Archive for the ‘government’ Tag
Beyond Fortress America
Filed under: complexity, interconnected | Tags: America, defense, government, non-zero, security
Leave a Comment As we go through this year’s American election cycle, we hear politicians talk about American power in ways that don’t reflect an understanding of today’s interconnected world. The talk is about how America must be strong on its own – with no consideration of the implications of this connectedness. Consider these statements by current Republican candidates:
Mitt Romney – “As President, I will reverse the Obama-era defense cuts. I believe a strong America must–and will–lead the future. I will insist on a military so powerful that no one would ever think of challenging it.”
Newt Gingrich – “We live in a world where if we gamble wrong, and the current proposed defense budget is much too small, if we gamble wrong whether it is a major power like China or Russia, a medium sized power like North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran, and North Korea is a medium sized power by possession of nuclear weapons. Or it is a fanatic group willing to die in the process of killing us. We live in a world where there are weapons capable of ending civilization as we know it. And we need to be prepared in a very militant and aggressive way to defend America from having a catastrophic disaster of the first order.”
Rick Santorum – “I would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending. The only thing the federal government can do that no other level of government can do is protect us. It is the first duty of the president. And we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our borders, that we can make sure that when we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed.”
These statements might make sense if you view the United States like a fortress in enemy territory. In such a case, having impregnable defenses and overwhelming firepower could be useful in defeating the enemy. (Though military history has many cases of smaller forces overwhelming larger ones.)
But today such views can come across as overly simplistic, not recognizing the much more complex world in which we now live. Countries like Russia and China are not just simply “the enemy.” If they were, why would we be doing so much business with them? Even with countries like Pakistan and Iran, things are complex; at one point or another we have worked with both countries – most notably in the current war in Afghanistan and in the Iran-Contra affair.
Of course this raises the question: what are the implications for America’s security in an interconnected world? Some relevant insights into this question can be found in a couple of TED talks.
Many people have an at least a vague knowledge of the concept of entropy, by which it is said things tend to go from order to disorder. This concept has been used by some to claim that the world as we know it is dying, and that this process is inevitable. However there is another way of viewing things, which Robert Wright addressed in one of his TED talks. He started by talking about evolution:
Because what happened in the beginning, this stuff encases itself in a cell, then cells start hanging out together in societies. Eventually they get so close, they form multicellular organisms, then you get complex multicellular organisms; they form societies.
But then at some point, one of these multicellular organisms does something completely amazing with this stuff, which is it launches a whole second kind of evolution: cultural evolution. And amazingly, that evolution sustains the trajectory that biological evolution had established toward greater complexity. By cultural evolution we mean the evolution of ideas.
What he is describing is the phenomena of complexity: open, dynamic systems have a natural tendency to grow more complex. This is true whether you’re talking about biology, economics, societies, cultures, etc.
Within this context, Wright addresses the implications of complexity for the world as we know it.
Now, I explained this growth of complexity by reference to something called “non-zero sumness.” …the key idea is the distinction between zero-sum games, in which correlations are inverse: always a winner and a loser. Non-zero-sum games in which correlations can be positive, OK. So like in tennis, usually it’s win-lose; it always adds up to zero-zero-sum. But if you’re playing doubles, the person on your side of the net, they’re in the same boat as you, so you’re playing a non-zero-sum game with them. It’s either for the better or for the worse, OK. A lot of forms of non-zero-sum behavior in the realm of economics and so on in everyday life often leads to cooperation.
The rest of his talk is devoted to the implications of this “non-zero” phenomena, which can be either good (win-win) or bad (lose-lose). The point is that as our world has become more complex and interconnected, our relationships with others around the world fall increasingly within this realm. While we often tend to view things in a zero-sum context (e.g., “the more power and wealth China has, the worse off the United States is” or “it’s perfectly OK to get rich by laying off or cutting the pay of workers”), the reality is different.
In today’s world, China’s economic well-being is inextricably linked to that of the US: if Americans don’t have money to buy Chinese goods, China will suffer. By the same token, the more wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, the less economic and financial stability we will all have.
This theme of interconnectedness and “non-zero sumness” is also evident in a TED talk by Paddy Ashdown, a former member of the British Parliament and a long-time diplomat. In his talk he noted:
Today in our modern world, because of the Internet, because of the kinds of things people have been talking about here, everything is connected to everything. We are now interdependent. We are now interlocked, as nations, as individuals, in a way which has never been the case before, never been the case before. The interrelationship of nations, well it’s always existed. Diplomacy is about managing the interrelationship of nations. But now we are intimately locked together. You get swine flu in Mexico, it’s a problem for Charles de Gaulle Airport 24 hours later. Lehman Brothers goes down, the whole lot collapses. There are fires in the steppes of Russia, food riots in Africa.
One implication of this is that many of our current governmental institutions have the wrong kind of structure for the world we live in:
And this tells you something very important. It tells you that, in fact, our governments, vertically constructed, constructed on the economic model of the Industrial Revolution — vertical hierarchy, specialization of tasks, command structures — have got the wrong structures completely. You in business know that the paradigm structure of our time, ladies and gentlemen, is the network. It’s your capacity to network that matters, both within your governments and externally.
This, in turn, leads to a conclusion that is very similar to Wright’s “non-zero” concept:
If it is the case, ladies and gentlemen — and it is — that we are now locked together in a way that has never been quite the same before, then it’s also the case that we share a destiny with each other. Suddenly and for the very first time, collective defense, the thing that has dominated us as the concept of securing our nations, is no longer enough. It used to be the case that if my tribe was more powerful than their tribe, I was safe; if my country was more powerful than their country, I was safe; my alliance, like NATO, was more powerful than their alliance, I was safe. It is no longer the case. The advent of the interconnectedness and of the weapons of mass destruction means that, increasingly, I share a destiny with my enemy.
It’s not yet clear how exactly we should enhance American security in this changing world. That’s part of the price we pay for living in a period of great change.
But what is clear is that the rules have changed – that simply having the biggest and baddest military around is no longer enough. This should have become clear to everyone over ten years ago, when a bunch of fanatics in one of the most isolated countries in the world managed to stage a devastating attack on American soil.
In his talk, Ashdown noted the many security threats a country faces today, from pandemic to food safety to cyber security to immigration of possible terrorists. He observed: “It’s no longer the case that the security of a country is simply a matter for its soldiers and its ministry of defense. It’s its capacity to lock together its institutions.”
What Wright and Ashdown appear to be saying is that building bigger and better walls to protect us is no longer adequate; it’s time we focused on strengthening our networks.
Signs of the Times – 1/19/12
Filed under: dual nature, emergent, signs of the times | Tags: bottom up, failing institutions, government, individualism
Leave a Comment I often come across items that I believe reflect the changes I’m describing on this blog. To me they are “signs of the times.” Here are a couple.
“The Rise of the New Groupthink”
The New York Times recently ran an article about a paradox in the way we work today. For many organizations, there is an emphasis on the idea of collaboration. As author Susan Cain notes:
Most of us now work in teams, in offices without walls, for managers who prize people skills above all. Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in.
However, she notes that there is a problem with this approach:
Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption. And the most spectacularly creative people in many fields are often introverted, according to studies by the psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Gregory Feist. They’re extroverted enough to exchange and advance ideas, but see themselves as independent and individualistic. They’re not joiners by nature.
Later in the article she says:
…I’m not suggesting that we abolish teamwork. Indeed, recent studies suggest that influential academic work is increasingly conducted by teams rather than by individuals. (Although teams whose members collaborate remotely, from separate universities, appear to be the most influential of all.) The problems we face in science, economics and many other fields are more complex than ever before, and we’ll need to stand on one another’s shoulders if we can possibly hope to solve them.
But even if the problems are different, human nature remains the same. And most humans have two contradictory impulses: we love and need one another, yet we crave privacy and autonomy.
To me this is an example of a basic principle of the Quantum Age: contrary to the popular myth that we must choose between individualism and collectivism, we are inherently both individualistic and collective by nature. We often have a hard time grasping this because it’s impossible to see both qualities simultaneously. You can see a group or you can see a person in that group; you can’t see both at the same time. But just as subatomic particles have an intrinsic dual particle/wave nature, we humans have a dual individual/collective nature. We will only resolve many of our current problems when we recognize this fact and proceed accordingly, disposing of the prevalent mythology regarding individualism versus collectivism.
Country in Crisis: Looking to America’s Mayors to Rise to the Challenge
Arianna Huffington recently wrote an article regarding how America’s mayors are working to develop solutions to problems that seem to be stumping the politicians in Washington. As she notes:
We’re now in the midst of a battle to see who will sit atop the pyramid in official Washington. This battle will dominate the media in the year ahead, but what the last year showed is that the more important story is what’s happening outside Washington. It was a year in which Time declared “The Protester” its Person of the Year and “Occupy” was named Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society. It was a year of solutions and energy and activism from the bottom up. And given that top-down thinking not only brought us a Depression-level crisis, but also shows no signs of getting us out of it, it’s bottom-up innovation that will be more relevant.
The rest of her article offers examples of such bottom-up innovation.
These examples demonstrate the power of emergence, the principle that living, self-organizing systems develop from the bottom up, within the context of their environment. As I’ve written here and here, many heads of institutions believe things are best run from the top down; that is a major reason why many of those institutions are in trouble. The solution will not be to accord more power and wealth to the heads of those institutions. The solution will be to recognize the power of emergence, and to learn how to rebuild our institutions in a way that harnesses that power.
Government By The People
Filed under: emergent, interconnected | Tags: Amazon.com, government, internet, linked world
Leave a Comment Modern technology has empowered us in many ways.
With a computer or smart phone I can (among other things) keep in touch with friends, share photos, check the weather, compare prices on just about anything, find out which products or vendors are good or bad, contribute to websites like Wikipedia, create and give or sell items, and express my thoughts on a blog.
Smart businesses have recognized this trend and tapped into it. Amazon.com lets you comment on any product they sell and even get a commission when you refer people to their site. eBay lets you set up your own virtual store. TV news and sportscasts create polls to gauge your opinion and offer opportunities to show off your photo of the latest news or weather event. Apple invites you to share playlists of your favorite tunes for their iTunes store. Everyone seems interested in what you want and what you think, and looks for ways to put you in the driver’s seat.
Everyone, that is, except for politicians.
When it comes to our government, politicians all too often seem more interested in doing what they want to do, in spite of what we voters think. And what politicians seem most interested in doing is catering to the wealthy and powerful who will reciprocate by helping them stay in office.
This is starting to piss people off.
We heard a lot in the last election about how angry Americans have become these days. The Tea Party got a lot of press about their anti-Democratic Party focus, but the anger really goes deeper. Frank Rich recently suggested that the cause of Americans’ anger today is:
“…the realization that both parties are bought off by special interests who game the system and stack it against the rest of us.”
This is true. But I think that anger and frustration is deepened further by the context of our times. When many other parts of our personal lives have become more responsive to our thoughts and needs, why does our government still seem so unresponsive? And how can we make government as responsive as a successful online store like Amazon.com?
This isn’t just a matter of Washington politics and big issues like bailing out Wall Street or health care reform. It also applies to minor local things like getting a pot hole fixed. If I have problems with an order on Amazon.com, I can usually get it fixed in short order. Why does it take government so much longer?
There are a number of reasons for this, including a lack of imagination and accountability by many of the people in charge and a lack of resources to create new technology-based systems that would increase efficiency. Sadly, another key reason is that the current system actually IS responsive to those who really matter: the politicians and their financial masters. If the head of Goldman-Sachs is bothered by a pothole on his street, what do you think the odds are that it’ll get fixed in a hurry? For the rich and powerful, what’s the problem?
In spite of all this, we actually are seeing some tentative signs of technology being used to make government more responsive to the average citizen, including:
- SeeClickFix offers citizens a way to notify their local government about an issue of concern (often something like a pothole). If you have an iPhone, there’s even an app for that;
- Give a Minute offers Chicago residents the chance to tell the Powers That Be what would encourage them to walk, bike, or take public transportation more often; and
- The US Initiative invites ideas for how we live together in cities.
While it’s promising to come across such initiatives, reviewing their websites has left me with doubts.
When I checked SeeClickFix for my neighborhood, I found a rather ragtag group of 9 items that citizens felt needed attention – some of which were reported 10 months ago and were still open. While some were general and less likely to be fully resolved (e.g., speeding cars on a heavily traveled road), some were seemingly simple items like potholes or sidewalk hazards. In addition, only two items were listed as “Fixed,” and those solutions were reported by other members of the public. I saw nothing that indicated our local government actually looked at and responded to the issues reported. So much for government responsiveness…
Meanwhile, the other two items listed above are projects supported by CEOs for Cities, an organization that appears to be focused on making cities more responsive to their residents. According to its website, CEOs for Cities was created in 2001 and:
“CEOs for Cities is a civic lab of today’s urban leaders catalyzing a movement to advance the next generation of great American cities. CEOs for Cities works with its network partners to develop great cities that excel in the areas most critical to urban success: talent, connections, innovation and distinctiveness.”
I don’t know about you, but my eyes glazed over just reading that paragraph. The rest of the CEOs for Cities website reads the same way: lots of $10 words strung together in an academic way that is almost guaranteed to put you to sleep. Meanwhile, the Give a Minute and US Initiative websites seemed very spritely graphics-wise, but they weren’t very user-friendly. The Give a Minute site seemed particularly hard to navigate. Maybe that’s why neither site seemed to be overflowing with citizen input.
So how do we make governments as responsive as Amazon.com? Well…
- Local governments could start using things like SeeClickFix and actually fixing (or at least responding to) the items their citizens report. Establishing a good track record would benefit both the local governments and their citizens.
- The people behind CEOs for Cities and its projects could read “Made to Stick – Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die” to learn how to make their points without sounding like a bunch of ivory tower eggheads. Being clear about what they’re doing and making citizens care about it might get more people involved.
- As for the rest of us? We should start demanding that government get with the program and become part of the 21st century. With today’s technology, we expect free access to information and the opportunity to use it to improve our lives and our worlds. And we’ll become angry with those who try to restrict and control both the information and us.
It’s time we revived the principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To the barricades!…er, keyboards!!!
Improving the Norm
Filed under: dual nature, emergent, holism | Tags: bottom up, CeaseFire, change, government, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, social norms
Leave a Comment New York Times columnist Bob Herbert had a recent column about an effort to reduce violence in Chicago. He points out that a basic problem with violent behavior is that many believe it’s just part of life, noting:
One of the most frightening aspects of the murderous violence plaguing so many urban neighborhoods across the country is the widespread notion among young people that killing somebody who ticks you off is normal. It’s something that is only to be expected, like eating when you’re hungry.
Herbert goes on to describe an initiative in Chicago called CeaseFire, which is
…trying to intervene in potentially violent situations to ward off tragic outcomes. Individuals who are most likely to be involved in violence, either as offenders or victims, are personally engaged, talked with, counseled, cajoled — whatever it takes to prevent bloodshed. Those who intervene know the streets firsthand, and in many cases are former gang members and convicts themselves.
While the immediate goal of CeaseFire is to stop the violence, the long range goal is to “change the violent norms of big-city environments.”
The program appears to be having success. According to a study by Prof. Wesley G. Skogan of Northwest University,
Over-time trends revealed that violence was down by one measure or another in six of the seven areas that were examined statistically. The broadest measure of shootings (which included attempts) declined an additional 17 to 24 percent, due to the program. In four overlapping sites there were distinctive declines in the number of persons actually shot or killed ranging from 16 to 34 percent.
CeaseFire is just one of numerous programs that take a more holistic approach to dealing with aberrant behaviors. For some time now Hobart and William Smith Colleges have been using a social norms approach to reduce binge drinking, and the program has received national attention. As an LA Times article noted in June of 2001,
The practice, called “social norms marketing,” has grown rapidly in the last three years, along with the realization that scolding, scaring, educating and even passing laws can’t stop young people from harming themselves and others. In sharp contrast to generations of adults who argued, “If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” the new theory encourages the young to conform, since most of their peers aren’t up to much anyway.
“The reality is, we’re herd animals and we behave in accordance with social norms and the expectations of others,” said H. Wesley Perkins, professor of sociology at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, N.Y., who is known as the father of social norms marketing. “We’re taking conformity behavior and using it in a positive way.”
The traditional approach to aberrant behavior is to view it in individualistic terms: if an individual misbehaves, it’s because there is something intrinsically wrong with them. The solution, according to this view, is to scare or browbeat the person into proper behavior.
However, if we take a cue from the wave/particle duality and recognize that people are inherently both individuals AND members of groups, we will recognize that only treating people as individuals is bound to be an incomplete approach. In addressing the context provided by the groups they belong to, the social norms approach helps create a complete approach to improving individual behaviors.
Failing Institutions
Filed under: emergent, interconnected | Tags: adaptability, Catholic Church, change, corporations, failure, Goldman Sachs, government, institutions, Pew Research Center, success, Tiger Woods, Toyota
Leave a Comment The Pew Research Center recently issued a report saying trust in government is very low, with 22% saying they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, and 19% saying they are “basically content” with the federal government.
This result got a lot of coverage in the news…and a lot of commentary from anti-government conservatives and libertarians. An example is this blog posting: 80% of Americans don’t trust the federal government; time to dissolve the people and elect another? Such a posting raises a variety of questions, including what does it mean to “dissolve the people” and what kind of math gets you from 22% trusting the government all or most of the time to 80% distrusting the government?
But there’s another, bigger question here: how much trust do people today have in other institutions? In a time when Goldman Sachs, Toyota, the Catholic Church, and Tiger Woods (a sports and business institution in his own right) have been messing up big time in the eyes of the public, is distrust in government an anomaly or just part of a trend?
As it turns out, Pew had something to say about that in the same report:
While anti-government sentiment has its own ideological and partisan basis, the public also expresses discontent with many of the country’s other major institutions. Just 25% say the federal government has a positive effect on the way things are going in the country and about as many (24%) say the same about Congress. Yet the ratings are just as low for the impact of large corporations (25% positive) and banks and other financial institutions (22%). And the marks are only slightly more positive for the national news media (31%), labor unions (32%) and the entertainment industry (33%).
Ironically, that part of the report received considerably less mention in the main stream media. But rather than dwelling on why that might be, the more interesting question is why trust in so many institutions is now so low.
As I’ve noted before, many institutions are failing because they haven’t adapted to the ways our world has changed. One thing that’s striking about many of the big institutions finding themselves in hot water these days is that a big part of their problem appears rooted in a mistaken belief that they are able to tightly manage/control the information about problematic issues. Toyota had problems with car defects; it tried to hide them. The Church had problems with perverted priests; it tried to hide them. Goldman Sachs had problems with very risky investments and very shady dealings to get rid of them; it tried to hide them. Tiger Woods had a thing for cocktail waitresses; he tried to hide it.
In an earlier, less connected time, perhaps these things wouldn’t have become such big deals. Probably past experience in hiding problems had led the leaders of these institutions to try a similar approach in these cases.
However, they apparently didn’t realize that in today’s hyper-connected world it’s almost inevitable that bad things will come to light – whether it’s vehicle flaws, priests behaving badly, devious investment strategies, or adulterous affairs. And now when the news DOES come out, the impact is likely to be much greater than it might have been before the Internet and global communications – especially if it’s apparent there was a cover-up involved.
These cases are all examples of how the world has changed but the people in leadership positions – who generally came to power the old fashioned way – were caught unaware of those changes. They may have achieved success by following the old rules, but times have changed and many of the old rules no longer apply.
Interestingly, I discussed this recently with a friend who used to handle corporate communications for a very large company. This friend had observed the same thing in their work:
(When I was there)…our CEO and other execs still believed you could “control the message.” It was a never ending battle to try to enlighten them to the realities of the wired world. Bottom line, it’s more convenient for them (and they are a proxy for all big business, the Church, etc) to try to perpetuate the command-and-control, one-way approach to communicating than to face up to the fact that there is no control and that “managing” their constituents effectively requires transparency, engagement and a true alignment between rhetoric and behavior. All of that is just too much work, and too threatening, for them to accept. It’s a brotherhood of ostriches — and sadly (ironically?), they’re proud of it.
So what does the future hold?
I think this time is like any other in which great change has taken place. Some people and institutions will adapt to change and thrive; others will fail to adapt and fall by the wayside, deserted by their former supporters and clients.
Some may loudly protest the change and uncertainty of today’s world. They may even gain enough influence to hamper some institutions’ ability to adapt to these changes. But they can’t stop the change itself. In attempting to turn back the clock and to resurrect an illusory past they will be much like a bunch of Americans in the Panama Canal Zone back in 1964: all they are likely to accomplish is a quicker demise of the institutions they had hoped to preserve.
I’ve never been a believer in the so-called “Wisdom of the Market” as the term applied to Wall Street. But I do believe in the idea as it applies to transformational times and ideas. When the times are changing, the ones who understand and adapt to those changes will be the ones who thrive in what comes.
In the end we will be left with a combination of old institutions that adapted and new institutions that saw a better way and followed it. Everything else will just be history.
Fixing the System
Filed under: complexity, emergent, holism | Tags: economy, government, systems thinking
Leave a Comment Many of the problems confronting the US today involve systems that aren’t working properly. Examples that come to mind include financial services (the banks), the economy in general, American healthcare, the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and global climate change.
In the recent past the solutions offered for such problems were simple and straightforward: deregulate, cut taxes, create healthcare savings accounts, change regimes, and…well, the Bush administration didn’t really talk much about climate change. Unfortunately, these solutions didn’t solve these problems. In fact, in many cases the problems only got worse. (A prime example would be Wall Street, in which deregulation enabled the buildup of some of the problems that led to last year’s financial meltdown.)
In today’s world we need to understand that problems with systems cannot be solved by simple-minded solutions that ignore the dynamics of the system. To adequately address such problems, we need to address the system as a system.
I don’t often agree with the NY Times’ David Brooks; I’ve found he can be perceptive in identifying an issue, but then his ideology often steers him away from what I consider to be reasonable solutions. But I was intrigued by an observation he made in today’s Times:
…there are several things the government can do to improve the economic ecology.
I wasn’t intrigued by a conservative columnist actually saying the government can do something – though that can be a bit of a shocker. What I found interesting was his term “economic ecology.” I don’t think he was talking in terms of ecological economics, which focuses on the interrelationship of economics with societies and the environment. I think he was just talking in terms of the economy as a living system.
It’s not clear in Brooks’ column if the solutions he lists are from a report from President Obama’s National Economic Council that he mentioned in the column, or if they are from Brooks himself. But they do appear to be focused on ways to enhance the economy as a system, much the way a farmer might improve his fields to increase the chances of a better harvest. Rather than having to choose between government control and market chaos, the solutions Brooks lists are aimed at letting progress emerge naturally:
This sort of agenda doesn’t rely on politicians who think they can predict the next new thing. Nor does it mean merely letting the market go its own way. (The market seems to have a preference for useless financial instruments and insane compensation packages.)
Instead, it’s an agenda that would steer and spark innovation without controlling it, which is what government has done since the days of Alexander Hamilton. It’s the sort of thing the country does periodically, each time we need to recover from one of our binges of national stupidity.
In a similar vein, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a systems-based look at one aspect of America’s healthcare system: employer-provided health insurance. Specifically, Klein looks at the relationship between this insurance benefit and employee wages, and how people’s perception of that relationship can shape how they feel about controlling healthcare costs:
But health-care coverage is not a benefit. It’s a wage deduction. When premium costs go up, wages go down. When premium costs go down, wages go up. Yet workers don’t know that. In fact, the information is hidden from them. That means that cost control seems like all pain and no gain, which makes it virtually impossible for Congress to pass. It’s like asking someone to diet when they don’t realize it will help them lose weight.
Like Brooks, Klein presents a possible solution that doesn’t seek direct control of anyone’s behavior, but instead strives to increase people’s understanding of the system:
Perhaps the easiest way to dramatize the issue for workers would be to attach health-care costs to each paycheck. If employers listed the cost of health care alongside the bite taken by payroll taxes, it would be much clearer to workers that health-care coverage was coming out of their wages, not out of their employer’s largess. That, at least, could help them see the costs of the system more clearly, which is, unfortunately, something that all the congressional debate isn’t helping anyone do.
The expectation inherent in Klein’s solution is that an increased understanding of the system would lead people to see their own interest in increasing the system’s efficiency and sustainability.
With so many systems in crisis in our world today, it’s heartening to see that at least some of the solutions being discussed reflect at least some awareness of system dynamics.
Who’ll Pave the Roads?
Filed under: holism, interconnected | Tags: government, stimulus, tax cuts
Leave a Comment It was great to hear the recent news that Albany’s Delaware Avenue would be repaved thanks to funds from the recent stimulus bill. That road, one of the main streets in Albany (NY), has been in sad shape for a long time.
Unfortunately, Delaware Avenue is not the only street around that needs a lot of help. Almost any community in the country has similar streets needing major work. And there are many other pieces of the country’s infrastructure – like water lines, for example – that are falling apart.
The Republican solution to any problem facing our country appears to be one thing: cut taxes. As Republican Senator McCain said in discussing the stimulus:
“We need to make tax cuts permanent, and we need to make a commitment that there’ll be no new taxes,” Mr. McCain said. “We need to cut payroll taxes. We need to cut business taxes.”
In a column praising Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker notes Jindal’s comments on the Today Show the day after Obama’s speech to Congress:
Praising Obama’s objectives — while conceding that Republicans have lost fiscal credibility — he emphasized his preference for policies that help businesses create jobs rather than government programs he fears will require a taxpayer feeding tube in perpetuity.
While it’s important that businesses are able to create jobs, that isn’t the only factor in the quality of life for a community or a country. In today’s complex, inter-connected world, our quality of life is a product of many factors. Having a job feels very important these days. But so are having decent streets to drive on and decent water to drink (among other things).
Republicans like to claim they’d rather let you keep more of your own money, because you’ll have a better idea of how to spend it. But they never talk about the effect reduced revenues have on the world we live in.
In particular, how does giving me a tax cut get the roads paved and the water lines repaired?
What’s Going On?
Filed under: chaos | Tags: change, corporations, financial crisis, government
Leave a Comment It’s hard to look at what’s happening in the world today without wondering what the heck is going on.
To take just the latest example…America’s financial system appears to be spinning out of control, and nobody can agree on what caused the current problems or how we should deal with them. Any solution proposed is broadly met with skepticism because no one believes the government or the business community has either the ability or the integrity to develop a proper and workable solution. Meanwhile, as we’re attempting to deal with this problem, its effects ripple out through the rest of the world’s financial systems.
As we’re dealing with all this, we’re confronted with similar problems in many other areas: the environment is stressed, personal integrity and ethics seem to be irrelevant in today’s society, and people of different cultures, tribes or religions seem to be at each other’s throats.
When people view such problems, they seem to react in one of three ways: they deny there’s a problem, they try to force their solutions on everyone/everything else around them, or they throw up their hands and say it’s hopeless and nothing can be done.
As if that isn’t enough, there appears to be a general abandonment of common sense. If we had looked rationally at the housing bubble, we would have had to admit it couldn’t last forever. If we had looked rationally at the cultural dynamics of the Middle East, we would have realized invading Iraq was not likely to be a “piece of cake.” And if we looked rationally at all the junk being dumped into the environment around the world, we would have to acknowledge that we’ve been gradually making our world uninhabitable.
What’s going on?
And what are we to do?
I believe we are going through a period of great change. This change is a product of the many new technologies that have been made possible by modern science. These technologies, in turn, are rooted in the ways science has come to redefine our understanding of our world.
I believe that if we draw on principles discovered by modern science, we will be able to develop a new form of common sense – a “quantum sense,” if you will – that can give us new ways of seeing our world and new approaches to solving its problems.
Today many people are doing exactly that – drawing on lessons from modern science to propose new solutions. As I come across examples of this, I’ll present them here. I’ll also comment on issues from time to time, drawing on what I call “eight facets of the quantum world.” You can get a rundown on those facets, as well as my general ideas on this subject, at my web site “Quantum Age.”
Meanwhile, I welcome any leads on other cases where someone has used ideas from modern science to develop a new approach to a seemingly intractable problem. And I hope you’ll join me as we strive to achieve “quantum sense.”
Thanks for stopping by!
