Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Power structure"
m |
m |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A costly oversight</h3> | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>A costly oversight</h3> | ||
<p>How much is ignoring "the systems in which we live and work" costing us?</p> | <p>How much is ignoring "the systems in which we live and work" costing us?</p> | ||
| − | <p>On Page 4 of the article [http://knowledgefederation.net/Articles/GCGforEAD10.pdf The Game-Changing Game–A Practical Way to Craft the Future] we answered this question by a summary of our Ferguson–McCandless–Fuller <em>thread</em>, of which we here | + | <p>On Page 4 of the article [http://knowledgefederation.net/Articles/GCGforEAD10.pdf The Game-Changing Game–A Practical Way to Craft the Future] we answered this question by giving a summary of our Ferguson–McCandless–Fuller <em>thread</em>, of which we here highlight the main points. </p> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
<p> | <p> | ||
| − | [[File:Billion_Dollar-o-Gram_2009.jpg]] | + | [[File:Billion_Dollar-o-Gram_2009.jpg]]<br> |
| + | <small>David McCandless: The Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009</small> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
| − | <p>A quick look at David McCandless' | + | <p>A quick look at David McCandless' Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009 will show that the costs of two issues ("Worldwide cost of financial crisis" and "Iraq & Afganistan wars total eventual cost") dominate the image so dramatically, that the costs of issues such as "to lift one billion people out of extreme poverty", "African debt" and to "save the amazon" seem insignificant in comparison.</p> |
| + | |||
| + | <h3>Those costs are <em>systemically</em> caused</h3> | ||
<p>We tell the story of Charles Ferguson's two award-winning documentaries to highlight—as he did in his films—that those two issues were systemically caused. Or in other words "inside jobs", as the title of Ferguson's second film suggested. </p> | <p>We tell the story of Charles Ferguson's two award-winning documentaries to highlight—as he did in his films—that those two issues were systemically caused. Or in other words "inside jobs", as the title of Ferguson's second film suggested. </p> | ||
<h3>Fuller may have been right</h3> | <h3>Fuller may have been right</h3> | ||
| − | <p>Having predicted that by the end of the century science and technology would have advanced sufficiently to enable us, the people on the planet, to | + | <p>Having predicted that by the end of the century science and technology would have advanced sufficiently to enable us, the people on the planet, to put an end to scarcity, and to scarcity-driven competition.</p> |
| − | + | <p>What we have just seen suggest that Fuller may have been right.</p> | |
| − | <p>In 1969 Fuller | + | <p>In 1969 Fuller proposed to the American Senate a computer-based solution called the [https://holoscope.info/2010/01/07/holoscope-for-the-buckminster-fuller-challenge/ World Game], whose purpose was to enable the global policy makers to see the world as one, and collaborate on allocating and sharing its resources, instead of competing.</p> |
| + | |||
</div> </div> | </div> </div> | ||
| + | <!-- XXX | ||
Revision as of 13:08, 24 June 2020
Contents
H O L O T O P I A: F I V E I N S I G H T S
Power structure
Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution revolutionized the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?
System ideogram
We look at the systems in which we live and work. Imagine them as gigantic machines, comprising people and technology. Their function is to take people's daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects.
While the ingenuity of our innovation has been focused on small gadgets we can hold in our hand—we have overlooked this incomparably more important creative frontier.
We will here be taking about the very heart of our matter: Innovation, understood as "using our creative abilities", is what drives our civilization or 'bus' or societal and cultural evolution forward. The value or the rule of thumb we are using to direct our creativity is to rely on free competition, or the market. How well does this serve us?
Stories
Power structure wastes resources
A costly oversight
How much is ignoring "the systems in which we live and work" costing us?
On Page 4 of the article The Game-Changing Game–A Practical Way to Craft the Future we answered this question by giving a summary of our Ferguson–McCandless–Fuller thread, of which we here highlight the main points.
David McCandless: The Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009
A quick look at David McCandless' Billion-Dollar-o-Gram 2009 will show that the costs of two issues ("Worldwide cost of financial crisis" and "Iraq & Afganistan wars total eventual cost") dominate the image so dramatically, that the costs of issues such as "to lift one billion people out of extreme poverty", "African debt" and to "save the amazon" seem insignificant in comparison.
Those costs are systemically caused
We tell the story of Charles Ferguson's two award-winning documentaries to highlight—as he did in his films—that those two issues were systemically caused. Or in other words "inside jobs", as the title of Ferguson's second film suggested.
Fuller may have been right
Having predicted that by the end of the century science and technology would have advanced sufficiently to enable us, the people on the planet, to put an end to scarcity, and to scarcity-driven competition.
What we have just seen suggest that Fuller may have been right.
In 1969 Fuller proposed to the American Senate a computer-based solution called the World Game, whose purpose was to enable the global policy makers to see the world as one, and collaborate on allocating and sharing its resources, instead of competing.