And yet there was a systemic change last year. The system objective changed from brainless growth to saving human lives, and the Jenga game holded.
I don't want to romanticize the pandemic but it disproved the TINA hipotesis (there is no alternative)
As Donella Meadows pointed out [1], the most powerful leverage point is to change the objective of the system. We can make it if we start to be citizens and be involved politically. Let’s be involved in movements like extinction rebellion and Fridays for the future. And most of all let's question growth and employment as the goal of society.
What systemic change happened? The Pandemic further increased the disparity between the rich and the poor. The massive stock market and housing price increases caused by the government and loan programs purely benefited the few.
Again I don’t want to romanticize the pandemic but we should critically analyze what happened.
When I talk about the system changes, I’m referring to the paper that I wrote in the thread.
The places to intervene in the system are:
Places to Intervene in a System
(in increasing order of effectiveness)
9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards)
8. Regulating negative feedback loops
7. Driving positive feedback loops
6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection
5. Information flows
4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints)
3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system
2. The goals of the system
1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture arises
We intervene in the second most powerful leverage point, but we need to change our growth mindset (most powerful leverage point). If we don’t we will recover to the old system that is depleting earth's nature. You are talking about the 3rd leverage point “The distribution of power over the rules of the system” which I agree it’s important. We can implement UBI for instance. The thing is, there is an alternative.
yes, love this point. the pandemic revealed so many things, mostly damning. but it was also a loud assertion of the primacy of life, an instinctive collective behavior that was so profound and universal it went almost unnoticed. maybe we are ashamed of admitting it as it invalidates all those other behaviors.
but somehow this event has not yet worked its way through into the system. the collective assumed all liabilities, the usual suspects benefited handsomely and position again to resume the feast. back to bean counting and "calculated risks" so as not to hinder the "recovery" etc.
It’s really interesting to think about what caused last year's systemic change. I think that was the fact that the illness threatened our life directly, but most of all the consequences were short term.
For me “recovery” is the new substitute word for growth, which is a term that politicians avoid lately. Academically there are more and more evidences that decoupling growth from ecologic damage is very unlikely [1]
https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/
> The system objective changed from brainless growth to saving human lives
Haltingly, ineffectively, and temporarily. 4-7 million people and counting have died from a disease that most experts still agree could have been stopped if we were willing to actually move away from a growth goal.
But, I think your conclusion is right. The people have the power to change our goals, even if those in power refuse.
[1] http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_...