This is truly amazing and of course deeply troubling. Wish I discovered SD and all these people work much earlier but now is still better than later. Shared to many.
The ISCM FOUNDATION, is working on various transitional economic orders, by addressing the roles of banks to fund various sustainable growth options that lead to less consumption of natural resources and a balanced reduction of population to secure coping mechanisms of this planet. One of the first steps is to repair the current state of affairs; the underlying assumption that constant reinforcing economic growth must prevail and the same formula to be expanded into societies of ‘poverty-led countries’, which leads to non-sensical results. We seemingly are unable to learn from the future - systemic thinking and system dynamics evidently provides proof. We evidently maintain policies of copying the ‘unlimited growth virus’ into other ‘poor’ countries to adopt the genetics of a pre-programmed failing system. Hence, we also expanding an education system that fails to deliver education that enables to discover that continues consumption is unsustainable. Universities and business schools have to fundamentally change their role in society and contribute to conduct responsible education in terms of distributing sustainable knowledge-led global economics. If not, I am afraid, we may conclude that Jay Forrester’s scenario, namely to enter into a self-destructing war is the balancing act to treat the illusion that unlimited growth does not exist.
Ahhh it is splitting hairs but I think "There is no Technological solution to climate change" is more accurate than "technical" because I think the solution is a "technical economic" solution.
@25 minutes in you do not understand the issues that are facing the people making the technology. We do not have sufficient legal or incentive based systems to handle the technology. Right now the technology-- or rather the culture, both legal and business, that determines which technology will get investment, does not factor in non profit based incentives. As someone actively working on this issue-- you have no idea -- how impossible it is to get investment, or to any one to even attempt to understand new business models. In fact, the way you talk about it, undervalues the potential economic impact because you are not even trying to guess at the value lost through information hording. For example-- let's just say that as we get further into the future solutions become more expensive. There for anything we can do now makes economic sense (on the meta scale), however because of the need for ROI on the research and development of this tech-- we will not share it and give it away for the use of the tech-- we will have to sell it. This prevents the scaling of usable of solutions-- IE even if we had a valid linear solution to something like carbon sequestration, the economic system we use would make it's implementation slow, due to IP control. Before you can even get to technology as a solution, you have to look at the business environment to see if your meta system's incentive structures are even attempting to support what your intention is trying. No current market technology support your intentions. The solutions is not a better company, nor a better organization. The solution is a better market that will allow for those things to exist. Best, Jordan Service
This is good you get most of the issues right. However I think you could really help on the messaging to create a social movement and to drive the change you are looking for. AGW is an economic issue full stop so thre is a technical issue, once you fix the technical issue you can start to fix the issue of extraction. The entire issue is our economy is based on extraction and taxation based on that extraction. Please check out: www.pietranetwork.com/fintech-valueism However new technology will not work in the current business system because it is still based on extraction we must change the formation of Business and economics. It's a deep issue but it goes into how currency is created through debt and interest requiring ROI. There is now a possibility to have an economy based on "effort" based on addeed value of technology but it needs scale and though leaders in the fields-- and ai or simple AI, will increase the speed of our destruction, if they are release in a for profit manner. We have about 5-10 years to make an AI / AGI system that is not- for profit-- or extraction based.
@39:41 ok this model is silly. "Consumption" We are tired of being modeled as consumers! God damn, we are creators and you are not unleashing our creativity... It so annoying all the questions and your entire framing is consumption based, why don't you ask people WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ?! I hate your framing it is so wrong and based in the world your trying to correct. Not say it is not true, but it is only pointing to issues and not solutions.
If your hypothesis that we were inventors rather than consumers were true, then we should be seeing declining rather than increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in recent years.
Pardon but you, by commenting here, are a consumer of CZcams and Google services. See? The truth is that we are both consumers and creators. We create ideas but consume things that are here both with ideas and natural resources. That's a fact. Your framing is equally narrow sighted, as we're many things not just the 2. But following the argument in the lecture, it's perfectly ok to be seen as consumers for this purpose.
@@emilferent23 Of course humans both consume and create. It's eating and birth by abstraction. That is my point! We are not one thing. And models that look at consumption only are limiting.
This is truly amazing and of course deeply troubling. Wish I discovered SD and all these people work much earlier but now is still better than later. Shared to many.
Amazing lecture. Thanks for sharing
Eye opening even after several years!
The ISCM FOUNDATION, is working on various transitional economic orders, by addressing the roles of banks to fund various sustainable growth options that lead to less consumption of natural resources and a balanced reduction of population to secure coping mechanisms of this planet. One of the first steps is to repair the current state of affairs; the underlying assumption that constant reinforcing economic growth must prevail and the same formula to be expanded into societies of ‘poverty-led countries’, which leads to non-sensical results. We seemingly are unable to learn from the future - systemic thinking and system dynamics evidently provides proof.
We evidently maintain policies of copying the ‘unlimited growth virus’ into other ‘poor’ countries to adopt the genetics of a pre-programmed failing system. Hence, we also expanding an education system that fails to deliver education that enables to discover that continues consumption is unsustainable. Universities and business schools have to fundamentally change their role in society and contribute to conduct responsible education in terms of distributing sustainable knowledge-led global economics. If not, I am afraid, we may conclude that Jay Forrester’s scenario, namely to enter into a self-destructing war is the balancing act to treat the illusion that unlimited growth does not exist.
Ahhh it is splitting hairs but I think "There is no Technological solution to climate change" is more accurate than "technical" because I think the solution is a "technical economic" solution.
It is not possible for humanity to sustain private vehicle ownership in the long term - that is a fact
@25 minutes in you do not understand the issues that are facing the people making the technology. We do not have sufficient legal or incentive based systems to handle the technology. Right now the technology-- or rather the culture, both legal and business, that determines which technology will get investment, does not factor in non profit based incentives.
As someone actively working on this issue-- you have no idea -- how impossible it is to get investment, or to any one to even attempt to understand new business models. In fact, the way you talk about it, undervalues the potential economic impact because you are not even trying to guess at the value lost through information hording.
For example-- let's just say that as we get further into the future solutions become more expensive. There for anything we can do now makes economic sense (on the meta scale), however because of the need for ROI on the research and development of this tech-- we will not share it and give it away for the use of the tech-- we will have to sell it.
This prevents the scaling of usable of solutions-- IE even if we had a valid linear solution to something like carbon sequestration, the economic system we use would make it's implementation slow, due to IP control.
Before you can even get to technology as a solution, you have to look at the business environment to see if your meta system's incentive structures are even attempting to support what your intention is trying.
No current market technology support your intentions. The solutions is not a better company, nor a better organization. The solution is a better market that will allow for those things to exist.
Best,
Jordan Service
This is good you get most of the issues right. However I think you could really help on the messaging to create a social movement and to drive the change you are looking for. AGW is an economic issue full stop so thre is a technical issue, once you fix the technical issue you can start to fix the issue of extraction.
The entire issue is our economy is based on extraction and taxation based on that extraction.
Please check out:
www.pietranetwork.com/fintech-valueism
However new technology will not work in the current business system because it is still based on extraction we must change the formation of Business and economics. It's a deep issue but it goes into how currency is created through debt and interest requiring ROI. There is now a possibility to have an economy based on "effort" based on addeed value of technology but it needs scale and though leaders in the fields-- and ai or simple AI, will increase the speed of our destruction, if they are release in a for profit manner.
We have about 5-10 years to make an AI / AGI system that is not- for profit-- or extraction based.
@39:41 ok this model is silly. "Consumption" We are tired of being modeled as consumers! God damn, we are creators and you are not unleashing our creativity... It so annoying all the questions and your entire framing is consumption based, why don't you ask people WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ?!
I hate your framing it is so wrong and based in the world your trying to correct. Not say it is not true, but it is only pointing to issues and not solutions.
If your hypothesis that we were inventors rather than consumers were true, then we should be seeing declining rather than increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in recent years.
Pardon but you, by commenting here, are a consumer of CZcams and Google services. See?
The truth is that we are both consumers and creators. We create ideas but consume things that are here both with ideas and natural resources. That's a fact.
Your framing is equally narrow sighted, as we're many things not just the 2. But following the argument in the lecture, it's perfectly ok to be seen as consumers for this purpose.
@@emilferent23 Of course humans both consume and create. It's eating and birth by abstraction. That is my point! We are not one thing. And models that look at consumption only are limiting.