6 ms·

“Hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, economic instability, unemployment, chronic disease, drug addiction, and war, for example, persist in spite of the

“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.

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.