6 ms·

From Donella Meadows [1]: PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM (in increasing order of effectiveness) 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standard

From Donella Meadows [1]: PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM (in increasing order of effectiveness) 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards). 8. Regulating negative feedback loops. 7. Driving positive feedback loops. 6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection. 5. Information flows. 4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints). 3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system. 2. The goals of the system. 1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture — arises. Regarding point 2: What is the goal of the current system? [1] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/ https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-t...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nonrandomstring 3y ago
For all of you who are genuinely interested in Meadows' system theory here's the first two of a running cybershow series [0,1] talking about levearage points in a modern context. [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 [1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19
harimau777 3y ago
If we go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha..., then the goal of the current system is to create wealth inequality.
- 0thgen 3y ago
  is the purpose of chemotherapy to make people lose their hair?
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    It usually cures cancer. The current government concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. Less than 1% of the population owns nearly 50% of the wealth.
    - 0thgen 3y ago
      Ok. But should "purpose" be redefined as "outcome", as the parent comment suggests? My thought is no, and that's why "purpose" and "outcome" aren't synonyms in the english language
      - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
        Wealth inequality here is growth of the richest few. That's why the economy by some measures is doing great - the rich are getting richer. I don't see where you are getting the word purpose from. I assume you mean goal. If you want to place any outcome in the place of the major or most important outcome, then I arbitrarily declare our government's goal is to move paperclips, as that is an outcome. I need to study that list of logical fallacies, because obviously curing cancer is the purpose of chemo, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.
luis_cho 3y ago
I would say that the main objective of the current system is to grow. We measure this with the GDP. This growth is necessary for the current system to survive, to pay our debts or keep our jobs, but is also incompatible with reducing carbon emissions [1] If we could imagine new objectives we can change the paradigm. For instance we could try to have a carbon dividend as a complement to jobs creation [2]. [1] https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nonrandomstring 3y ago

For all of you who are genuinely interested in Meadows' system theory here's the first two of a running cybershow series [0,1] talking about levearage points in a modern context. [0] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=21 [1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=19

harimau777 3y ago

If we go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha..., then the goal of the current system is to create wealth inequality.

0thgen 3y ago
is the purpose of chemotherapy to make people lose their hair?
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  It usually cures cancer. The current government concentrates wealth in the hands of the few. Less than 1% of the population owns nearly 50% of the wealth.
  - 0thgen 3y ago
    Ok. But should "purpose" be redefined as "outcome", as the parent comment suggests? My thought is no, and that's why "purpose" and "outcome" aren't synonyms in the english language
    - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
      Wealth inequality here is growth of the richest few. That's why the economy by some measures is doing great - the rich are getting richer. I don't see where you are getting the word purpose from. I assume you mean goal. If you want to place any outcome in the place of the major or most important outcome, then I arbitrarily declare our government's goal is to move paperclips, as that is an outcome. I need to study that list of logical fallacies, because obviously curing cancer is the purpose of chemo, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.

luis_cho 3y ago

I would say that the main objective of the current system is to grow. We measure this with the GDP. This growth is necessary for the current system to survive, to pay our debts or keep our jobs, but is also incompatible with reducing carbon emissions [1] If we could imagine new objectives we can change the paradigm. For instance we could try to have a carbon dividend as a complement to jobs creation [2]. [1] https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend