4 ms·

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

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.
  - 0thgen 3y ago
    fair point, and there are more real-world examples we could list (big tax services lobbying for more complicated tax codes) I guess the question then is: what major world problems can be fixed by eliminating / preventing bad actors, and what problems require a different solution? I'm not claiming to know the answer
yamrzou 3y ago
> 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. Can you point to a more detailed reading about his arguments for this position?
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Of JSD [0] (Jackson Systems Design/Development) fmae no less. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_System_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_System_Development
  - greggsy 3y ago
    Different one - see my link above
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      Thank you for your correction. Michael Christopher Jackson n.1951 and Michael Anthony Jackson n.1936 Both British born. Both prominent in systems design and theory.
- greggsy 3y ago
  I just went through his book from uni (it’s 700 gruelling and somewhat traumatising pages), and I think I misattributed it from Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology

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.
- 0thgen 3y ago
  fair point, and there are more real-world examples we could list (big tax services lobbying for more complicated tax codes) I guess the question then is: what major world problems can be fixed by eliminating / preventing bad actors, and what problems require a different solution? I'm not claiming to know the answer

yamrzou 3y ago

> 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. Can you point to a more detailed reading about his arguments for this position?

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Of JSD [0] (Jackson Systems Design/Development) fmae no less. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_System_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_System_Development
- greggsy 3y ago
  Different one - see my link above
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Thank you for your correction. Michael Christopher Jackson n.1951 and Michael Anthony Jackson n.1936 Both British born. Both prominent in systems design and theory.
greggsy 3y ago
I just went through his book from uni (it’s 700 gruelling and somewhat traumatising pages), and I think I misattributed it from Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology