> There are literally *millions* of organizations with > high-level agendas. (See the book, Blessed Unrest). > Do these high-minded organizations make much > difference? I have grave doubts.
Maybe not, I suppose this sort of thing is quite hard to measure. Perhaps the problem is that these organizations are run by ivory tower intellectuals who lack the practical skills to turn their ideas into reality. The thought of the explosive growth of humanity being unsustainable has been in the back of my head; but I now that I think about it, I've never really given it serious consideration. Maybe the fact that I hadn't heard about world3 model until you mentioned it shows that the organizations promoting this idea have been ineffective in getting their message out. > Naturally. But the overall design affects every line of code, so > that's not saying something very surprising. Right, and in the same way, making the exchange of knowledge more efficient (e.g. the internet) could improve the designs of every programmer on every project. Available knowledge effects every design decision, so this shouldn't be very surprising either. > Do putative levels of design/implementation get to the heart of > the matter? Maybe not... let's say design and implementation are more or less the same thing. Still, if you could somehow improve the programmer, say through science fiction type cognitive enhancement, then that would in turn improve every line of code as well as the overall design. I suppose I define Thing A as "higher level" than Thing B if making a change to Thing A effects every unit of Thing B. > Leo's design is something that we have control of. And do we not have control over society? Have you ever tried to change it? I mean *really* tried? If I really wanted to, I think I could shape the world as I see fit. The trouble is figuring out how the world should be is a very difficult problem (perhaps because it's such a high level concept -- there's so much complexity). Perhaps there is a human tendency to maintain the status-quo that inhibits us from trying to change the world. Or maybe I'm just wildly overconfident. :) > In my mind, the essential point of the 12 leverage points is that the > world needs *negative* growth in population, resource usage and > environmental destruction. The bozo optimists disagree. They > deny the costs of positive (cancerous) growth and expect science > and technology to do the impossible. First, there's always colonizing space, isn't there? Second, "negative growth in population" sound like one hell of euphemism. :) This may be inevitable... but I do believe humanity will do everything it can to prevent this from happening -- and the human race is capable of a whole hell of a lot. Third, I seem to recall someone telling me recently that, "the answer to all 'is it possible' questions is 'yes.'" :) Does that not apply outside of Leo? > P.S. It is becoming clear to all but the most self-interested that the > costs of regulating financial markets and other complex systems is > *insignificant* compared to the costs of letting those systems run to > collapse. Maybe this "high level" realization will make a difference, > but that is not a foregone conclusion. I guess the key is somehow obtaining enough evidence and presenting it in such a way that people cannot effectively dispute it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
