Subject: SD and critical pedagogy

Posted by Jane Pratt on 9/21/2011
In Reply To:SD and critical pedagogy Posted by George Richardson on 9/21/2011

Message:

I'm enjoying this insightful discussion. As an environmentalist whose work has been national as well as international, I read Jaimie's question with global commons issues in mind, thinking that (as the US Supreme Court has ruled), corporations can be 'persons"; and by extension, so can nations, for the purposes of the premise. In that context, Jaime's premise is sound. One country's folly (carbon emissions, over-fishing marine species) can lead to folly for all, including those who make little or no contribution to the problem themselves

The more important issue is that wise choices still depend on best knowledge and balancing the pros and cons. The latter is the critical element, as George points out. Historically, involving stakeholders has meant that the most powerful stakeholders (British empire, G-7), get to tip the balance in favor of what is best for them. In a global age, the issue is whether 'we' (SD modelers) can balance pros and cons in a way that promotes broader, more equitable benefits -- especially in the absence of incentives for individual nations to promote the greater good at the expense of their own benefits. How do we create incentives for the most powerful stakeholders to want outcomes that benefit 'our children and grandchildren' - shorthand for 'human survival over the long term'.

Time scale is one promising area. Countries that can come to see their long-term interests coincide with the long-term interests of others are likely to be more equitably minded stake holders, since equity now coincides with their own interests. Henry Ford decided to pay workers more, reducing short term profits to his company. But in the long term, he saw that sustaining profits required paying workers enough to buy the cars they were making, creating a coincidence of incentives.