What we need is a different way of thinking, suggested Einstein (and DebateGraph). We streamline some  key related insights by reflecting on three events in the life of physicist and system theorist Erich Jantsch.

(1) At the inaugural meeting of The Club of Rome in 1968, Jantsch gave an opening keynote, which may be condensed into the following one-sentence message: “The human systems (including our civilization) lack feedback (i.e. proper information and information flow) and therefore control (i.e. effectiveness, and sustainability).”

REFLECTION: The conventional focus on specific problems (economy, climate change, environment, poverty...) has an alternative in the ‘systemic’ approach, where instead of trying to coerce the existing (political, business, social, cultural, academic...) systems to ‘solve those problems,’ we understand the problems as symptoms of systemic malfunction, and take care of them by making suitable systemic improvements. The 'systemic' or 'systems' thinking is thinking in terms of the system as a whole and its properties; 'system science' and cybernetics provide concepts (such as 'feedback' and 'control') in terms of which such thinking can successfully be conducted, and related insights. Observe that any real-life problem may be 'caused' by the functioning of the entire system, hence by each and all of its component. Furthermore that it is the nature of living systems (which includes also the social ones) to maintain a certain homeostasis, i.e. to return to a certain equilibrium condition or configuration when taken out of it by a perturbation. Use this point of view to see why trying to understand the 'causes' of some characteristic contemporary 'wicked problem' may be 'a conceptual quicksand' in whose complexity we are likely to drown; and why trying to control some unwanted parameter (such as CO2 emissions) may be futile. In contrast to this approach, working with the system itself, aiming to make it more likely to work well and exercising such control, is literally a step from the realm of hopeless problems to the realm of opportunities—there are always many ways to make systemic improvement. Reflect on the contents of the attached Pattern node to reach this conclusion.

REFLECTION: Paradoxically (considering that we are living in 'Information Age') the root of our problems, Jantsch observed, is deficient information. What professions may need to be changed?

(2) Jantsch continued to think logically: If systemic change is the solution, who will do this change? He concluded that the university will have to be the answer; and that to fulfill this new “leadership role”—of “enhancing society’s capability for continuous self-renewal,” university itself will need to self-organize in a new way. In 1969 Jantsch spent a semester at the MIT, writing a report about the future of university, which is indeed a proposal for its reorganization [16]. “The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology (...).” Jantsch predicted that “system laboratories” (originally conceived by Jay Forrester) will play a pivotal role.

REFLECTION: Here we see already a resolute course of action—Jantsch undertakes to initiate systemic change. What was right about it? Why didn't it work? Reflect on the idea to have 'system laboratories' be the pivotal elements of the new unviersity—where systems are designed, and the parts that are needed are comissioned from participating technical laboratories. Technology development now follows the opposite path—technologies are developed, and systems emerge. Discuss and compare those two ways. (It will turn out that The Game, specifically the ZIG Project, implements Jantsch's vision.)

(3) In 1980 Jantsch organized a conference and issued two books, both focusing on evolution or self-organization, one as editor , and the other one as author. The goal was to report and systematize system-theoretical results developed in various disciplines during the 1970s, which all support the following main insight: Systems thinking, as developed by Wiener and others, was based on experience with technical systems and their control. But the nature of living systems, including the societal ones, is different—they constantly recreate themselves (self-organize, or evolve; have the capacity of autopoiesis), to adapt to changes in their environment. In the same year Jantsch passed away, aged 51; Ronald Reagan became the 40th US president. 

REFLECTION: The above insights further simplify our view of 'global problems': The issue is not necessarily how to change the structure of existing systems so that they can be able to exercise suitable control; the issue is rather (and much more simply) how to make them sufficiently 'alive' that is—capable to evolve as the circumstances require. Any ideas about what might be involved?

REFLECTION: In systemic terms, 1968 may be seen as 'bifurcation' (a point where the spontaneous evolution has brought the system to a state where change is immanent; and where even small individual action or 'free will' can make a large difference). For awhile the change appeared to be going in a certain direction; and then, around 1980, this direction suddenly changed. Observe that 2008 was another bifurcation point, where the direction taken in 1980 spontaneously produced its own disproof, in terms of the 'financial crisis' (more about this will be said in Professions as misconstructed games). What should we learn from  the developments after 1968 that we may apply now, after 2008, to secure a remedial or positive developoment?

❦

REFLECTION (Climate change is a red herring) The point is not that there is or there isn't climate change; and that this is or isn't caused by human activity. The point is that this is again something that distracts us from immediate issues that need to be attended to—namely the systemic ones. Such as organizing our 'warriors' (knowledge workers) so that they are able to give us clear messages, not just controversies. And then also the issue of governance, that would empower us to act as the circumstances require (and not to bend to short-term goals such as maintaining the profit rates high etc.). 

❦

REFLECTION: In sharp contrast to the wealth of insights produced by Jantsch and his colleagues (within 'systemic thinking' or 'systemic paradigm'), consider the fact that even their most basic insight (central insight of this Vision Quest: that systemic evolution must be conscious and purposeful, not spontaneous, based on 'survival of the fittest' ) has not yet been adopted by our society—an insight already spelled out by Norbert Wiener in his Cybernetics, published in 1948 (examine the attached green node). Reflect about the social impact of research. Indeed, more than a half-century later, we still think in terms of  us 'problems' (such as the climate change) and their 'solutions?' How is it possible that even the system scientists are failing to secure that their most basic—and vitally important—insight is communicated and implemented systemically (shall we call this 'the systemic thinking paradox'?). When we make statements about what 'needs to be done' (even such statements as 'we need to think in terms of systems), we are implicitly assuming that there is 'someone out there' listening and ready to make the required change. But the truth is that there isn't—and indeed, this inability of our systems to self-organize is 'the mother of all systemic issues.' Conclude that 'systemic doing' (adding things to existing systems to make them more alive) must follow systemic thinking, if impact should be secured. Notice that these two components are represented in The Game by Vision Quest and Action Quest.