by

Unfortunately All Too Similar Prognostications

The Doomsday Clock has been recently set at 90-seconds. Why 90-seconds?  Let’s name just a few interrelated reasons: increased probability of nuclear escalation from a Ukraine war that continues without noticeable significant talks for peace; unabated warming of the climate thus diminishing the viability of a life on this planet; continued loss of biodiversity; continuing  pollution of air and water; disregarding the need to mitigate the emergence of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.  As Rachel Bronson, Ph.D. (president and CEO, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) said: “We are living in a time of unprecedented danger, and the Doomsday Clock time reflects that reality. 90 seconds to midnight is the closest the Clock has ever been set to midnight, and it’s a decision our experts do not take lightly.”

Yet, given this frank reality, few have been paying attention. Could it be that people are so consumed by the rat race (possibly even addicted?), in the day-to-day getting and spending to meet their basic needs?

Humans aren’t inherently consumed by or addicted to things, rather such behavior is a (tacitly) learned behavior in relation to that thing.  It is learned behavior through constant practice/experience—habitual behavior.  The constant practice and experience of capitalism has by design made for an un-attentive, if not apathetic, citizenry.  Most all industrialized societies are in different degrees capitalistic.

In the U.S., essentially since the early 70’s–following the blueprint put forth in the Powell Memo—the captains of business & industry (a.k.a. professional management class, the business-minded class) have successfully captured (and defunded) the public sphere. Effectually, making the political class a class of business-minded sycophants, turning main stream news and healthcare into profit seeking enterprises, remaking public education into a test-taking training space yielding an uncritical thinking citizenry, and turning higher education into an economic hardship for most.  In short, keeping people concerned about meeting their basic human needs—see  so they don’t have time to place focused attention to what’s really happening to them.

Management’s use extrinsic motivation (a.k.a. reward/punishment, operant conditioning) techniques as the way to incite desired behavior among those they have legitimate power/authority over is capturing us as individuals as well.  That is, many of us experiencing extrinsic motivation management practices which Ryan and Deci (2020) found that over time we internalize these extrinsic motivating sources.  The implication of extrinsic motivation becoming internalized is that individuals come to believe that the external sources are internal—that the motivation is coming from within them—when in reality the motivational stimulus is coming from outside of us, thus supplanting the emergence of inherent need for development—we become alienated from our very own humanity.  No wonder so many of us don’t experience the vitalizing spirit and joy from the work we do—and sadly we are unaware as to why.

Having captured society’s institutions, if not much of society itself, capitalism’s intent of wealth accumulation through each atomized individual pursuing unlimited material growth has created a general disregard for life itself.  Business as usual translates into societal suicide. 

It is long overdue that we think critically about what is actually happening and to do what we can to make this world a very human world, and reject the capitalistic “what’s-in-it-for-me-world’.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people aren’t even paying attention or capable of thinking critically. For them the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is no different than the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club. 

Reference

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices and future directions. Contemporary Educational psychology, 61, 1-11.

by

It’s About Being Responsible

The intent of this site is to offer an informed perspective on the business of business.  That said, the following, while at first glance might seem to not align, a little further critical thinking places it squarely within the realm of the business of business, more specifically the identification of the responsibility business or more accurately is it a problem of irresponsibility with business as practiced.  

If we continue to ask why, then we often get to the root toward a better understanding.

A Problem 

After a mass shooting event—and there are many each year—the go-to-utterance “our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the victims”, is heard from the public office holders we see at the other end of the camera.  But then, without missing a beat, their go-to-response to the shooting in the moment they unflinchingly offer their questions of exploration into why this particular tragic event, placing the sole blame on the shooter.  It is the mass shooting version of pilot error, disregarding the entire system facilitating it happening.

Mass killing-by-gun happens so often it is endemic in the U.S.—no other industrialized country comes close!  The U.S. presents the context (a.k.a. system). No, the U.S. doesn’t have a higher incidence of mental illness but the U.S. does have a higher market penetration of gun sales/ownership.  Moreover research has shown that most people with mental illness are not violent and so the link between mental illness and mass shooters is a weak one at best—far more other factors are involved.

The U.S. has the highest per capital firearm ownership in the world.  A PEW Research Center survey found thirty-two percent of U.S. adults are gun owners, yet the number of guns per 100 people is 120—a little over one gun for every person.  Clearly, gun ownership in the U.S. is highly concentrated within a segment of the population.  What a profitable business strategy, getting your customers to buy more of your stuff—now that’s customer loyalty!

Why?

Why do these mass killings continue to happen?  As noted above, the avoidance tactic of placing focus solely on the specific shooter in moment,  diverts attention and effort away from actually understanding the facilitating system that makes it possible, if not probable.  With each individual presenting his unique story, we never really get to understanding the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in general.  Yet, increasing the number of guns in the mix by arming teachers, resource officers and additional police presence are offered as the solution.  This will likely increase gun sales, but it doesn’t get at the root.

So, the story line is that there is not enough political will (a.k.a. moral courage) to stop it–to make it so that he can’t or is far less likely to happen!  

Why?

What’s influencing the political will?  Agency theory: Industry money flowing to elected officials with authority over policy transforms elected officials from agents of the public (i.e. care and concern for people’s well-being) to agents of the industry (i.e. care and concern for an industry’s profit ).  

Why?

Why the change in agency? There is just too much money to be had from those in pursuit of profit through growth in market penetration.  We mustn’t forget, how much money one accumulates (a.k.a. wealth) is the measure of success in capitalist society. There is little to be had in caring for peoples’ well-being and a boat load to be had in facilitating the intent of business.

Why?

Why is this continuing to happen?  

The simplest, logical and most obvious answer is because they can: that is to say, the system is facilitating industry, political officials—as well as shooters—so they can?

It’s just business (ah hum, ‘what’s in-it-for-me’), nothing personal!  

The Overarching Question

Since the above applies to all types of industry—all industries have lobbyists—we must ask, what is the meaning of corporate social responsibility when the intent of business is the maximization of short-term profit?  In effect, with the corporate intent not encompassing responsibility to society—actually running counter to it—then corporate social responsibility is an oxymoron. To the business minded a society (of people) is a resource for exploitation, not a responsibility—no different than any and all other resources (think Nature)!  

So here is something to think about: Should business/industry adapt to and meet the needs of people in society or should people in society adapt to and meet the needs of business/industry?

by

Wrong-headed Decisions

In regard to the health and well-being of society, most decisions made by those in both politics and business are wrong-headed (self-serving) decisions. A narrow focus of attention can’t help but to lead to far too many unintended consequences!

Examples are everywhere and emerge almost daily—in regard to healthcare, climate crisis, education, economy, etc.  Let’s look at just one: the current rise in consumer prices (a.k.a. inflation). Evidence shows that the vast majority of large corporations—those providing products and services to people in society—are realizing remarkable increased profit while at the same time consumers are finding meeting basic needs is costing more. Application of a little logic leads one to conclude that the large gains in profit are the result of increased prices.  Moreover, as Dean Baker’s analysis shows, with a declining wage share of corporate income inflation can’t logically be influenced by wage growth. 

Corporations are profit maximizing entities—the intent of business—and thus it is the primary reason why corporations increase the price of their products and services.  You can rest assured, that the business-minded understand this relationship between prices and profit quite well!  

So what has the political class decided to do in the face of this inflation?  Raise interest rates.  Why? It gives the impression of doing something without (actually) doing anything to address the problem. It is a decision that preserves profit making for corporations while intensifying the negative impact of higher prices on the public. Let’s not forget that price is not automatically/mysteriously set by some dynamic in the ether, but rather by people in the corporations—that is, the corporate decision-makers.

Accordingly, the malarkey unquestioned by the press and offered to the general public is that the reason there is inflation is that demand is too high and so there is a need to place downward pressure on demand.  So who winds up paying for this price hiking profit maximizing scheme (a.k.a. profiteering)?  The consuming public, who repeatedly pays—first for having basic needs (like the demand for food, shelter/housing, transportation to get to work, etc.) and in turn for continuing in seeking to satisfy these basic needs.

Moreover, there is little indication that the cost to consumers informs decisions and that the health and well-being of society is a concern. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the notion that these decision-makers are thinking critically; since doing so would necessarily mean that they’ve considered and assessed a wide range of perspectives.  But to the contrary, in essence, the decision-makers are saying to the general public, it sucks to be you!

What are we to do?  

There are two options:
1) Change minds of the decision-makers
2) Change the decision-makers

The first option is to provide the learning experiences that would change the thinking, knowledge, understanding and values held in the minds of the decision-makers. This of course will only be effective if the mind of the decision-maker is open to learning things that challenge, if not run counter to, the beliefs they’ve long held.  How do you change the mind of someone whose career success depends on no such change happening?

The second option is to replace the decision-makers with decision-makers who are of a different mind. That is, replace a mechanistic material-based minded person with a living system people-caring minded person. Unfortunately, there are so few of these both critical and systems thinking people.  Moreover,  those of such a mind likely have very little interest in business school and/or have a slim chance of rising in the hierarchy—perhaps this is why there are so few people of such minds in business, or politics for that matter.  

Correspondingly, in America’s two-party political system, wherein each party is beholden to their very own group of oligarchs, realizing such a replacement among the political class is very near impossible.  Why is it that a politician espousing business needs is applauded while a politician supporting people’s needs is disparaged and scoffed at?  

I repeat: A narrow focus of attention can’t help but to lead to far too many unintended consequences!

If only people understood!So, what might be a third option?  Could it be that we, the people, need to learn, to think critically?  

by

When Profit & Power Matter Most

The lack of action, on the part of adherents of capitalism (in its many versions), in the face of today’s life-threatening situations (climate change, COVID-19, nuclear proliferation) parallels a Jack Benny comedy bit between a street robber and Jack Benny, which went something like this:


Street Robber: “don’t make a move, this is a stick-up!”

Jack Benny:  “what?”

Street Robber: “you heard me!”

Jack Benny: “mister, put down that gun!”

Street Robber: “shut up, now come on…your money or your life!”

Jack Benny:  there is an extended period of silence

Street Robber: “look boss, I said your money or your life!”

Jack Benny: (slight pause) ”I’m thinking it over!”

Think this is a stretch?  Think again!

Facing the impending doom with (our) time running out, no meaningful significant change has taken place on climate change.

COVID-19 vaccines have not been universally produced and distributed to all to stop the spread and emergence of mutations.

Nations are not cooperating and collaborating to dissolve our common problems, but rather competing and showing/exercising (their) muscle over others toward gaining more wealth and power.

Yup, the adherents of capitalism are thinking it over, as they double-down.  

Could it be that capitalism has captured us all?

by

Recanting The Common Good

Of late there are two global issues—climate change and COVID-19 pandemic–that make quite clear what those who are in charge of human society truly care about and are concerned with.

As twenty-six climate summits have come and gone, humankind has yet to truly commit to doing what is absolutely necessary to avert our very own destruction—think self-annihilation, suicide. So, why is global warming not seen as the existential threat that it is? Having this understanding with its corresponding action will hurt the economy and thus impinge upon profit-making.

So, again, why is global warming not seen as an existential issue but a (business) problem nonetheless?
 It offers the potential for increased environmental regulation (government overreach is the problem)
 It increases the cost of doing business (but of course will be passed on)
 It increases companies’ healthcare benefit cost (but of course will be passed on)
 It impinges upon profit
.
.
Similarly, environmental cancer-causing pollution is a concern, because:
 It offers the potential for increased government—e.g. EPA/OSHA–regulation (government overreach impinges on profit)
 It shortens the life of productive workers
 It reduces the labor pool
 It increases companies’ costs, such as healthcare benefit cost (which can be passed on)
 It impinges upon profit, unless your business is in the symptom relief/treatment business

Today’s other global issue is the COVID-19 pandemic. Why haven’t the COVID-19 vaccine producers, as well as elected officials, enabled vaccine manufacture and thus distribution world-wide that would (likely) stop the spread of the virus and the emergence of future mutations?
 There’s relatively no material gain in doing so
 Belief that maximizing (their) profit is a right—patent protection
 Demand must continue to exceed supply (for maximum profit of course)
.
.

In The Mind of Those In Charge
Why do the business-minded (which includes elected officials) continue decision-making as they do?
 Economic (self) interests!
 Pursuit of unlimited material growth requires it!
 Mustn’t let indisputable scientific facts get in the way of pursuing what we want!
 There is so much more (yet) to exploit!
 There is so much more profit (yet) to accumulate!

Are the business-minded behaving rationally?
 To be rational in behavior essentially means to act in accordance with one’s intent
 If the intent is to pursue unlimited material growth—material self-interest—then of course the behavior is in relation to this intent: it is rational behavior.

But the essential question to explore is, is the intent rational in the context of life itself?
Rational, or in relation to what? Sustaining one’s viability as a living being?
 With the overarching intent being the pursuit of unlimited economic growth, and given a finite Natural world, the intent is not sustainable or as the business-minded like to say, it is not scalable.

Then, why don’t these people simply stop?
 Their worldview/system of orientation—the basis of capitalism—is about economic growth, not the common good and human progress, so their reasoning makes sense. That is, in the context of capitalism it is quite rational.
 They are addicted to material gain/profit

Need to Kick the Habit
The following question explains the above while answering itself:
Why is it that in the US (at least) the issue that its expensive we can’t afford it is raised when it comes to policy/legislation addressing the common good (e.g. climate change, universal healthcare, education) yet when it comes to policy/legislation benefiting the wealthy class (e.g. tax cuts for the wealth, funding war) the policy/legislation passes without the issue ever being raised?

This recanting of the care and concern for the common good, for humankind, is not an inevitability in human society. It is a human made phenomenon grounded in the worldview of capitalism, but it is not the only worldview upon which human society can be ordered. Contrary to what some have claimed way back in the late 70’s and early 80’s, there are alternatives.

The intent of life doesn’t have to be material self-interest maximization—a Hunger Game existence—which only serves the wealthy class. It is not our destiny to experience life in a society of competing individuals each seeking his/her self-interest—of a bunch of MEs wanting it all–with total disregard for the effect upon others. Isn’t this the kind of behavior you’d expect from an addict?

Acknowledging the need to kick the habit, to cease supporting (and cooperating with) business as usual means rejecting the maxim that ensuring the profitability of the corporation outweighs sustaining the viability of life itself. It means that you understand that conducting business as usual intensifies our problems, that it is suicidal to continue to do so. In the larger scheme of a life affirming worldview, human life is not merely a resource for the economic-engine.

by

Thought and Intent

Upon watching an interview with Alex Gibney about his latest documentary, “The Crime of the Century”, which presents the fraudulent behavior of the pharmaceutical industry in selling harmful drugs, namely OxyContin.  But beyond this the pharmaceutical industry (a.k.a. Big Pharma) is keeping their hold on Covid-19 vaccine patent protection (a.k.a. profit generator) to the detriment of (desperately) needed Covid-19 global vaccine manufacturing/distribution as well as diagnostics and oxygen.  

Yet, I found myself saying wait, wait this is not the only noteworthy crime.  In fact it is but one of many perpetrated upon people of society by industry, all in the name of profit. Here is a list of just a few:  

  • Tobacco industry

Tobacco has killed and continues to kill people

  • Automobile Industry

Multiple settlements  

  • Chemical industry

Forever chemicals have killed and continue to kill people

  • Pharmaceutical Industry

OxyContin is addictive and has killed and continues to kill people

  • Big Tech (Media) Industry

Disseminating public health misinformation has killed and continues to kill people

  • Fossil Fuel Industry 

Burning of fossil fuels has killed and continues to kill by destroying the life supporting environment—water, air, soil, climate–thus making life on earth uninhabitable

It should be noted that, in each case, the potential harm to people was known, so these are probably not from missteps/mistakes but reflect conscious decisions in support of a corporate profit goal absent of any concern for collateral damage/external cost. What’s operative in regard to the conduct of business is external (societal) cost or collateral damage and the internal private profit—the former doesn’t show up on the balance sheet.  

Corporations, in these industries, are often fined– which generally is a very small fraction of the realized profit—thus giving the appearance of justice served but (usually) without having to admit wrong doing or responsibility. Case in point, to put an end to lawsuits J & J and its distributors settled to pay $26 billion as a result of their part in the opioid crisis—a relatively small cost of doing business.  Moreover, to my knowledge, no one in authority within the companies in these industries has been convicted (let alone indicted) due to the criminality of their decisions. 

On the basis of the sheer number of lives harmed or killed, it seems the fossil fuel Industry is in the lead for causing The Crime of the Century (if not in the history of humankind, spanning both the 20th and 21st centuries).  As reported here, between 2015 and 2019 the 5 biggest fossil fuel companies spent at least $1bn in lobbying efforts denying the existence of climate change and investigations showed these companies knew for decades about the causal link between their products and climate change. 

What’s the Commonality?

It appears, crime does pay if you do it through the auspices of a capitalist corporation. The communality lies in the fact that each are grounded in and are practitioners of capitalism. The corporations are doing what is required: Each is seeking to increase/maximize their profit absent of responsibility for external costs. As previously explained here and even here, capitalism has no grounding in morality.  Hence if we are waiting and hoping for those in authority within these corporations (a.k.a. leaders) to demonstrate sound moral judgment, we’ll be waiting a very long time.  Such action requires a very different mindset than that of the current business-minded who occupy the C-suite. 

We do shape the leaders we get—leaders emerge out of our societal values in practice.  Hence the above list!

We Participate in the Reality We Experience

Unless the system changes, the list will grow–nothing will change.  To change of the system requires us to change what we actually care about—change what we think about and what matters–and with it we’ll change the intent of business and the experiences provided.

“For both the rich and the poor, life is dominated by an ever growing current of problems, most of which seem to have no real and lasting solution. Clearly we have not touched the deeper causes of our troubles…the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself, the very thing of which our civilization is most proud, and therefore the one thing that is “hidden” because of our failure seriously to engage with its actual working in our own individual lives and in the life of society.” 
― David Bohm

by

We All Need to Immunize

Herd immunity is the protection of society from an infectious disease, which is realized from either a high percentage (> 70%) of people surviving the infection and/or being vaccinated against the disease.  The importance of realizing herd immunity is about protecting one’s self and fellow human beings from becoming infected with a disease. Because of our inherent interdependence, it is about doing what one can to support each other’s/everyone’s well-being.  As evidence of the benefit of societal immunization, we no longer experience smallpox, polio and rubella!  Unfortunately not everyone is intent on being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Because a not-so-insignificant portion of the US population is unwilling to be vaccinated, several states have decided to appeal to peoples’ material self-interest toward realizing herd immunity.  Although this portion of the US population is unwilling to be vaccinated—even if it means having a high probability of protecting themselves and others against COVID-19—it appears they can be moved (i.e. acted upon, bribed) to be vaccinated by offering them a (very low) probability of winning a lottery (for something of outer value such as cash or event tickets). Ah, the power of extrinsic reward in appealing to people’s what’s-in-it-for-me way of looking at things.

Connectedness Denied

Has capitalism’s dictums of material self-interest and unlimited growth been internalized?  What does this say about what this portion of the population cares about?  What does it say about the extent to which this portion is capable of exhibiting care and concern for others—an essential characteristic of a life sustaining safe society?

While we each are different individuals (that is, individual I’s), we are not (inherently) separate Me’s whose sole concern is what’s-in-it-for-me!

Just because we each are different individuals doesn’t mean we are independent of each other—in fact, we are deeply interdependent, deeply connected. Society, at least a healthy viable society, cannot be a collection of separate independent individuals—that would be a large heap not a society. A caring society—a collective ‘We’—is as essential to each individual ‘I’ as are clean air and water.  

We are social beings as much as we are individual beings!  Our individuality doesn’t imply we must oppose our communality.  We are simultaneously individuals and members of a collective: each ‘I’ needs ‘We’ as much as we need a non-toxic and life supporting natural environment within which to live. We can’t remain viable (as a species) otherwise!

It is essential that we must not allow capitalism with its dictums of material self-interest and unlimited growth, to be the contagion that destroys society.  Contrary to the belief underlying capitalism, we are not at base material self-interest maximizing beings—we are so much more than this. As such our responsibility reaches far beyond what’s-in-it-for-me.  The individualistic approach of I take care of me and you take care of you, won’t cut it.

Immunize or We Perish

We must transcend self-interest to develop immunity from this contagion, by rejecting the notion that society is merely a collection of individuals whose life’s purpose involves the pursuit of maximal material gain. Believing in and acting as if this world is a dog-eat-dog world and that we are separate and independent individuals who must seek to get as much as we can for ourselves by exploiting and extracting whatever we can from each other and Nature runs counter to our nature and thus our continued existence. This view, which gives primacy to things of outer value, clearly serves capitalism, but it doesn’t serve the development of humanness (i.e. our better qualities).  The more this pervades society, the more we forsake our responsibility—as deeply interdependent people—the more we inhibit the emergence of a caring collective We (which we sorely need), the more unsafe society becomes, the hotter and more toxic the environment becomes, the less viable we (as a species) become, and thus the closer we move toward self-destruction (a.k.a. suicide).  

As Gregory Bateson asserted, evolution follows the path of viability.  If we, as a society, are to evolve toward a higher level of human existence—become more of what we potentially are—then we must ensure our viability.  To this end, we must immunize ourselves from this contagion.

by

Not Willing To Dance to a Different Tune

With more frequent and more devastating events (e.g. increasingly hotter climate, more variable seasonal weather, stronger and deadlier storms, longer droughts, zoonotic disease, etc.) affecting an increasing proportion of people world-wide, (quite logically) it is appropriate to ask, why are these things happening and when will they stop?

In a recently released UN report Secretary Antonio Guterres said, “it’s time to reevaluate and reset our relationship with nature…humanity is waging war with nature” and the need for “making peace with nature, securing its health and building on the critical and undervalued benefits that it provides are key to a prosperous and sustainable future for all.” 

The report brings to light that this war against Nature is causing the climate crisis, wildlife and habitat destruction and deadly pollution. To date, “Society is not on course to fulfil the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to further limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. At the current rate, warming will reach 1.5°C by around 2040 and possibly earlier” and thus there is a need for “a fundamental change in the technological, economic and social organization of society, including world views, norms, values and governance.” 

Freedom (and Responsibility) Mis-Understood

Now wait! This can’t be!  As free individuals, we are each individually striving to become what we want to be. Hey, I am  just living my life as I desire to live it, exercising my freedom as an independent individual!  So it can’t be me, it must be them (those not like me) over there!  They need to be stopped, because those others are impinging upon my freedom!

Freedom!  What freedom?  At least in the countries considered developed or economically industrialized (a.k.a. advanced), freedom for the vast majority—particularly among the American business-minded—is freedom from constraints in pursuit of material gain to maximally accumulate wealth (as measured corporately by profit and nationally by GDP). 

That is to say, we each are guided by the precepts of capitalism to structure our life—as we see fit—in pursuit of things of outer value. 

In this system, we seek education to develop a career, to become more saleable in the labor market, not to develop our personhood/humanness. Focused largely on our career, we spend our time striving for a position worthy of the respect of others; one that would afford us accumulating as much wealth as possible and acquiring more things. In capitalist society, we are employees/consumers in service to another’s profit: It is a life consumed by getting and spending.  

Of course we all need to earn a living to meet the basic (living) needs for food, shelter, security and esteem—Maslow categorized these as deficiency needs—but these do not fulfill us and address our growth/development as persons. Moreover, we need to be freed from fear that these basic needs won’t be satisfied. Sadly however, in order to get us to do what they want us to do, those in management leverage this fear by establishing policies and procedures so that the satisfaction of these needs is made conditional and thus always in question.  

These fear-based procedures keep us focused on basic/deficiency needs satisfaction.  As a result, we haven’t the freedom to realize our uniquely human potential.  That is to say, fear is leveraged to guide (if not control) behavior.  Paradoxically, simultaneously people are led to believe they are acting as free independent individuals even as they are all doing and seeking the very same thing, as required by capitalism.  Talk about being flimflammed out of our (real) freedom!

The capitalistic system wouldn’t have it any other way. It is a self-serving objectifying, exploitive and extractive system. Having people believe that material self-interest is a primary defining human characteristic of humankind is absolutely necessary. Moreover, believing that we each (especially Americans) are rugged self-reliant individuals in pursuit of material self-interest serves the system of capitalism as well—think Hunger Games. We are led to believe it is all about ‘me’ and to hell with ‘we’—in fact there is no ‘we’. This being the destructive original big lie that is feeding inadequate action today!

Though we are born as human beings we aren’t born (fully) developed in our personhood/humanness. This development toward self-actualization should be the focus and attention in life, not material self-interest. Being consumed by the latter actually inhibits focused attention to the former. Quite nonsensically, we’ve been led to believe that freedom means freedom from the constraint of living in a deeply interconnected world. It is not a great stretch from this to seeing responsible climate change action as an affront to freedom.

Recalling Similar Inaction by Those in Authority

The UN report, while comprehensive and very informative, does not go deep enough into the system of causes.  I’ll explain by relating my experience with corporate managers when consulting on W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge for quality.  

First a little background.  Deming called for (first) adopting a new philosophy, which meant having an entirely different business intent.  Deming spoke of this required change as a drastic change, not a tweaking or revision of current business practice. It required putting aside one’s system of orientation in order to understand (unfiltered) the new system.

The management of the companies I consulted with were not interested in adopting a new philosophy, just in symptomatic relief of problems arising due to their lack of quality throughout the organization. Their interest was in merely creating the appearance of caring about quality—they knew the steps and wanted to continue dancing to the same tune. Thus, corporate managers chose to remain (willfully) ignorant of what was needed.  Hence instead of committing to learning and understanding Deming’s philosophy at a very personal level, they co-opted pieces or methods to fit what they were currently doing.  For example, instead of understanding the theory of variation in relation to the organization and its management, they only wanted to use tactics (more accurately mis-use tactics) associated with the theory so that they could better surveil and control workers by ranking and yanking (a.k.a. firing) those workers in the lower 10% of the performance distribution.  

Had corporate executives committed to learning and understanding—stopped playing the tune in their mind to which they were dancing in order to listen—this different way-of-business some 40-plus years ago, it is very likely income inequality would have been reduced, the financialization of the economy would not have emerged, the externalities of business would have been dealt with and mitigated and correspondingly the events we’re experiencing today would be significantly less disastrous. Industry and government leaders would have been all-in for understanding the system of causes and thus taking appropriate action.

Humankind, Nature & Capitalism

Additionally In the report, Guterres states, “By transforming how we view nature, we can recognize its true value. By reflecting this value in policies, plans and economic systems, we can channel investments into activities that restore nature and are rewarded for it. By recognizing nature as an indispensable ally, we can unleash human ingenuity in the service of sustainability and secure our own health and well-being alongside that of the planet.” Nature surely is indispensable not because it can be used by humankind for economic purposes, but because we are in Nature and Nature is in us.  The relationship is a deeply nested holarchical interconnectedness.  Further, stating that Nature is an ally, implies it is just (something) out there separate from humankind—like another business entity—with which we cooperate.  Yes being in cooperation with Nature and not in competition (war being the ultimate competition) is needed but this doesn’t quite capture our holarchic interconnectedness.

Missing is the acknowledged need for the transformation of our very way-of being-in-the-world. Yes, we have to change how we view Nature, but it must also be explicitly acknowledged that we have to change the way we view ourselves and our relationships in and with the world.  That is, we each need to better understand our very nature, understand our shared humanity and our deep interconnectedness with Nature.  In so doing, we will understand that what we do to each other we do to ourselves and, similarly, what we do to Nature we do to ourselves—this is inescapable. We must understand, continuing as we are, we are committing suicide; that capitalism has put us on a path of self-destruction; that capitalism is incompatible with life itself.

The UN report is extremely informative for what it reveals and for what is not explicitly stated. It is worth noting, capitalism is not at all mentioned. Though Inger Anderson (UNEP) identified “decades of relentless and unsustainable consumption and production” as driving the crisis, capitalism was not specifically named.  How can this be when the system of capitalism requires humankind’s domination/mastery over Nature in pursuit of unlimited material growth? The war humanity is waging against Nature is a capitalist necessity—Capitalism vs Nature.  Given our deep connectedness with Nature, in effect, this war is a war against ourselves.  If only we’d learn anew and gain the understanding to realize this!

This understanding will lay at our feet and make crystal clear the fact that capitalism—with its intent of unlimited material growth and objectification/commodification of everything—is incompatible with each developing their personhood/humanness, with understanding the deep interconnectedness with Nature and correspondingly with our viability of as a species. Inserting notes/lyrics from a different tune into the current tune— such as, “include natural capital in decision-making”—will lead to something people won’t/can’t dance to. Mere economic policy change won’t cut it!  What is needed is a change of the system not changes in the system!

Thus, the structuring our life and correspondingly our behavior commensurate with capitalism is at the root of the more frequent and more devastating events we are experiencing.  The longer we continue to adhere to capitalism as our economic/societal system of orientation informing decisions/behavior—continuing to dance to the capitalist tune—our viability will be increasingly (and likely forever) diminished.  

Ending this suicidal behavior—changing our worldview, our system of orientation—is where very few, especially those in authority, are willing to go. Why?  They’ve either internalized capitalism’s intent—believing that is just our nature to pursue material gain, so it’s against our nature to stop doing so—or they’ve become addicted to capitalism’s material gain dictate, so they can’t stop.  

In either case, what is keeping us from understanding is not a deficiency in intellect but rather willful ignorance—an unwillingness to think critically, systemically and deeply to address the root cause. Simply, seemingly those in authority are not willing to learn to dance to a different tune and to lead us in a different dance in life. 

We can’t dissolve the climate crisis—or any of the other devastating and related events—using the same level of thinking and system of orientation that created it!

by

Should Technology Replace People

When calling a company’s customer service, I am very frequently greeted by a virtual receptionist, which more often than not is a huge waste of time and an exceedingly frustrating experience. Yup, I am forced to fit my unique issue with a programed series of questions, which rarely ever represents my need.  In addition, turning frustration into annoyance, the programmed voice tells me that I (as a customer) am very important to the business enterprise. 

So the answer to the question, does technology employed by business meet our needs, I suspect—if my experience is not unique–most would offer a resounding No, Not Usually!

Such use of (labor saving) technology serves the company’s bottom line, not the customers’ needs. The use of technology here, even given the company’s warning ‘our options have changed so please listen carefully’demonstrates that it hasn’t even dawned upon management in authority that customers are not monolithic.  There is a difference between attending to each individual customer and attending to each customer as an individual (i.e. as a person).  Doing the latter can’t be attended to by a virtual receptionist, but clearly this isn’t stopping the management of business enterprises from cutting labor costs by any and all means.

Could Implies Should

As reported in The Guardian, robots will be increasingly employed by corporations to replace actual people.   Why is this happening?  Simple, it is better for the bottom line: Robot labor is far less costly than people labor!  After all, the company’s profit matters most—profit wins out over individual personal service every time.  The business of business is profit.

What jobs might be considered or included in this increased use?  The business minded answering this question will likely say, those positions with tasks that are formulaic thus lending to automation.  Greater insight into where the likely focus for job displacement lies can be realized by looking at the business organization from the perspective of its hierarchical structure.

Using the hierarchy as a framework, we can readily see the bifurcation of jobs into thinking versus doing.  With management driving the organization to its goals, the thinking jobs are at the top and the doing jobs are those on the lower rungs. Ultimately, as technology advances, those jobs not performed by those occupying the upper rungs in the organization’s hierarchy would be on the table for consideration. Clearly in a similar fashion to the decision regarding which jobs should be off-shored.  

It appears as though the burden in peoples’ lives caused by job displacement is thought of as an externality and thus not a criterion concern of management in the decision to employ labor saving technology.

Critically Thinking The Decision

First note, automatable implies programable. That is to say, jobs that are formulaic and executed via algorithms are programable and thus automatable. However, rather than keeping with the thinking versus doing dichotomy, we need to understand that not all the thinking going on in the organization is either creative thinking or critical thinking.  There is a considerable amount of routine (previously established) thought being applied, even in the upper levels of management. So let’s include for consideration what management attends to as well.  

It is instructive to understand the work in the organization in its context, the capitalist economic system, which is particularly relevant to upper level management tasks.  As discussed in a previous post, capitalism encourages, if not requires, business enterprises operating within it to align with its material growth maximization maxim. To this end, management is tasked to monetize all aspects of the company in the process of driving for profit maximization.  

As previously explained here, management is thus laser-focused on driving for ever increasing profit by any means. Results are what matters!  Consequently, management doesn’t just manage for results they manage by results. Management sets higher goals, applying the thought that raising standards will lead to better results.  Using results to get better results is clearly not reflective of sound logic, yet it is a popular practice. Furthermore, people are held accountable for results. Though unintended, results by any means can cause harm to others in the pursuit of results.  

Further as discussed here, not only is most everything translated into monetary terms, it is accepted management practice to reduce the evaluation of both individual and organizational performance—very dynamically complex phenomena—to a simple either/or dichotomy.  That is, performance evaluation is reduced to a good versus bad judgment relative to what is desired. The common practice is to assess and evaluate performance with the aid of a variance report, this management practice is akin to painting-by-the-numbers: Making it simple and formulaic with no need for understanding and critical thinking.

Sounds pretty algorithmic, and quite automatable, don’t you think? 

When An Externality Is No Longer That External

Replacing higher priced (management) labor with lower cost robots would surely drive results!  But, in this case, the use of robots would not be considered, even though it would result in far fewer people becoming unemployed.  This option is likely not on the table. 

When what was previously an externality (i.e. the very personal impact on some ‘others’ becoming unemployed) turns to being quite personal—me losing my job–then it changes everything. In this scenario, the externality becomes an internality; something that is very much personally felt. That is to say, the decision to automate one’s own job no longer fits the often-heard expression, nothing personal, it’s just business, which is often offered to absolve the decision-maker from responsibility of the very (personal) human cost of the decision.

Technology Alone Is Neither Bad Nor Good

The argument above is not to say that (labor saving) technology must never be brought into the work of the organization.  Those making this decision must not view—with one eye open–the organization as an independent entity.  Rather what must be understood is that it is deeply interdependent within the larger system of people in society; that is, there are no externalities to dismiss.  In short, the decision regarding the why, what and how of employing (labor saving) technology should not be made with one eye open and focused solely on the organization as an independent entity. Accordingly, some of the questions that need to be asked and fully explored include what is the intent, who is to benefit, who might be harmed as a result of employing the technology?  Are the benefits and burdens to each and all stakeholders just and equitable? What are the consequences—both intended and unintended as well as short and long term—of employing the particular technology? In short, having a systemic perspective and understanding must inform the decision whether and how to employ a (labor saving) technology. 

by

Can’t Fix What Ain’t Broke

Our economic system (a.k.a. capitalism) is broken!  The number of times I’ve read and heard this is countless, and thus quite telling.  It tells me that far too many believe that our economic system is basically fine, but that it just needs some fixing.  A little tweak here and there will do it. 

Continuing to strive to fix an economic system that never was intended to serve everyone’s very human needs, such as; basic life needs (i.e. food, water shelter, health, safety) and ensuring a sustainable environment in support of the viability of life—is a fool’s errand.  You can’t make something fit our needs that was never designed or intended to do so—a badly designed suit can never really fit well.  

Capitalism, as argued in so many postings here (which I invite you to explore), is a system that disregards life itself for the sake of the wealth accumulation of a select few—the winners.  It is a system of competition where I win and everyone else loses. Now some might say I like competition, I enjoy competing. Well competing by participating in a game might be fun, and even enjoyable, but playing the game doesn’t determine or impact how you live and you can stop playing the game and take on other activities.  But to make living your life a win-lose phenomenon would be a brutal way of existence—life’s experience should not be that of The Hunger Games. 

Furthermore, the very nature of competition lends itself to autocorrelation, where winning (next time) favors those who’ve previously won: those without substantial holdings can’t possibly be competitive and are thus destined to experience loss, and lots of it. Why do you think professional sport leagues engage in player drafts whereby the worst performing teams the previous season get first picks?

Profit Contextualizes Everything

Why is profit maximization and material value the guide in all decisions and not quality and human value?  Why are collectives of workers (i.e. labor unions) discouraged if not outlawed and yet collectives of corporations (i.e. industry associations) very much allowed if not heeded?  Why do so few own and control so much?  Why does the saying those having gained so much have done so at the expense of so many seem to ring true?

Everyone and everything out there is an object to be manipulated and exploited for the benefit of someone’s—but clearly not everyone’s—material self-interest.  In this system, your life my life—even the life of the exploiter–has no inherent (human) value since what counts is the sought-after material gain.  All that matters is whether the exploitee, the other, can serve some measure of outer value for the exploiter.  

Unavoidably, in this system of self-interest maximization we serve the system’s interest, it doesn’t serve us. Accordingly, through our participation we (tacitly) cast ourselves as objects in the game’s overarching process of exploitation.  In effect, the characteristics and size of the exploited population has changed and increased over time to meet the ever-increasing profit desires of the capitalist class.  With the goal is unlimited wealth accumulation then exploitation has no bounds!

If you doubt this, just take a few moments to look around at what’s happening, and has been happening for far too long.  The practice of capitalism is doing what it is intended to do, exploit and destroy life itself.  This destruction manifests as unhealthy water, air and food products, unlivable environment (ever-increasing heat, prolonged drought, significant melting of polar ice, rising sea levels, massive and longer-lasting wildfires, frequent and stronger hurricanes/typhons), and rising income inequality with below or barely subsistence wages for an increasing proportion of the population and exorbitant gains realized by the (already) wealthy.  All of this is the effect from the motivation for unlimited material growth by any means possible.

Capitalism is the ultimate competition system, enacting war on the universal needs of life for the material benefit of a few.  It is a system for and of losers, a parasitic system that destroys its host such that eventually there will be no ultimate winner.  Eventually, we all lose!

How can such a system be embraced by so many?  Why is it that the vast majority of people are complicit in the destruction of their own life, that of their family and more profoundly in  diminishing the viability of life on earth?

A Couple of Answers Why

Two interrelated answers come to mind: internalization and addiction.  Internalization of the notion that extrinsic motivation is the seed of all human behavior and thus it is our very nature to strive to maximize our material self-interest. Consequently, an individual’s life’s aim is in alignment with the system’s aim, so there is no questioning and no alternative. This is further supported by a tacit societal commitment to a materialistic and mechanistic worldview, the system of orientation of capitalism. This all fits quite nicely into the capitalist’s need for compliant individuals, while simultaneously each holds in their mind the illusory notion of (their) individualism and autonomy. All substitutable cogs in the wealth accumulation machine.  So it follows, individually we feel we must strive to be successful, which is defined and measured by the size of one’s bank account and the number of toys it affords. 

Life in society is a competition, where each individual strives to make him/herself more saleable—a marketable commodity—in pursuit of a materially rewarding career. The educational system, which should be about human development, has increasingly become about job skill training.  All of this contextualizes life as a competitive game, and of course we not only feel the need to stay in the game, we are led to feel the need to become more marketable. The need to develop a career far exceeds that of developing our humanness, developing as a human being, which would benefit the welfare of everyone.

Consider, the context of  capitalist society as one large monopoly board wherein we all move around the board in pursuit of material gain. Forever seeking that ephemeral feeling of pleasure from winning in this game, has us addicted to the game itself. Addicted to hoping that this time we (just might) win, so we stay in the game by repeatedly throwing the dice.  But with each throw the rentiers are the ones amassing increasing material gain. Yet there is a very large number of players who never get a chance to even Pass Go, never earn the minimum subsistence.  Needless to say, the rentier class needs us to stay in the game; if we refuse to throw the dice the game ends.  So we’re exhorted to dream and hope that our day will soon come; all we need to do is continue to work hard (in service to their interest of course) and play by the rules of the game.  

We all lose the more capitalism is practiced! The need to re-think the intent of the economic system (and correspondingly the intent of each and every business) is paramount.  Each business enterprise must cease participating in the system against life; the system that is increasingly diminishing our development as human beings and the viability of humankind.