General Considerations for a Response Based on the STW Discussion
As explained above, a discussion on a forum such as the Linked-In Systems Thinking World group cannot be expected to produce a comprehensive, validated economic model with full scientific or professional validity. It is therefore necessary to state the assumptions upon which a report and possible recommendations rest, and the goals it could reasonably be aiming for.
Assumptions regarding the UN Secretary General’s Call
a There was a general acceptance of most of the underlying assumptions of the Secretary General’s call: that there indeed is a crisis both as regards the development of human activity as well as the threat from natural catastrophes and disasters, that the current patterns of the human economy are unsustainable and will create crisis conditions, and that there is little time left for meaningful change.
b Even the remarkable call for ‘revolutionary thinking and action’ was accepted as a device for emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
c Disagreement arose about whether actual ‘revolutionary action’ would be the appropriate response: most of the recommendations favored an incremental, piecemeal, evolutionary strategy, or envisioned any radical, sudden change as a result of substantial but essentially evolutionary shifts in consciousness (‘tipping points’) of many individuals.
d Some questions were raised about whether the organizations represented at the WEF in Davos would be able or willing, or even be the appropriate agents to take the lead in the needed transformation.
e The underlying optimistic assumption (in spite of the Secretary General’s dramatic reference to the ‘global suicide pact’ of current practice) that meaningful change is urgent but possible was questioned only by a minority of posts.
f The participants in the Systems Thinking World discussion see the problems with a wider focus than just an ‘economic’ model: Meaningful response to the threats listed and to ensure survival will have to consider all systems, the wider issues of sustainability, the water, energy, food networks, the social, ecological, political and governance systems, the philosophical, ethical, human aspects, the financial services, technology and transportation infrastructure etc., and the relationships between these systems.
Specifically, if the UN Call is based on the assumption (as may be inferred from the fact that it was addressed to the WEF) that the entities represented there will be the main agents for developing the needed economic model for survival, the group believes that the needed transformation must be developed and carried by a much wider basis of participation and cooperation.
g The group of participants in the STW discussion does not have the resources, time nor organizational structure to develop a comprehensive new ‘economic m o d e l’ that would ‘solve’ all these problems.
h Even if it did, solutions derived from such modeling efforts cannot be ‘imposed’ but must be the result of a wider global discourse with participation by all affected groups.
i While the group embraces the need for revolutionary t h i n k i n g, re-assessment of traditional assumptions, habits, institutions, and mantras underlying current practice, most participants differ from the (perhaps merely rhetoric) call for ‘revolutionary a c t i o n’ especially on a global scale. The needed transitions must be evolutionary, fed by many l o c a l, initially small scale initiatives, experiments and projects but coordinated and discussed in a global discourse. More profound, sudden (‘revolutionary’) change is seen as a possible, even desirable result of shifts in the consciousness of many people around the globe reaching a ‘tipping point’, but not as the result of measures imposed ‘top-down’ fashion without or against popular consent.
j The group has produced a number of ideas and proposals, even for the development of economic models, but its main contribution is seen as that of recommending a framework for the p r o c e s s that will bring about the needed transformations, and offering this for discussion.
k Existing institutions of governance, industry, trade, financing etc., including nations, international corporations, and regional and global institutions such as the EU and UN, are considered by many as part (even as the cause) of the problems we face, or as getting close to the limit of their ability to confront the challenges. They will have to change, but such change cannot happen fast enough, even if many of these institutions are beginning to adapt and institute more sustainable, effective and constructive practices. Such efforts must be encouraged and supported at all levels. However, there are valid reasons for the view that entirely n e w institutions, forms of governance and economic interaction might be needed. Therefore, the group examined possibilities for providing opportunities and support for the development of such alternative forms of organization.
Modified Agenda
The analysis of the findings of this discussion may be used to sketch this somewhat revised or refined agenda for addressing the challenges. A comprehensive response to the UN call would have to address even the issues that were given comparatively less attention in the discussion and for which not as much material could be compiled, and for which no equally carefully substantiated justification can be provided. The main points or priorities of this agenda can be described as follows:
- The many individual initiatives and experiments should be given continued and increased support, for two main reasons: First, data and experience from many different experiments will be needed to develop effective overall policies, and secondly, the needed transformation must be perceived by the people involved and affected by changed policies and projects as 'their own' creation, not as imposed measures by some larger power or authority. Thus, a main priority would be to find an effective way to support and encourage these initiatives.
- There is a need for overall coordination -- for sharing information, data, experiences, and for the development of agreements, treaties, interaction rules e.g. for trade, conflict resolution. The dilemma involved in this urgent task is the following: It will have to be pursued by a global constellation of entities supported at least initially by existing nations and other organizations -- but must remain open to the formation of entirely new institutions and forms of organization. The coordination task will involve several different but interconnected components: the coordination and support of the various small scale 'local' (a label chosen for the sake of simplicity) initiatives; a framework for the discussion and negotiation of global agreements (discourse); research, and education.
- The design and implementation of such a coordination and discourse framework -- the institution within which a 'new model' can evolve on the basis of sharing of insight and negotiation -- will be of a higher overall initial priority than the analytical effort to determine a more efficient model (through mathematical and systems modeling and simulation). The framework and platform through which all groups of humanity can communicate and meaningfully process the insights of such analysis into negotiation and mutually acceptable decisions must still be considered an incomplete project not yet adequate to the task, and therefore a task of high priority.
- The development of such a global coordination framework, as indicated, will take some time to become fully operational. Yet as the Secretary General emphasized, 'we are running out of time' -- some essential steps must be started very soon, even though the shape of the new model is far from clearly visible. An immediate task must be the identification of measures that can be started and carried out immediately without pre-judging the eventual results and without 'painting ourselves into a corner' of unsustainable dead-ends. Such measures must necessarily be of the small-scale, local initiative kind, utilizing currently available knowledge and technology.
- The preparation for disasters we know will occur (but don't know where or when) offer a significant opportunity for innovation. In many places where such disasters have struck, entire systems of infrastructure, governance, economy have been destroyed and must be rebuilt 'from scratch'. Deplorable as this is for the affected population, it also offers a significant opportunity for innovation in that new experiments that might be tried out in the reconstruction effort do not have to 'compete' with and overcome resistance from existing entities. Potentially, this appears to be a better opportunity for speeded-up change than the prospect of reformation from within established structures. The effort for transformation should therefore focus on finding effective ways to take advantage of this opportunity.
These considerations are the basis for the recommendations described in the following sections.
Some of the above passages and observations overlap and duplicate content in the sections on 'goals', 'approach', 'principles'; all these sections therefore require careful pruning and editing, as well as adding views and perspectives from the discussion that may not have been adequately represented.