trying to make things better, and we have no loyalties towards worshipping ignorance. We're in the midst of the Fourth Turning, and when anyone younger than us takes the reins of government, it will be a watershed moment for sustainability. I think the rise in authoritarianism and proxy wars is about derailing progress long enough that minority rule can maintain control through sabotage until the New World Order can be cemented. So the most important things we can do are resist doublethink and not pay into systems of control. Which basically means looking at stuff like austerity with a critical eye to see how it stifles innovation and props up the status quo, under the guise of saving money which only flows to the top anyway.