3 ms·

Pioneering systems theorist Donella Meadows makes a highly salient point. The problem with BP isn't because there are "bad people" at the top, and the solution

Pioneering systems theorist Donella Meadows makes a highly salient point. The problem with BP isn't because there are "bad people" at the top, and the solution isn't to replace them with "good people." The problem is that the decision-makers are constrained to act a certain way. If they made different decisions then.... those people won't be the decision-makers anymore! The same is true for politicians, consumers, etc. It's a systems problem requiring systems solutions, not a problem of (as movies simplistically tell us) "bad people." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg

fullshark 2y ago
The libertarians constantly spouting that CEOs have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders are making the best argument for increased government regulation possible.
- jbstack 2y ago
  A reasonable libertarian however would require that all externalities be paid for (under the principle of doing no harm). If the price per unit of oil includes the cost of all the negative externalities (e.g. selling that unit comes with a requirement to remove the air pollutants and CO2) then it isn't really a problem (at least for the purpose of this discussion) if CEOs have to seek profit for shareholders.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Who is it that decides what these externalities are and who enforces this?
imglorp 2y ago
That saying that goes, we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough. To the systems point we really, really really, really really need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally. We have to stop making it profitable and encouraged by the system. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...
- schiffern 2y ago
  > we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough This a very good quip, but I have to ponder: how could we know that for sure? If some other species had a comparable concept used to organize themselves, I doubt humans would even be aware of that nuance.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Sometimes it's pretty visible. Some slime molds (dictyostelids) form multicellular bodies when food is scarce and they have to hunt, and then go back to single-celled life when conditions are more favorable.
  - saintfire 2y ago
    Single celled organisms do it all the time, on a local scale. If you fill a jar with some yeast and sugar water, they'll feast and multiply at an accelerating pace until they've turned their environment toxic. Painfully analagous to humans.
  - palata 2y ago
    Well because other species don't manage to break the barriers as efficiently as we do. The way regulation works is that species are limited by their environment. If there are many antelopes, there can be many lions. But if there are two many lions, the population of antelopes goes down to the point where not all the lions can survive, right? This is simplistic, but that's the idea (the higher the population, the bigger the impact of a disease, etc). Because we are really good at changing our environment in order to be more individuals who consume more resources, we escape those regulation mechanisms. By doing this, we destroy most species, including ours. Now let's not pretend that ants would be better: if they somehow escaped those mechanisms, they wouldn't suddenly vote and stop growing (presumably). The fact is that they haven't escaped them, and we have. Well for a while. Now it's very likely that some kind of mechanism will end up regulating us. Maybe it will finish destroying most species, and it will take thousands of years to "recover" (with some definition of "recover"). What's interesting with us is that we do know we are destroying ourselves and the biodiversity (which is arguably one of the enjoyable things in life), but we can't seem to find a way to fix it.
gffrd 2y ago
A great point. What examples do we have of publicly-traded megacorps that have successfully made shifts at the scale which we see oil companies trying to make? (With extrinsic motivation being a primary driver?) Cigarette companies?
skybrian 2y ago
The word "required" is not exactly wrong, but not exactly right either. Corporate governance is complicated and CEO's have a lot of room to maneuver. Some more than others. Incentives are not destiny, though they are often persuasive. Peoples' decisions do matter, which is why there are people in the system and it's not just some idiot algorithm. Also true of consumers and politicians.
heresie-dabord 2y ago
> It's a systems problem requiring systems solutions It's a people problem requiring people to coordinate their actions for the net good of all people, instead of coordinating their abdication of responsibility for the good of the corporation.
_spduchamp 2y ago
I agree with this, and what is amazing is that one particular layer in our systems with the biggest impact is electoral systems. Most people are blind to the fact that we live in the side effects of bad math that leads to less accountability. Electoral reform has trouble getting traction in some places. (Canada, USA, UK, and all these other fantastic "democracies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) If we all had better representation, maybe we could have some accountability in governments to help enact policy that we actually want.
nitwit005 2y ago
I think you have to take the owner or investor view on this. Say you own a big portion of an oil company, and you decide renewable energy is the future. What do you do? Probably sell your shares and invest elsewhere. Oil companies are full of oil experts. There's no reason to think they'll do well competing with companies full of renewable energy experts.
ksec 2y ago
>those people won't be the decision-makers anymore! The same is true for politicians, consumers, etc. Is that another way of saying the "Market" will dictate everything? I never thought about it this way in terms of politics. But may be some food for thought.
- schiffern 2y ago
  Accelerating this thought, the linked video is basically a primer on Systems Theory as applies to this problem. Use >1x speed if needed, but IMO it's worth it. Her talk is highly enlightening, and concept-dense. Direct timecode to the start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=419 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=419

fullshark 2y ago

The libertarians constantly spouting that CEOs have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders are making the best argument for increased government regulation possible.

jbstack 2y ago
A reasonable libertarian however would require that all externalities be paid for (under the principle of doing no harm). If the price per unit of oil includes the cost of all the negative externalities (e.g. selling that unit comes with a requirement to remove the air pollutants and CO2) then it isn't really a problem (at least for the purpose of this discussion) if CEOs have to seek profit for shareholders.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Who is it that decides what these externalities are and who enforces this?

imglorp 2y ago

That saying that goes, we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough. To the systems point we really, really really, really really need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels to 7 trillion a year globally. We have to stop making it profitable and encouraged by the system. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...

schiffern 2y ago
> we are the only species that will become extinct because survival wasn't profitable enough This a very good quip, but I have to ponder: how could we know that for sure? If some other species had a comparable concept used to organize themselves, I doubt humans would even be aware of that nuance.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Sometimes it's pretty visible. Some slime molds (dictyostelids) form multicellular bodies when food is scarce and they have to hunt, and then go back to single-celled life when conditions are more favorable.
- saintfire 2y ago
  Single celled organisms do it all the time, on a local scale. If you fill a jar with some yeast and sugar water, they'll feast and multiply at an accelerating pace until they've turned their environment toxic. Painfully analagous to humans.
- palata 2y ago
  Well because other species don't manage to break the barriers as efficiently as we do. The way regulation works is that species are limited by their environment. If there are many antelopes, there can be many lions. But if there are two many lions, the population of antelopes goes down to the point where not all the lions can survive, right? This is simplistic, but that's the idea (the higher the population, the bigger the impact of a disease, etc). Because we are really good at changing our environment in order to be more individuals who consume more resources, we escape those regulation mechanisms. By doing this, we destroy most species, including ours. Now let's not pretend that ants would be better: if they somehow escaped those mechanisms, they wouldn't suddenly vote and stop growing (presumably). The fact is that they haven't escaped them, and we have. Well for a while. Now it's very likely that some kind of mechanism will end up regulating us. Maybe it will finish destroying most species, and it will take thousands of years to "recover" (with some definition of "recover"). What's interesting with us is that we do know we are destroying ourselves and the biodiversity (which is arguably one of the enjoyable things in life), but we can't seem to find a way to fix it.

gffrd 2y ago

A great point. What examples do we have of publicly-traded megacorps that have successfully made shifts at the scale which we see oil companies trying to make? (With extrinsic motivation being a primary driver?) Cigarette companies?

skybrian 2y ago

The word "required" is not exactly wrong, but not exactly right either. Corporate governance is complicated and CEO's have a lot of room to maneuver. Some more than others. Incentives are not destiny, though they are often persuasive. Peoples' decisions do matter, which is why there are people in the system and it's not just some idiot algorithm. Also true of consumers and politicians.

heresie-dabord 2y ago

> It's a systems problem requiring systems solutions It's a people problem requiring people to coordinate their actions for the net good of all people, instead of coordinating their abdication of responsibility for the good of the corporation.

_spduchamp 2y ago

I agree with this, and what is amazing is that one particular layer in our systems with the biggest impact is electoral systems. Most people are blind to the fact that we live in the side effects of bad math that leads to less accountability. Electoral reform has trouble getting traction in some places. (Canada, USA, UK, and all these other fantastic "democracies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) If we all had better representation, maybe we could have some accountability in governments to help enact policy that we actually want.

nitwit005 2y ago

I think you have to take the owner or investor view on this. Say you own a big portion of an oil company, and you decide renewable energy is the future. What do you do? Probably sell your shares and invest elsewhere. Oil companies are full of oil experts. There's no reason to think they'll do well competing with companies full of renewable energy experts.

ksec 2y ago

>those people won't be the decision-makers anymore! The same is true for politicians, consumers, etc. Is that another way of saying the "Market" will dictate everything? I never thought about it this way in terms of politics. But may be some food for thought.

schiffern 2y ago
Accelerating this thought, the linked video is basically a primer on Systems Theory as applies to this problem. Use >1x speed if needed, but IMO it's worth it. Her talk is highly enlightening, and concept-dense. Direct timecode to the start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=419 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmChiLZZHg#t=419