Anything Political

[DJ360 6,730]

Once again, thank you Mr Engineer.

Did you listen to the prog and what did you think?

 

I'll put some time aside later and have a good listen.

[The Engineer 614]

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Did you listen to the prog and what did you think?

Yes, I listened to the programme.  Can't say I was persuaded by the arguments presented.

[Brew 5,421]

8 minutes ago, The Engineer said:

Can't say I was persuaded by the arguments presented.

 

Nor me, substitute symbiosis for 'system' and it's really only stating the blindingly obvious without offering anything new or original. 

 

The Limit to Growth (Meadows), is akin to the Malthusian Theory circa 1798, updated to 1972.

 

[Brew 5,421]

I should have added it's also close to Pavlov and his dogs...

[DJ360 6,730]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:58 PM, The Engineer said:

Yes, I listened to the programme.  Can't say I was persuaded by the arguments presented.

 

Not sure what that means.  Do you agree that in an absolute sense, we live on a finite planet with finite resources?

If you agree that, then surely we have to go from there to understanding how to deal with that issue, when the whole World is intent on limitless economic, industrial and population growth.

 

On 9/27/2023 at 11:23 PM, Brew said:

Nor me, substitute symbiosis for 'system' and it's really only stating the blindingly obvious without offering anything new or original. 

 

Clearly, in 1972, it wasn't 'blindingly obvious' that there was a problem..much less a need to start considering solutions. 'Population Growth' was still being used by Malthusian thinkers as a crude measure and a source of alarmist rantings, especially since 'The West', could blame 'The East' for much of it and introduce racism and xenophobia into the mix.

See 'Yellow Peril' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril

 

The other element in Meadows' thinking, which is perhaps less evident in 'Limits', is the way systems can clearly demonstrate unintended, but nevertheless real, consequences of action, or inaction.

It's true that Meadows et.al., the 'Limits' authors did not originate 'systems' thinking, but I think it's fair to argue that they developed it from earlier stuff. Clearly they focused 'systems' on physical resources, but earlier theorists such as Talcott Parsons, who I encountered within Sociolgy studies.. and others.. ap[plied 'Systems' to their own fields.  It's a useful tool.

On 9/27/2023 at 11:23 PM, Brew said:

The Limit to Growth (Meadows), is akin to the Malthusian Theory circa 1798, updated to 1972.

 

Actually it isn't.  Malthus' population theory was simplistic and based on very few variables.  He saw a simplistic relationship between population growth and food production, occasionally interrupted by, to borrow from Meadows' later 'systems' ideas, the 'Leverage Point' of war.  He was proven wrong many times on many details, simply because his 'model', used too many assumptions and too few facts. 

 

Limits to Growth was based upon much more organised thinking and much better evidence.  Of course it wasn't perfect, but its main critics, as ever, were those who stood to lose by the acceptance of any kind of controls on the 'wanton' use of World resources.  Such people, who I will label 'Growth Limit Deniers', differ little in their fundamental thought processes and motivations, to later 'Tobacco Harm Deniers' and 'Climate Change Deniers'.  They either fail to understand the problem, or just want to deny it's existence due to fear, or more likely personal/business interest in continuing the status quo.

 

As we have seen with Tobacco, and increasingly with Climate, the 'harms' are real and increasingly recognised. What we need now is not ways to discredit Meadows, Climatoligists and others, but ways to resolve the issues they raised and predicted. The first stage in the resolution of any problem, is the recognition that it exists.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:25 AM, Brew said:

I should have added it's also close to Pavlov and his dogs...

 

Help me out here....  How does Pavlov's demonstration of 'classical' conditioning in dogs relate to Meadows, or Malthus for that matter..?

[DJ360 6,730]

I simply posted it as a 'summing up' on the current housing crisis.

[The Engineer 614]

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

Not sure what that means.  Do you agree that in an absolute sense, we live on a finite planet with finite resources?

 

The argument that didn't persuade me was the need for everyone to learn/think 'systems'.  I don't think any amount of scientific evidence or hypotheses will trigger a substantial change in the mindset of the masses (few will follow Meadows' example of going off grid and choosing not to have children).

[Brew 5,421]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Help me out here....  How does Pavlov's demonstration of 'classical' conditioning in dogs relate to Meadows, or Malthus for that matter..?

 

The industrial revolution was not factored into his theory, purely because it was in its infancy; yet many take that as proof his theories were wrong and ignore his sociological points. Many of which are still valid today.

Deniers cherry-pick points, anyone denying the fact that one day we will run out of resources has their head firmly in the sand.

 

Isn't that part of what system thinking us supposed to prevent, and by doing so acknowledges Malthus and his ideas?

 

Who exactly is she addressing that needs to think systematically? The right, the left, government, management, workers, housewives, anyone and everyone?

No it's business right? "working together and nursing our resources is the way to success and sustainability", so really she's just another management guru like so many before.

 

Meadows and the 'system’ are simply saying infinite expansion is not possible, the system as it stands today will not allow it.

In simple turns it's all about balance, an exercise in symbiosis - actions have consequences and there's nothing new about that.

Illustrate system thinking and you'll end up with the good old Venn diagram or a critical path chart.

 

Quote Denge (a systems thinker):

 

organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.”

 

What does all that actually mean? other than a long-winded way of saying not a lot. Every so often a business guru comes along, usually American, to tell us we're doing it all wrong and how their way is better. It's meaningless drivel and unworkable semi-psychobabble.

 

"results they truly desire"??

Is that a want or a need, where is that on Maslow's list?

 

"Expansive pattern of thinking"?

Really? Are we all not thinking right? Does no one think in patterns? Or does it

mean we should be conditioned to think and respond in a pre-determined way?

 

"Collective aspirations set free"?

Who determines the collective and its aspirations? Didn't Marks advocate something similar? That we all have and work collectively towards the same goals?

 

Systems thinking? How is it any different to:

 

Human Relations Theory

Total Quality

Just in time

ISO 9****

Lean engineering

Scientific management / Taylorism

 

Admittedly the last two were not ‘joined’ up thinking, but they can still be called a system, a way of reasoning and working.

Like most of these theories obscure or 'high' level language is used to add credence. 

 

And why is all going to fail? Like Taylorism it has no allowance or way to deal the the most recalcitrant element - people.

 

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,298]

Reading the above post immediately made me think of Dr. Edward de Bono and his 6 Thinking Hats and other consultant spouted plumbing equipment .... ballcocks.

 

Talking of "scientific management" we could use the expertise of Morris L Cooke who specialised in "obtaining inexpensive electricity for residential use" in the 1940s and 50s today.

Frank Gilbreth's book "Cheaper By The Dozen makes for an interesting read.

 

A personal viewpoint is that Taylor did not give enough credence to the human relations element of "scientific management" Something I learned whilst being trained by Toyota in Nagoya on the Toyota Production System.

[DJ360 6,730]

13 hours ago, The Engineer said:

 

The argument that didn't persuade me was the need for everyone to learn/think 'systems'.  I don't think any amount of scientific evidence or hypotheses will trigger a substantial change in the mindset of the masses (few will follow Meadows' example of going off grid and choosing not to have children).

 

That's one of those arguments I can both agree and disagree with at the same time. I've not read the specific book you refer to, though I am familiar with the rudiments of 'systems theory', mostly from encounters with the work of Talcott Parsons and others.

 

Whether or not Meadows argues that 'everyone', should think systems.. isn't really the point. She provides an additional tool, or method of thought and analysis which can be utilised in order to try to understand complex issues and propose potential strategies to resolve, or at least mitigate those outcomes which would be mutually destructive.

 

And yes, while few will take the 'extreme' decision to 'lead by example' (though living 'off grid' is much more prevalent these days) many more will slowly take on board the bigger message....

As an example, in the past, 'recycling' was an almost totally profit driven activity. As such, metals, fabrics, some paper etc.. were recycled because it paid those who did it. There was little or no environmental, or 'social' responsibility involved.

Now, since awareness of the damage done to say environmental 'systems' by simply 'dumping' stuff, but especially plastics, oil, heavy metals etc., has reached the wider consciousness.. most of us happily begin the process by filling several bags for weekly collection.

I believe that more people than ever now understand that actions have often unseen, or unintended consequences, which in turn can disrupt established systems. Even if people don't sit back and consciously apply 'formal' systems thinking to those issues, I believe that they are more 'systems aware'.

[Brew 5,421]

5 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

A personal viewpoint is that Taylor did not give enough credence to the human relations element of "scientific management"

 

A view that led to an ongoing row between those who follow Gilbreth and the followers of Taylorism.

There is an axiom attributed to Bill Gates but actually came from Gilbreth.

"I'll always choose a  lazy man to do a difficult task, he will always find the easiest way to do it"

[Brew 5,421]

25 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Whether or not Meadows argues that 'everyone', should think systems.. isn't really the point

 

Surely that's exactly the point. 

 

Choosing one aspect, recycling, as an instance is not (in my view), really a good example. The mindset of the population is not convinced and thinking in terms of a system. They simply do it because they're told to and have no choice.

 

System thinking is existential, it's simply too big, too complex to consider when standing at the Tesco checkout.

Many people will not discuss politics or religion for similar reasons.

 

But no matter, theories like these be they Parson and sociology, Taylor and management, McLuhan and the global village or Meadows with her combination, are like busses, there'll be another along in a minute.

 

[Oztalgian 3,298]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

"I'll always choose a  lazy man to do a difficult task, he will always find the easiest way to do it"

I agree Brew, I spent much of my working life in a manufacturing plant that made automotive components. When it came to the Industrial Engineering department doing time studies to set the rates on new products or processes most of the workers were smart enough to fool the IE men with their clipboards, stop watches and video cameras and end up with more time for the task than they actually needed.

It came as a shock to many in the IE fraternity when synthetic MTM and MOST studies came up with more accurate times than studies done with the actual equipment.

[DJ360 6,730]

The bottom line to all of the above, is that none of the thinkers mentioned have come up with what might be termed a 'Complete Answer', or a 'Unifying Theory' etc.. even within their own field, or specialism.  They are all open to valid criticism.

Much less have they come up with anything which offers a way of completely understanding and even managing both human socio-political relationships and our collective relationship with our environment I.E. our finite planet.

 

I encountered most of those mentioned whilst at Uni in the early 1980s. We were introduced to the works of the great thinkers and then required to demonstrate our understanding by writing essays on set questions..discussion in small 'seminar' groups  and final year exams.

 

I've often said since, that I didn't come out of all that with any answers.. but .. I like to think I came out with a tendency to question, and a better quality of question.

 

All of which is a long winded way of me saying that I'm not besotted with Meadows, but I do think she added something of value to the mix.  I feel the same about Plato, Aristotle, mediaeval 'Scholastics', Machiavelli, JJ Rousseau, Thom. Payne, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Marx, Engels, etc. All added to our 'toolbox', for ways of viewing the world and its political processes.

 

As for management theorists.. again, Taylor was very much of his time and while some of his stuff now looks quaint, or even silly, he still made the basic point that a Manager's job is not to achieve 'efficiency', and 'productivity', by cracking the whip, or imposing sanctions, but by understanding the processes in manufacture and actively seeking ways to improve them, to remove obstacles, etc.  Even Stalin embraced elements of Taylorism..

Henri Fayol, seems to get less exposure these days, but also took the same basic line..that management is (or should be) more of an 'enabling' function, than purely a 'control' function, even if he focused on different elements.

 

As for dismissing Meadows, and implicitly others, by comparing them to 'faddish' or 'flavour of the month' management theorists, I think you do them a disservice.

Firstly, as I've already said, I think they all added something to the mix, but more importantly, what would you propose we do instead?

 

 Surely, we either stop thinking and accept the current status quo.. or we continue to try to develop our World, its society, its economy and its environment, in sustainable ways.  If, as I prefer, it's the latter.. then we must have room for both grand theories such as Meadows et.al. and ultra specialists coming up with specific solutions to specific issues.

[DJ360 6,730]

4 hours ago, Brew said:

"I'll always choose a  lazy man to do a difficult task, he will always find the easiest way to do it"

 

I can quote an example which validates both Taylor and  Gilbreth.

 

I worked in a Lead Refinery, on a Rotary Furnace. When we 'tapped' the furnace, the contents poured into approx 2 foot square moulds. We were instructed to use an overhead crane to move the moulds onto the shop floor, with two men guiding the moulds and another operating the crane. the moulds were then laid out on the floor in neat rows.

 

Thing is, they mostly contained red hot slag, which took a while to cool down and therefore was a huge risk if spilled, or if a mould was stepped into.  It was all very unsatisfactory and bloody dangerous. Hot slag or metal, hitting a cold and potentially damp floor, is an explosive recipe.

 

Over time, we worked out ways in which the moulds could be lifted with a fork lift truck and placed outside the furnace house. Everyone stayed clear while the fork lift driver moved the moulds. If, as happened hardly ever, a mould was dropped, the only risk was to the driver and that was minimised as he was protected by the mast of the truck.

 

Management grudgingly accepted our method, but claimed putting moulds outside was a risk to other workers at the plant.. so we suggested they make a fenced off compound for the moulds to cool off in.  They did so.

We later found a way to turn the moulds over to empty them, which did away with the need for us to insert hooks into the slag , which also carried risks. But doing so began to damage the concrete yard.. so we suggested that management get hard cobbles laid where the concrete was too weak.  they did that too.

 

So, in the first instance Taylor was proven right in terms of managers needing to enable the workers' activities and in the second place Gilbreth was proven correct that workers will find the easiest ( and in this case the safest) way.

[Cliff Ton 10,468]

One of the problems is that people who fall under the heading ‘management’ often get there because they’ve taken a few exams and therefore think they can manage any business or process.

 

They’ve studied management theory - whatever that is - but it isn’t connected to the real world.

 

In a work environment, no-one should have the power to tell you to do something unless they know how to do it themselves.

[DJ360 6,730]

In a miss-timed but classic example of system failure leading to unexpected consequences... we've just had yet another brief power cut. The result was my loss of a brief but telling reply..which I will try to replicate...

 

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

They simply do it because they're told to and have no choice.

 

Firstly, they do have a choice. One of my neighbours has never chosen to use any of the recycling bins we are all provided with and continues to just chuck everything into the bin assigned for 'general' (i.e. not currently re-cycled) waste. In a wider context, some choose to make compost, some don't..some choose to chuck litter everywhere, some use bins, some take their litter home. Choices.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The mindset of the population is not convinced and thinking in terms of a system.

 

A rather large generalisation there Jim. I'd argue that there are at least three categories of mindset.

 

1. Those who are both unconvinced, ignorant and indifferent.

2. Those who see the 'sense' of recycling, both in terms of economy and environment, but without maybe a deeper environmental grasp.

3. Those who are like '2' above, but also understand that recycling relates to systems, such as resource management, pollution control etc. Although even they may not habitually 'think in systems', they are aware that ecological systems exist and are threatened by our activities.

[DJ360 6,730]

19 minutes ago, Cliff Ton said:

One of the problems is that people who fall under the heading ‘management’ often get there because they’ve taken a few exams and therefore think they can manage any business or process.

 

Agreed.  Equally, both Civil Servants and Public Sector workers suffer from a similar attitude from politicians, who often confuse policy and delivery.

[philmayfield 6,144]

When I ran a factory I could do every shop floor job myself and show others how it should be done. I was instrumental in buying and commissioning the machinery, designing and supervising new building construction and implementing the computer systems. I would sometimes make the coffee at break times as well and I’ve been known to unblock the toilets!

[woody 552]

When I was a foreman in an engineering factory we were bought out by another firm. They were run by accountants who did not have the faintest idea what engineering was . Their ideas were totally unworkable and nigh on destroyed the company. Their contempt for the workforce was unbelievable.  I had worked there for over twenty years, having worked my way up from being a green apprentice and did not agree with a lot I was being told to do. I had a good team of workers under me who knew that I would be reasonable to work for and I had very little trouble until this shower took over. They then decided to do away with foremen so I took redundancy. At an hours notice of leaving they tried to reduce my redundancy package due to "miscalculation". The judge at the County Court did no more than order them to pay the original amount plus costs. They were not very quick in paying so they also had to pay the cost of a Warrant of Execution. They also got caught out by the major customer who found they had been false information and were in effect put out of business. It was a prime example of the lunatics taking over the assylum.

[Brew 5,421]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I can quote an example which validates both Taylor and  Gilbreth.

Certainly not Taylor. His instructions to 'Sven' (probably fictious) when loading pig iron into a rail truck, was not to think but simply do exactly as told and no more, but I take your point,

[philmayfield 6,144]

I qualified as an accountant but learned engineering on the job out of necessity. Multi skilled me. 

[Brew 5,421]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

1. Those who are both unconvinced, ignorant and indifferent.

2. Those who see the 'sense' of recycling, both in terms of economy and environment, but without maybe a deeper environmental grasp.

3. Those who are like '2' above, but also understand that recycling relates to systems, such as resource management, pollution control etc. Although even they may not habitually 'think in systems', they are aware that ecological systems exist and are threatened by our activities.

!. I would rewrite as 'or' indifferent and contend that they are in the majority.

2. Agreed are a  goodly proportion and have a vague notion of what it's all about, but without some form of enforcement would probably lapse.

3. These are a minority, the 'greens' if you like but I maintain none, or maybe the smallest percentage, would think in  terms of it being a system or recognise the global scale of interconnectivity.

 

Part of my irritation with these wonderful words of wisdom is not that I don't agree, but the presentation. I hinted earlier these writers seem to need to demonstrate how clever they are and ignore the fact the target audience should be the ordinary chap in the street and not the lofty halls of academia. 

 

Going back to Meadows, she died over twenty years ago, how many here had even heard of her and her theory until this discussion? Pontification is no use if no one hears it..

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

33 minutes ago, Brew said:

Certainly not Taylor. His instructions to 'Sven' (probably fictious) when loading pig iron into a rail truck, was not to think but simply do exactly as told and no more, but I take your point,

 

Well yes.. my example, thinking about it, reveals one of the tensions in Taylor's theory.. He invokes managers to seek ways to 'enable' workers, but simultaneously instructs workers that there is 'one best way' to carry out a specific task...

 

But.. as I think I've at least tried to say above.. all important works of theory have internal tensions. For e.g, Rousseau really struggled with the idea that his Social Contract might not lead to all citizens embracing his route to freedom, such that he said some might have to be 'forced to free', which led to later accusations of 'proto fascism'.

 

I'm straying into less certain territory now, but as I recall, both Hegelian 'idealist' dialectic, and later Marxian 'materialist' dialectic, employ argument and analysis to attempt to resolve tensions in theories by using thesis, and anti-thesis to lead to synthesis of a newer theory.  Or summat ..