How to stop climate change: six ways to make the world a better place (with systems change) – the Conversation

Source: How to stop climate change: six ways to make the world a better place

How to stop climate change: six ways to make the world a better place

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg claims we need system change to save the planet, and the majority of experts, from the IPCC, through to our own research, would certainly agree with this.

But for most people, it often isn’t clear what changes actually need to be made to address environmental problems. And ideas that are presented can be seem as extreme to some. This is despite the fact that many experts agree that to really tackle climate change, the focus needs to be on changing the capitalist system to make it more environment-friendly.

System change can sound scary, but as the current system drives social injustice and environmental destruction, a new approach to address bothi s called for. These are some suggestions to help build that new system which also aim to improve people’s lives in the process.

Continues in source How to stop climate change: six ways to make the world a better place

LINKAGE PROPOSITIONS BETWEEN FIFTY PRINCIPAL SYSTEMS CONCEPTS L. Raphael Troncale (1978)

Institute for Advanced Systems Studies
California State Polytechnic University
Pomona, California, U.S.A.

1.0 INTRODUCTION: THE NEED FOR LINKAGES BETWEEN GENERAL SYSTEMS

CONCEPTS
Ackoff states that “the concepts and terms comonly used to
talk about systems have not themselves been organized into a system [1].” Margaret Mead can be heard meeting after meeting criticizing the field she helped popularize for not applying the
“systems approach” to itself. The comparatively slow development
of a paradigm in general systems theory [compare with fields described in (2) and especially (3)] is characterized by endless redefining of the same few terms followed by the rediscovery, and
often rewording of the most comon of these terms in each new
discipline as it “popularizes” the systems level for itself. The
result has been confusion in terminology, a highly fractured and
“fuzzy” paradigm, and a set of introductory texts [4, 5, 6, 7]
none of which can be expected to cover more than a part of the
whole set of concepts available. The fragmentation of concepts
between disciplines and approaches has stifled the widespread
awareness of the consistent set of linkages that potentially exist
among the concepts.

(pdf)

Click to access Original-SoSPT-Paper-NATO-1978.pdf

Designing Freedom: Stafford Beer – full book free (and more) on archive.org

 

Source: Designing Freedom : Stafford Beer : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

Also – for example:
On The Design Of Stable Systems
by gerald weinberg, daniela weinberg

An Approach To Cybernetics
by gordon pask

Engineeringn Cybernetics
by robert glorioso

The Structure Of Awareness
by vladimir lefebvre

#cybernetics, #cybersyn, #dankaudiostash

Two more interesting pdfs on Gregory Bateson

Stephen Nachmanovitch – Gregory Bateson – Old Men Ought to be Explorers (1981)

Click to access stephen_nachmanovitch_about_bateson.pdf

 

Daniel Matthew Blaeuer – An Ecology of Performance: Gregory Bateson’s Cybernetic Performance – PhD submission, 2010

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4705&context=etd

 

 

Gregory Bateson – Mind and Nature (replaced)

Removed link as other full Bateson book linked from here was apparently a pirated copy so I assume this was too 😦

REPLACE link as it was sent out by Cognitive Edge after the Nora Bateson/Snowden talk so if Nora doesn’t mind!

Click to access Bateson_Gregory_Mind_and_Nature.pdf

STEPS TO AN ECOLOGY OF MIND by Gregory Bateson (removed)

STEPS TO AN ECOLOGY OF MIND by Gregory Bateson

Removed link as Nora Bateson says this is an illegal pirated copy. Apologies!

Nora Bateson and Gil Friend: Inner Ecology—Thinking Through the Mess – YouTube

Nora Bateson and Gil Friend: Inner Ecology—Thinking Through the Mess

Published on 22 Apr 2019

SUBSCRIBED 77
Nora Bateson and Gil Friend kick off Gil’s “Conversations at the Edge of Now” series at the Commonwealth Club of California with a wide-ranging exploration that starts with a simple, provocative question: “How can we think our way out of these messes, when the way we think is part of the mess?” ———————————————————————————– The world is coming undone, all sort of chaos looms. It’s pitch dark. There’s no moon. You can’t find your map. The ground shifts beneath your feet. You grope tentatively to detect sure footing, or the edge of a precipice, and long for a hand to hold. Welcome to the Anthropocene—perhaps the most uncertain era in the human evolutionary experience. Underlying the climate crisis and other pressing dilemmas of our times is the problem of how we think, and how we encounter the world, others and ourselves. How we meet this era is critical. Are we going to soothe ourselves and pretend that business as usual is an option? No. There is no more time for trendy buzz-words or empty promises. To meet the challenges of this era is to accept that, no matter how well intended, previous approaches to sustainable and just socio-economic solutions were not sufficient to meet the systemic nature of the problems. A paradigm shift is more than an incremental adjustment of existing institutions, more than a detailed strategy for silo-ed solutions to silo-ed crises that have been bought about by silo-ed thinking. Climate, immigration, trade, innovation, wealth gap, AI, biodiversity, racism, acidification, mental health, urbanization, power, supply chains, exploitation of human beings and nature…all are connected, through similar blocks, similar blindness, and something that illuminates it all. Underlying our dilemmas is the problem of how we think—“the difference between how nature works and the way people think,” as Gregory Bateson put it—and how we encounter the world, others and ourselves. It is time to authorize another kind of description of the meta-crises we live in, another kind of response, and another kind of conversation, with each other and with ourselves—since we create worlds in these conversations, and open or close the possibilities we live into. This is a radical move, out of the standard accepted models of goals and deliverables into what it really takes to meet the trans-contextual complexity of now. Join Nora and Gil as we explore warm data, the patterns that connect, the dilemma of purpose, and the ways our words shape the worlds we inhabit, and the possibilities we generate, in each other and in ourselves. Nora Bateson is an award-winning filmmaker, writer and educator, and President of the International Bateson Institute, based in Sweden. Her work asks the question “How we can improve our perception of the complexity we live within, so we may improve our interaction with the world?” Nora wrote, directed and produced the award-winning documentary, An Ecology of Mind, a portrait of her father, Gregory Bateson. Her work brings the fields of biology, cognition, art, anthropology, psychology, and information technology together into a study of the patterns in the ecology of living systems. Her book, Small Arcs of Larger Circles, released by Triarchy Press, UK, 2016 is a revolutionary personal approach to the study of systems and complexity. Gil Friend is a strategist, author and businessman, named “one of the top ten sustainability voices in the US” by The Guardian. As CEO of Natural Logic, he has challenged and guided some of the world’s leading companies to build value and competitive advantage by applying nature’s 3.8 billion years of open source R&D to today’s biggest problems. He served as the first Chief Sustainability Officer for the City of Palo Alto, and is founder of Critical Path Capital. Gil is author of The Truth About Green Business (FT Press, 2009) and numerous articles for GreenBiz, Sustainable Brands, and the LA Times Syndicate. He began his sustainability journey at Buckminster Fuller’s “World Game” nearly 50 years ago.

Machine Learning Widens the Gap Between Knowledge and Understanding – David Weinberger (via David Gurteen)

 

Via David Gurteen (whose newsletter and other communications are highly recommdned) at http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/machine-learning-and-complexity, where he writes:

Title The true complexity of the world outstrips our ability to fully explain it
Weblog Gurteen Knowledge Log
Knowledge Letter Appears in the Gurteen Knowledge Letter issue: 226
Posted Date Sunday 28 April 2019 18:51 GDT
Posted By David Gurteen
Categories Complexity
People David Weinberger
I have long been an admirer and follower of the work and thinking of David Weinberger ever since he was one of the authors of The ClueTrain Manifesto in 1999.

He still never fails to have an impact on me in his writing. Recently he wrote a Medium article entitled Machine Learning Widens the Gap Between Knowledge and Understanding.

It’s a ten minute read but here is the jist.

We humans have long been under the impression that if we can just understand the immutable laws of how things happen, we’ll be able to perfectly predict, plan for, and manage the future.

We have, therefore, made it our business to know how things happen by discovering the laws and models that govern our world.

Given how imperfect our knowledge has always been, this assumption has rested upon a deeper one.

Our unstated contract with the universe has been that if we work hard enough and think clearly enough, the universe will yield its secrets, for the universe is knowable, and thus, at least, somewhat pliable to our will.

But now that our new tools, especially machine learning and the internet, are bringing home to us the immensity of the data and information around us, we’re beginning to accept that the true complexity of the world far outstrips the laws and models we devise to explain it.

Our newly capacious machines can get closer to understanding it than we can, and they, as machines, don’t really understand anything at all.

David goes on to give some good examples, the bottom line, however, us that AI can discover relationships between things in the world that we humans will never be able to, given the size and complexity of the data, even though the AI software has no understanding of the world. In David’s words:

“We need to give up our insistence on always understanding our world and how things happen in it.”

A new world is dawning,

If you are interested in Knowledge Management, the Knowledge Café or the role of conversation in organizational life then you my be interested in this online book I am writing on Conversational Leadership

 

 

MAIN ARTICLE:

Source: Machine Learning Widens the Gap Between Knowledge and Understanding

 

OneZero

Machine Learning Widens the Gap Between Knowledge and Understanding

And gives us the tools for our next evolutionary step

Credit: peepo/Getty Images

The program“Deep Patient” doesn’t know that being knocked on the head can make us humans dizzy or that diabetics shouldn’t eat 5-pound Toblerone bars in one sitting. It doesn’t even know that the arm bone is connected to the wrist bone. All it knows is what researchers fed it in 2015: the medical records of 700,000 patients as discombobulated data, with no skeleton of understanding to hang it all on.

Yet, after analyzing the relationships among these blind bits, Deep Patient was not only able to diagnose the likelihood of individual patients developing particular diseases, it was in some instances more accurate than human physicians, including about some diseases that until now have utterly defied predictability.

Continues in source: Machine Learning Widens the Gap Between Knowledge and Understanding

 

Exploring The Ashby Space:

Harish's avatarHarish's Notebook - My notes... Lean, Cybernetics, Quality & Data Science.

Ashby4

Today’s post is a follow-up to an earlier post, Solving a Lean Problem versus a Six Sigma Problem:

In today’s post, I am looking at “The Ashby Space.” The post is based on the works of Ross Ashby, Max Boisot, Bill McKelvey and Karl Weick. Ross Ashby was a prominent cybernetician who is famous for his “Law of Requisite Variety.” The Law of Requisite Variety can be stated as “Only variety can destroy/absorb variety.” Ashby defined variety as the number of distinguishable states of a system. Stafford Beer used variety as a measure of complexity. More variety a system has the more complex it is. An important concept to grasp with this idea is that the number of distinguishable states (and thus variety) depends upon the ability of the observer. In this regard, variety of a system may be viewed as dependent on the observer.

Max Boisot and…

View original post 1,515 more words

Systems Innovation – new forum on their site now open for discussions

Systems Innovation‏ @Sys_innovationFollowing Following @Sys_innovationMoreNew forum on the site now open for discussion, take a look: http://bit.ly/2XtxeKk 3:30 pm – 21 Apr 2019

Focus: Entropy & Homeostasis

caminao's avatarCaminao's Ways

Preamble

As defined by thermodynamics entropy is a measure of the energy within a system that cannot be usefully harnessed; cybernetics has took over, making entropy a pillar of information theory.

Figuring Digital Matter (Marcelo Cidade)

Notwithstanding the focus put on viable systems and organizations (as epitomized by the pioneering work of Stafford Beer), cybernetics’ actual imprint on corporate governance has been frustrated by the correspondence assumed between information and energy. But the immersion of enterprises into digital environments brings entropy back in front, along with a paradigmatic shift out of thermodynamics.

domain: Physics vs Economics

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy within a system is constant, and so is information as defined by cybernetics. But economics laws, if there is such a thing, are to differ: as far as business is concerned information is not to be found in commons but comes from the processing of raw…

View original post 1,081 more words

SOLSTICE 2019 – Summer Solstice Conference on Discrete Models of Complex Systems 2019

cxdig's avatarComplexity Digest

15-17 July 2019

Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden, Germany

Source: solstice2019.loria.fr

View original post

The necessity of extended autopoiesis

cxdig's avatarComplexity Digest

The theory of autopoiesis holds that an organism can be defined as a network of processes. However, an organism also has a physical body. The relationship between these two things—network and body—has been raised in this issue of Adaptive Behaviour, with reference to an extended interpretation of autopoiesis. This perspective holds that the network and the body are distinct things, and that the network should be thought of as extending beyond the boundaries of the body. The relationship between body and network is subtle, and I revisit it here from the extended perspective. I conclude that from an organism = network perspective, the body is a biological solution to the problem of maintaining both the distinctness of an organism, separate from but engaged with its environment and other organisms, and its distinctiveness as a particular individual.

 

The necessity of extended autopoiesis
Nathaniel Virgo
Adaptive Behavior

https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712319841557

Source: journals.sagepub.com

View original post

“Bounded Applicability” & “Conditionality” – Lou Hayes Jr

Source: “Bounded Applicability” & “Conditionality”

“Bounded Applicability” & “Conditionality”

I first heard of the term Bounded Applicability last week, in Liminal Cynefin & ‘control by Dave Snowden:

…with some exceptions few things are wrong, most are right within boundaries. To put it another way they are context specific not context free.

Also, from the Cognitive Edge glossary:

Bounded Applicability — the concept that different and contradictory things work in different bounded spaces

My mind immediately turned to parenting and teaching kids about dangers, hazards, and safety. I had been pondering the difficulty in talking to young children about when certain behaviors are acceptable and when they’re not.

Don’t walk in the street. Then have a block party where everyone is literally sitting on chairs in the roadway.

Don’t talk to strangers. Then strike up a conversation with some random guy in line at the deli counter.

Don’t touch the BBQ grill. Then pick up the grates with your bare hands to wash them.

Don’t drink alcohol. Then uncork a bottle of wine at dinner.

Hypocritical? Not exactly.

I’ve referred to this as conditionality. Conditions matter. But as parents, we generally aren’t convinced that our kids can appreciate the nuances and subtleties. And rightfully so.

I recall a conversation with my son after a teacher complained he pointed a “finger gun” on the pre-school playground. (pew pew!) It was the start of teaching conditionality. Finger guns, NERF guns, and all other toy guns are allowed at home. But NO toy guns at school. Not even finger guns. (He’s kept his finger holstered ever since.)

It makes sense to err on the side of safety and control. Safer to not touch anyone. Safer to not pet the dog. Safer to not climb the ladder. Especially since young kids might not comprehend the variables that go into the variety of “conditions” that can exist. So we come up with rules; sometimes ridiculous rules.

In a much broader sense than parenting, I fear society does a lackluster job at teaching conditionality or bounded applicability. We come in with rulebooks, checklists, binders, plans, flowcharts, and different flavors of Nevers and Shalls. We strip our people of discretion and judgement by giving them rules and constraints that work in most, but not all situations. We treat them like toddlers.

And when they find themselves in one (1) of those outlier events where the rules or checklist doesn’t work…they have very little to fall back upon.  They lack the why, the understanding, and the bigger picture.

My wife and I don’t believe in “stranger danger.” As such, we’ve never told our kids to not talk to strangers. Our message is different. Actually, we demonstrate and teach our kids HOW to talk to strangers. We had to change the narrative. We had to go deeper than a simple rule.

What if we invested the time and effort into teaching concepts, principles, values, complexity, and decision-making? What if we role-played conditions and circumstances? What if we put our people into simulations that replicated those situations that fell outside “normal” conditions? What if we brought our people into the mix when designing policies and procedures…to solicit input from those actually doing the job, who’ve experienced outlier events?

All kids eventually figure out the stove is not always hot. How quickly do they learn? And can they learn it without getting burned?

These approaches come with risks, tradeoffs, and compromises. There are no easy solutions.

***

Lou Hayes, Jr. is a criminal investigations & intelligence unit supervisor in a suburban Chicago police department. With a passion for training, he studies human performance & decision-making, creativity, emotional intelligence, and adaptability. Follow Lou on Twitter at @LouHayesJr or on LinkedIn. He also maintains a LinkedIn page for The Illinois Model.

The supply and demand of social systems: towards a systems theory of the firm | Kybernetes | Vol 48, No 3, 2018 – Valentinov and Thompson

 

Source: The supply and demand of social systems: towards a systems theory of the firm | Kybernetes | Vol 48, No 3

pdf available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328233363_The_supply_and_demand_of_social_systems_towards_a_systems_theory_of_the_firm

and

https://cambridge.academia.edu/SpencerThompson

The supply and demand of social systems: towards a systems theory of the firm

Author(s):
Vladislav Valentinov , (Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies,Halle, Germany)
Spencer Thompson , (Center of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK)
Abstract:

The economic theory of the firm apparently concurs with Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems with regard to the primary function of the firm to be complexity reduction, i.e. the alleviation of the cognitive burden on agents whose cognitive capacities are limited. At the same time, however, the theory of the firm ignores the attendant issues of societal sustainability emphasised by Luhmann. The paper aims to fill this gap.

Taking a theoretical approach, the paper builds on the conceptual construct of “the complexity-sustainability trade-off”, which combines two contrasting aspects of the relationship between a system and its environment, namely, the precariousness highlighted by Luhmann and the embeddedness highlighted by open systems theory. These themes are respectively reflected in the principles of complexity reduction and environmental dependence which constitute the trade-off.

Drawing inspiration from the classic Marshallian presentation of supply and demand in modern economics, the paper argues that the principles of complexity reduction and critical dependence translate into the demand for and supply of social systems. In the proposed systems-theoretic interpretation of the theory of the firm, demand and supply refer to the imperatives of achieving coordination and securing cooperation within the firm, respectively. Thus, in the theory of the firm, the complexity-sustainability trade-off manifests itself as a trade-off between coordination and cooperation.

The implicit focus of the theory of the firm on complexity reduction disregards the nature, importance and fragility of cooperation in real-world firms. In so doing, it impedes the authors’ understanding of unconventional types of business organisation, such as cooperatives. These defects can be corrected by reorienting the theory of the firm according to the proposed systems-theoretic approach, which holds that firms should not be governed or studied in isolation from their environment, as they too often are – and, accordingly, that apparently anomalous forms of organisation should be taken seriously, as they too often are not.