Current Issue - See Below Archived Issues - Click Here
The Global Systems Review Issue 13 February 2010
The Global Systems Review is a periodic e-newsletter that explores critical world issues through the lens of whole systems thinking.
On February 16 Global Systems Initiatives, along with Connect U.S. Fund and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, sponsored a one-day event on U.S. Global Engagement in the Age of Interconnectedness: An Inquiry into a Systems Approach to Policy-Making.
The day was a series of roundtable discussions engaging leaders from the administration, the non-governmental community, funders, and systems experts in an inquiry process that sought to:
Identify specific ideas and proposals for how policymakers and those who seek to influence them can usefully apply systems thinking to difficult global challenges.
The approximately 35 participants addressed the issues of Climate Change, Food Security, and Nuclear Non-Proliferation from a multi-disciplinary perspective, looking especially at how a systems lens might add value to the policy process.
This issue of the Global Systems Review presents reflections on this event.
In this Issue:
Policy-Making in an Interconnected World
Fritjof Capra, Ph.D.
[This paper was the foundation of Dr. Capra’s opening remarks at the February 16 Systems and Policy Roundtable, reprinted here with his permission.]
Our interconnected world is a world of multiple networks — social networks (or communities), technological networks, financial networks, etc. — all of which are interlinked with the ecological networks, or ecosystems, of our living Planet. The outstanding characteristic of all these networks is that their links, or relationships, form nonlinear patterns. Moreover, they are not static, but are networks of interlinked processes involving individuals, human communities, and ecosystems.
The study of these nonlinear networks is at the very forefront of science today. One of the most exciting scientific advances of the last three decades has been the development of a new mathematical theory of nonlinear systems, known popularly as complexity theory and technically as nonlinear dynamics. As these names imply, complex systems are nonlinear systems — that's their defining characteristic — and living networks are the most important example of such complex systems.
Complexity theory has led to significant advances in our understanding of living systems with important implications for the management of human organizations healthcare, economics, and many other fields, including policy making.
It seems to me that the main problems of developing successful policies in this interconnected world derive from the fact that most of our thinking tends to be linear and is thus inappropriate for dealing with the nonlinear interconnectedness of the biosphere and its human and ecological communities. Our great challenge is to learn how to think in terms of relationships, cycles, networks. This is what is known as "systems thinking," or "systemic thinking." For example, the traditional belief that, if something is good more of it will be better, shows linear thinking that does not work in a world of networks, cycles and feedback loops. Instead of maximizing in this interconnected world, we need to optimize. The persistent illusion of economists that unlimited quantitative growth can be maintained on a finite Planet is, perhaps, the most extreme example of flawed linear thinking with serious harmful consequences.
Systems thinking is always contextual thinking. Every problem, or strategy, must be examined in terms of its connections with other issues. For example, the statement that nuclear power does not emit CO2 reflects a narrow, linear view. When we consider the entire (nonlinear!) nuclear fuel cycle, we find that the operation of nuclear power plants emits about 27% of the CO2 emitted from coal-fired plants. Moreover, worldwide uranium supplies are limited. As the mining and refining of less concentrated uranium ores becomes more and more difficult, the energy required for these processes will increase, together with the resulting CO2 emissions, until, within just one or two decades, the generation of nuclear power will emit as much CO2 as coal-fired plants, and will produce no net energy. So, systems thinking — without even talking about the inherent health risks — makes it evident that nuclear electricity has no future, and that investing in nuclear power today is non-productive, diverting money from much more effective and less problematic investments in renewable energy sources and energy conservation.
A systems thinker would also be aware of the fact that, historically as well as technically, nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inextricably linked. All nuclear power plants are potential bomb factories. From a systemic perspective, our government's concern about nuclear proliferation is at variance with the active promotion and encouragement of the dissemination of nuclear technology and expertise.
Systems thinking means being able to see how the major problems of our time — energy, environment, economy, health, security — are all interconnected. It means being able to "connect the dots," to use a popular phrase. For example, if we manufactured ultra light cars and trucks, with bodies made of plastic composites instead of metal, we would cut the weight of our vehicles in half and thus double their fuel efficiency. And since today, transportation uses 70% of U.S. oil, this would mean cutting our consumption of oil by 35%. (It would also mean saving half of the energy used by electric cars or any other form of propulsion.) These ultra light and ultra strong plastic composites are now being mass produced by Boeing for their new Dreamliner. It would be easy to transfer this technology to the automobile sector. Of course, this would mean a lot of retooling of automobile plants, which would cost some money but would also create about a million jobs. So, lets pay for it from our defense budget, because retooling our vehicle industry to make it fuel efficient would mean the end of oil as a strategic commodity. This would result in dramatic savings in the military budget, since we would no longer need to fight wars for protecting oil supplies. In addition, it would have a huge beneficial impact on climate change and unemployment. You see, that's systems thinking in action — connecting the dots.
Agriculture is another good example. Changing from our chemical, large-scale, energy-intensive, industrial agriculture to organic, community-oriented, sustainable farming would contribute significantly to solving three of our biggest problems. It would greatly reduce our energy dependence, because we are now using one fifth of our fossil fuels to grow and process food. The healthy, organically grown food would have a huge positive effect on public health, because many chronic diseases — heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and about 40% of cancers — are linked to our diet. And finally, organic farming would contribute significantly to fighting climate change, because an organic soil is a carbon-rich soil, which means that it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and locks it up in organic matter. So, again, this is an example of a typical systemic solution.
Well, these are specific examples, but how can we craft coherent overall policies in this terribly complex, interconnected world? It seems to me that the smartest way would be to learn from the wisdom of nature, whose ecosystems have had over 3 billion years to evolve complex but elegant principles of organization and "designs" that are energy-efficient, non-polluting, and sustainable.
Knowledge of these principles of organization, or principles of ecology, is known as ecological literacy. Being ecologically literate means, if you wish, knowing the basic facts of life: that one species' waste is another species' food, that matter cycles continually through the web of life, that the energy driving the ecological cycles flows from the sun, that diversity assures resilience, and that life, from its beginning 3 billion years ago, did not take over the planet by combat but by networking.
These basic principles of ecology are the foundation of the rapidly growing ecodesign movement. The great variety of ecodesign — or "green" — technologies and projects that are now being developed all have some key characteristics in common. They tend to be small-scale projects with plenty of diversity, energy efficient, non-polluting, community oriented, and labor intensive, creating plenty of jobs. These common characteristics derive from the fact that green technologies incorporate sound ecological principles. I would suggest that those principles of ecology should also be the principles underlying successful policy making in our interconnected world.
In conclusion, I want to mention that thinking in terms of networks, as well as creating and nurturing social networks, has been a characteristic of non-government organizations for decades. The environmental movement, the human rights movement, the feminist movement, the peace movement, and many other political and cultural grassroots movements have been "networking" globally since the 1970s, long before the emergence of the Internet.
Today, we have a new civil society, a global coalition of NGOs that are interlinked through their websites and emails, as well as through personal contacts and friendships. This civil society includes a network of scholars, research institutes, think tanks, and centers of learning around the world, which are at the forefront of systems thinking — both in its theoretical development and in its application to the concrete problems of our time.
If the administration is serious about integrating systems thinking into policy development, tapping into the knowledge and expertise of the global civil society would be a very smart move. I hope very much that our dialogues today will be a first step in this direction.
Fritjof Capra, Ph.D., is a renowned physicist, author, and international public speaker. His 1975 book, The Tao of Physics, was one of the first to bring the quantum or systems worldview to the attention of the general public. Fritjof is a founding director of The Center for Ecoliteracy. Learn more at www.fritjofcapra.net and www.ecoliteracy.org.
Questions from the Edge of Chaos
Louise Diamond, Ph.D.
[What follows is in some sense a summary, in some degree a reflection, of the key themes that emerged from our recent event.]
When government officials, past and present, met with systems experts, funders, and civil society leaders at the Systems and Policy Roundtable recently, as many new questions arose as answers were attempted.
We understand that the challenges we face as a human community in these times are a set of interconnected systems – environmental, economic, political, and social – that are near or over the edge of chaos. This unprecedented degree of interdependence requires actors from every sector and across national boundaries to be innovative, resilient, adaptive, and collaborative.
We know that living systems seek the best fit with their environment. So we are not surprised to learn that government actors, as well as those from other sectors, are exploring how to operate effectively in this landscape of complexity and urgency, where linear thinking does not suit a non-linear environment, where top-down, command-and-control methods do not work well in a networked world of distributed and de-centralized power; and where no one player by acting alone can ‘fix’ anything.
This exploration meets its own set of constraints: political and organizational culture, norms, and procedures in our institutions (governmental and international) are not necessarily conducive to navigating this new landscape. We have stove-piped agencies, an incentive structure that does not reward risk-taking or sharing credit, and a strong ‘us against them’ mentality deeply ingrained in our view of national and global relationships. And more.
How, then, can government re-vision its role and its methods of operating, given the need and also the constraints, to best fit with the new environment of global interdependence and failing systems we find ourselves in?
Some of the sub-questions around this core inquiry that arose from our day together included:
- How can government create conditions that would facilitate the emergence of new solutions? What are those conditions?
- How can government convene and connect actors from many sectors to catalyze innovation?
- How can government insure diversity of views to enable resilience and creativity?
- How can government learn from, integrate, and support the great surge of innovation occurring at the local and civil society levels, especially in the realms of green energy and sustainable agriculture?
- How can government build trust networks and support honest dialogues on critical issues to transcend the current divisiveness?
- How can government explore common patterns across different scales and dimensions to extract new learning?
- How can government recognize, initiate, and nourish effective networks, internally, externally, and in combination?
- How can government best utilize the knowledge and best practices of other disciplines and existing networks to craft the best-informed policies?
- How can government know, and show, that a systems approach is actually better – can we produce a ‘proof of concept?’
Of course, the responsibility is not just on the government. We also noted the importance of public education, training in systems thinking at all levels, and the roles of the media, the non-governmental community, and the funders. We are all engaged in this great, some would say evolutionary, shift – from a worldview of separateness to one where truly we are all in this together.
A study of complex systems tells us that the space near the edge of chaos is a rich one, for it shakes up old ways of thinking and doing and lets loose a surge of creative energy for finding new approaches and opportunities. As our climate, energy, food, water, security, and other systems approach that edge, we can be grateful that these questions are being asked, for it is in the asking that the answers we need can emerge; it is in the seeking that we discover the potential waiting to be born.
Louise Diamond, Ph.D., is president of Global Systems Initiative; author, public speaker, consultant, and trainer. Learn more at www.globalsystemsinitiative.net.
Worldview Coherence: President Obama Must Become More Coherent
James O’Dea
A worldview is a framework of meaning in which core notions are reliably and consistently ordered. Often used interchangeably with the word paradigm, which derives from the verb to pars, our worldviews are thus the fundamental grammar we use to structure meaning. From this we can deduct that our worldview must hold our meaning together and when it doesn’t it loses coherence and we lose coherence as meaning makers.
Coherence is rarely simplistic however. One of its defining characteristics is that it engages complexity and creates an evolving narrative based on the selection of appropriate new ideas and information. Somewhere between obvious worldview incoherence and rigid hyper-coherence lies coherence---it is not an exact science.
If your belief system cannot hang together under scrutiny, it is clearly incoherent: maybe you just needed someone to point out its inconsistencies to you or, perhaps you hadn’t taken the time to examine it closely; it is easy to coast along these days. On the other hand, if your worldview is hyper-coherent you intentionally exclude anything that doesn’t fit your model of reality. From this perspective there is no place for any other model of truth to fit in: you’ve got it nailed tight and you feel threatened when your worldview is challenged.
So if we think of a continuum, with loosey-goosey worldview formation at one end and fundamentalist suffocation at the other—the center is where we will find worldview coherence. It will be evident by its ability to withstand scrutiny, and various modalities of examination and inquiry; it will be capable of self-illumination and able to demonstrate an ability to dialogue with difference. Let me emphasize that dialogue with difference is not the same as compromising with worldviews which are its antithesis—such a strategy only leads back to worldview incoherence.
In the center zone of this continuum, space is created for processing others’ inputs and revising templates of understanding. There is something very dynamic about worldview coherence which maintains its integrity while optimizing its adaptability at the same time: coherence is always in movement, in adaptation. This does not mean that it is always running after the next best thing: its movement must be more studied and incorporate consolidation strategies. This consolidation confirms the reliability of new ideas and new approaches even when they come from radically fresh perspectives. So worldview coherence avoids becoming so rigid in its consolidation of meaning that it loses the ability to digest brilliant new ideas or so flexible that it is always trying on new approaches.
In order to sustain this dynamism and balance worldview coherence must have dialogue as its central principle. Why so? Dialogue displays a readiness to receive all kinds of feedback and examine the validity of different gradations of meaning. Dialogue displays an openness to scrutiny and the evaluation of contrary perspectives. It also offers opportunities for validation and the expression of genuine conviction. Dialogue is not about negotiation; it is about competing truth claims, contrasting experiences and reaching understanding about how context influences choice and behavior. Dialogue requires listening and because it does, it offers us opportunities to absorb new information and discern nuances. In a complex world mastering nuances and shades of meaning often adds vitally needed psychological, emotional and social intelligence to mentally framed and mentally understood problems. You could say dialogue becomes a medium where the inner and outer meet and where a measure of wholeness is attained. The more wholeness is attained the more coherence will be found to be present.
Briefly let us examine the concept of worldview coherence in relation to President Obama. Specifically, it is worth exploring one issue, his stated belief that Islam and the West share “common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” These words come from his historic Cairo address to the Islamic world, when he also said, “there must be sustained efforts to listen to each other, to learn from each other and to respect one another.” In order to evaluate the coherence of the Administration’s policies in this arena we would need to understand where it is has made sustained efforts to “listen” “learn” and “respect”. In his own framing the President expressed a central belief in the urgent need to create the context for dialogue between Islam and the West. He linked this to a vision of an interdependent world, to making significant progress on behalf of the Palestinian people, to ending terrorism by extremists and so on. Yet he finds himself facing increased Islamic fundamentalist radicalism, greater infringements on the rights of Palestinians and a hostile Iranian government, which he had hoped to open a dialogue with, intent on pursuing nuclear weapons. In a letter I recently received from a Pakistani friend in Lahore he indicated that the view from the average mosque was becoming more virulently anti-western and that the U.S. was once again seen as conducting a war against Islam. This must be profoundly disturbing to President Obama.
Yet his own stated worldview is compromised: the honesty and integrity of his Cairo address has not been sustained. In that address he also said that we must not hide the truth behind closed doors but rather, “We must say openly the things we hold in our hearts.” Why does he not speak what is in his heart? He knows all too well that things are getting worse for the Palestinians and that a new wave of radicalism will stem from the denial of their rights. He knows that many Moslem governments live in fear of rising Islamic fundamentalism and that while they condemn terrorism they largely fail to take on the Islamic arguments used by extremists or confront clerics who distort the “principles of justice, progress, and tolerance” within Islam and forge a theology of religious supremacy and violence. He knows that the president of Iran calls for the annihilation of Israel and denies the greatest human rights catastrophe in human history, namely the Holocaust. President Obama has missed his own central premise around dialogue: it isn’t dialogue if the truth is not clearly and boldly enunciated.
Worldview coherence has many components as we have noted, but it is not so complex that it buries the truth or dims the expression of conscience. More than anything we evolve as a species around the clear and uncompromising expression of higher truth. That is what ended slavery, what has forged the rights of women, and challenges every form of bigotry and exploitation. And that is what is needed most from a world leader who must speak the truth about global climate change, disastrous food and water shortages, true economic and ecologic sustainability and the revolution in human consciousness needed to move us beyond war as the way to solve our problems. President Obama is more than capable of defining a new center of worldview coherence for the United States and its pivotal role in the emerging planetary civilization; to do so will require the translation of great oratory into action and the transformation of outmoded governmental hierarchies into creative collaboration with civil society.
It will require deeply engaged and truthful dialogue both within government and outside of it to catalyze the momentum needed to bring a worldview of global interdependence into coherent relationship with much needed systemic transformation. Incoherence loses its way and the pendulum swings from there to the hyper-coherent rigidity of truly outmoded paradigms which only serve the inertia of systems unable to adapt and teetering on collapse. But hopefully we will evolve beyond this kind of ping-pong in the political sphere to forge a coherent path forward: never has our planet more needed it.
Let me end with more of President Obama’s words as you read them, ask yourself how they can be translated into coherent policy frameworks and action:
“We have learned that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. . Given our interdependence any world order that elevates one nation or group over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it.”
James O’Dea is a Fellow and past president of the Institute for Noetic Sciences. Previously he was executive director of Seva Foundation and director of the Washington office of Amnesty International. Learn more at www.jamesodea.com.
Resources – For a reading list on Systems and Policy, click here.
|
