domingo, diciembre 14, 2014

A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence

Twenty-fourth update. Can this be a maximum heuristic and learning power framework of the whole new societal deal? Here we are inspired to respond with an alternative to the August 28, 2017, strategy+business article by Carlota Perez, Leo Johnson, and Art Kleiner Are We on the Verge of a New Golden Age? This is based on the tweet conversation TC1 tweet of August 11, 2017, whose Twitter image is next.

Next we can see the introductory image and its two companion images:


The second of the above images, that come from the tweet of TC1 of August 7, 2017, has the following three companion images.

Twenty-third update. Will Singularity University help create the Systemic Civilization before it becomes a target of DeGlobalization? What follows benefits from the article Technology Will Erase Jobs—But Also Make Everything Cheap or Free, written by Vanessa Bates Ramirez, Jun 08, 2017. What´s next is organized in the new format that is emerging to transform our tweet conversations tweets into blogs.
Observation 1: it is probably best seen on a personal computer.

Observation 2: please comment on the new format.
The 3 shared images shown in brief, we suggest are more than enough for the general public to know the situation and to help anyone decide if it diffuses it to the rest of their friends of the local, global or both populations. This can be said to be approaching the Second Degree of Clarity (see the image with the heading "Can Peirce’s “How to make our ideas clear," in the Twenty-second updatethat is traditionally used by the mass media. This is the Facebook and Linkedin version.

This conversation of tweets which we call TC1 deals with the same topic in more depth as Twitter hashtags (that start with #) can be understood as emerging knowledge flows. We suggest that this approximates to the Third Degree of Clarity that corresponds to the #EcoIsOurs professionals that complement EcoNoMics scientists. This of course is the Twitter Version. 


The Twitter images shown above (which allow hitting Retweet and Like) of the most recent tweet at this time, shows the 3 shared images representations which will be shown next.










Twenty-second update. Synthesis: this is the proof why society needs to create the systemic civilization. This a series of 16 images that can be considered as though experiments that support or are related to said synthesis that come from tweets on our @gmh_upsa Twitter account. They all try to belong to synthesis rather than analysis which is unable to deal with the very high level of complexity involved, The mentioned reference to other images that are not shown in this update can be seen in earlier updates or in the Twitter account. With regards to the links mentioned in some images, please Google the combination of the article's title with Vanderhorst to restrict the number of hits. As an afterthought, some of the images can be selected and rearranged for a presentation on a partial view of main synthesis.

















Twenty-first update. As we’re all developing countries now, it is time to leapfrog to the systemic civilization. One hint in the title came from the article The sustainable development goals: we’re all developing countries now, written by Henrietta Moore, Professor Henrietta Moore is director of the UCL Institute for Global Prosperity, for theguardian.com Its subtitle, "Inequality in the UK and US is a stark reminder that the patronising relationship between the global north and south is misplaced," hints to The Wealth of Globalization.



An even more important hint for its power of interpretation in the idea that we are developing countries in the systemic civilization is the precedent of the current Big Shift of the fourth information revolution described by John Hagel III and his colleagues in the Big Shift of the third information revolution that Eamonn Kelly documented in the introduction of his book Powerful Times,

The power of interpretation makes a big difference, for example, when we consider the alternative of what has been happening is similar to what happened in the 1930s and not 500 years ago when the transformation of the Catholic Church resulted in the emergence two centuries later of industrial civilization.

Twentieth update. Our response to Yanis Varoufakis: Grexit 'never went away' is that the EU is a Titanic under #DarkGlobalization. "With the UK on the cusp of leaving the European Union and Greece increasingly facing the same fate, is it over for the beleaguered body?" is the title of the following YouTube interview.







Nineteenth update. Can French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters help us avoid world war by choosing bright globalization? Please take a hard look to the must read story Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable, by Paul Blumenthal, Money in Politics Reporter, and JM Rieger, Producer, both of The Huffington Post.

That story says that Bannon singled out historian and professor David Kaiser (there seem to be no one else) as "an expert on William Strauss and Neil Howe." I searched and found the key assumption of Bannon's inevitable conclusion in the Harvard Business Review article The Next 20 Years: How Customer and Workforce Attitudes Will Evolve by Neil Howe and William Strauss. Howe and Strauss claimed the following:
Rather than puzzling over why 20-year-olds were self-absorbed moralizers in the 1960s but are busy and risk-averse achievers today, one must recognize them as members of distinct generations.
Our theses is that they are not just members of distinct generations, but mainly members of a distinct civilization, which we have named here the systemic civilization. The key systems architecting difference with the industrial civilization is about independent and interdependent countries.

The above is in line to what was said in the "Seventh update. Will third time be the charm for the European Union to fill the global leadership vacuum?" of the post Can 51 European business leaders of @ert_eu help fill the global leadership vacuum? in response to a tweet of the Washington Post on "Mikhail Gorbachev is worried about a world war. He hopes Trump and Putin can stop it," we suggest that voters all over the world must reject the dark globalization starting, for example, this year in Europe as described in the 17th and 18th updates below.

Eighteenth update.  French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters need a new 'common sense' to help emerge the bright globalization. The motivation for this short update is to promote the interest for all Global Debout citizens of the world in the "Seventeenth update. For French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters: please claim for the bright globalization" comes from the story Trump: I’ll take ‘common sense’ travel ban to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

As voters all over the world are still dominated by at most an approximation to the Second Degree of Clarity strong influence of the dark globalization, the opportunity for the emergence of a common sense favorable to the bright globalization during this year might be in the elections in Europe, even though its leaders have not listen yet to the advise given in the must read post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first, which at this moment has 25 hits on the phrase 'common sense.' In the initial text of that post we said:
Based on her book "TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS AND FINANCIAL CAPITAL: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages," during the second stage of every technological revolution, Carlota Pérez describes a new order, which includes, for example, “the emerging heuristic routines and approaches are gradually internalized by engineers and managers, investors and bankers, sales and advertising people, entrepreneurs and consumers. In time, a shared logic is established; a new “common sense” is accepted for investment decisions as well as for consumer choice. The old ideas are unlearned and the new ones become “normal.’”
Seventeenth update. For French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters: please claim for the bright globalization. The tip of The Wealth of  Globalization iceberg is now visible under a lens that approximates the Third Degree of Clarity. The iceberg trying to emerge is that of the bright globalization which calls for the creation of the systemic civilization.



It is visible from a reinterpretation of the Washington Post story Apple, Facebook, many other tech firms call travel ban ‘unlawful’ in rare coordinated legal action written to approximate the Second Degree of Clarity. From that story, which reflects the emerging reality that we live in a flat world where talent is global, scarce and expensive, while money is local, abundant and cheap, we can see that:
On Sunday night, technology giants Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, Uber and many others filed a legal brief opposing the administration’s contentious entry ban. The move represents a rare coordinated action across a broad swath of the industry — about a hundred companies in total — and demonstrates the depth of animosity toward the Trump order.
As a warning for France, Germany, and the Netherlands, we understand that the main reason Donald Trump was able to win the presidential election in the United States was his sharp First Degree of Clarity against the Second Degree of Clarity of the media which was defending the dark globalization in place since at least since about 1990 when The Wealth of Nations ran out of steam.

It was about 1990 that W. Edwards Deming complained about the tyranny of the prevailing style of management, which resulted in a dark globalization manifested escalations, for example, in inequality, climate change, migratory crisis, and insecurity. Bright globalization is needed to reverse those escalations as soon as possible.

We associate that dark globalization with the industrial civilization ‘Groupthink’ and now with the confusion generated by the Second Degree of Clarity. Companies that benefited from the dark globalization have seen their returns on assets decrease and have been playing short run financial capital roulette.

To help emerge the bright civilization, Deming suggested his system of profound knowledge which is the way to approximate to the Third Degree of Clarity. That's why we most welcome the above mentioned "rare coordinated action," that benefit from bright globalization, by playing for long run production capital in the global market.

Sixteenth update. Do President Trump’s initial actions trying to fulfill campaign commitment approximate the First Degree of Clarity? This though experiment is an adjustment from previous updates and tweets that thought President Trump and some media were both acting to approximate the Second Degree of Clarity in a world begging to approximate the Third Degree of Clarity.



Leaving the description of the First Degree of Clarity that connected very well with the people with simplistic stories to the end, this update emerges to contrast the difference between political leaders and system leaders.  There we will also see that the real problem facing what used to be high quality journalism of the Second Degree of Quality is no longer useful.



After watching Fareed Zakaria’s GPS on February 5, 2017, where he gave his usual take and interviewed Madeleine Albright and Stephen Hadley, we were led to read his Washington Post column of February 2nd, 2017, Sorry, President Trump. I agree with you. That let us concentrate on his sentence: “The goal should be to use politics as a mechanism to bring us together through both public policy and public discourse.”

The title reflects in part what we interpret Hadley said: "I think the mechanics left a lot to be desired, but I think what they were trying to do was get out those policies send the message to the country that business is going to be done differently and send a message to those who rallied to Mr. Trump's cause that they are true to the commitments into the issues that he raised during the campaign..." The problem in those mechanics is also with the current mechanism used by the media that approximates to the Second Degree of Clarity which divides us under the increasing influence of the industrial civilization ‘Groupthink’ from at least 1990 when The Wealth of Nations lost its steam.

In order to bring us together is only possible through an emergent organism (not mechanism) that approximates to the Third Degree of Clarity under The Wealth of Globalization.  We suggest that organism is the system leader.

This is what I discovered that I have been developing myself as a system leader.  It can be seen in the Winter 2015 of Stanford Social Innovation Review article, by Peter Senge, Hal Hamilton, & John Kania, The Dawn of System Leadership, whose subtitle says: “The deep changes necessary to accelerate progress against society's most intractable problems require a unique type of leader—the system leader, a person who catalyzes collective leadership.”

For convenience we repeat what we recently said under the “Thirteenth update.  There is nothing so powerful as The Wealth of Globalization whose time has come:”
The rearrangement of the megatrends is based on the third scenario, which is also based on our contrasting definition of system and anti-systems, suggests the importance of the value creation or destruction resulting from the relationships among the megatrends. That definition is what permits the approximation to the Third Degree of Clarity that minimizes the existence of unintended consequences that Camdessus anticipated.

Such an approximation can be considered as structural explanations introduced by Peter Senge, that go well beyond “Pattern of behavior explanations [that] focus on seeing longer term trends and assessing their implications[iii],” that we suggest approximate the Second Degree of Clarity. One unintended consequence not mentioned in the event is the emergence of the Odebrecht positive Black Swan as a non-lineal disruptive opportunity to reduce the horizon from 2050 to 2030 (this fits with what Camdessus said in the next paragraph) on The Wealth of Globalization transformation.
Now we describe what we consider as the First Degree of Clarity. Back in September 2014, in the initial text of the post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first:
In the “more than 1 million copies in print,” of the “revised and updated with 100 new pages,” in the 2006 book in front of me, "The Fifth Discipline: the art & practice of the Learning Organization,” written by Peter Senge, it says that “The system perspective shows that there are multiple levels of explanations in any complex situation… In some sense, all are equally ‘true.’ But their usefulness is quite different.”  I guess that high quality journalism is not just about “event explanations,” which Senge says “are the most common in contemporary culture, and that’s exactly why reactive management prevails.”
Fifteen update. Is Donald Trump a disruptive transitional not transformational figure, as Katrina vanden Heuvel suggested?


Fourteenth updateAll processes of global restructuring under the Washington Consensus resulted in legalized corruption We reconfirm here that volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (#VUCA) is the signal of the end of the industrial civilization and the beginning of the systemic civilization, The term VUCA originated with the United States Army War College to describe conditions resulting from the Cold War. The end of the Cold War is one of the main causes of anti-systemic corruption that W. Edwards Deming described as the tyranny of current style of management that has led to soaring inequality::
The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C. Williamson used the term to summarize commonly shared themes among policy advice by Washington-based institutions at the time, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, which were believed to be necessary for the recovery of countries in Latin America from the economic and financial crises of the 1980s.
That reconfirms was said in the previous update on the security, social and cultural challenges :
In our approach, that fits with those three challenges, such fatal emergence is due, for example, to fundamental flaws on Margaret Thatcher TINA (There is No Alternative to neoliberalism) and the Washington Consensus stories which have continued The Wealth of Nations well beyond its useful life for about two decades. 
Thirteenth update.  There is nothing so powerful as The Wealth of Globalization whose time has come. Almost two years before the celebration of the very important Fourth CAF -Development Bank of Latin America- and the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) CONFERENCE, “The crisis of globalization: its impact in the Global South,” on January 13, 2017, I introduced the post Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015? Version 0.0 (in what follows 'new world order post'). 










We suggest that if actions would have been taken based on said post, whose initial text has 35 references, it would have prevented the current existential threats to the world order that emerged as a result of the negative influence of Adam Smith’s idea of The Wealth of Nations that is probably responsible, for example, both Brexit and Donald Trump election as president of USA. We strongly believe that the new influence of The Wealth of Globalization fully satisfies the famous quote of Victor Hugo “There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.” As can be seen, that idea is the underlying message of this whole post.

Here is what is develop below. Suggesting that the Conference was organized under two scenarios of The Wealth of Nations, we sent a proposal of a third scenario for The Wealth of Globalization. We suggest a shift to a mature proactive attitude for countries of the European Union for them to organize referendum of globalization that end the threats. 

A description of the conference centered on the keynote address by Michel Camdessus about 11 megatrends for 2050, which he wisely suggested to be contrasted with the 17 Sustainbable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. As both the megatrends and the SDGs emerged under the negative influence of The Wealth of Nations, we are able to show the non-lineal disruptive effects of The Wealth Globalization for the benefit of humanity.

At this moment the new world order post has, for example, its:

Fourth update: in a new world order, Servant-Leadership will be prevalent. 12 Jan 15.

Fifth update: John Hagel III has written the timely contribution The Big Shift in Strategy - Part 2, which seems to be valuable to help us reach the vision of a new world order where the magic happens. 14 Jun 15. This was socialized to become version 1.0.  It brings us the difference between the strategies of terrain versus that of trajectory.

Sixth update: Where To From Here? Silicon Valley Is Not Alone. Joint Action In Moving Forward say Steve Denning. I ask if is it towards the Systemic civilization? 20 Jun 15.

Seventh update. Citizens are not expecting a highly systemic COP21 world order, but will love it. 3 Dec 15. This was socialized to become the final version.

Eighth update. Contrasting Joi Ito’s Nine Principles with the emergence of the systemic civilization. 23 Jul 16.

Synthesizing many other posts and tweets of what we have learned, two days before the celebration of the CONFERENCE, we made a proposal of a third scenario as can be seen below in the Twelfth update of this post, which is a strong defense of a positive approach to globalization. One day before that event we complemented the proposal by highlighting the critical difference between change and transformation.  

While more insightful now, that critical difference is exactly what was meant in the above mentioned Fifth update of the new world order, where change is about a strategy of terrain, and transformation is about a strategy of trajectory.  Below we will continue this in reference to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

After having lost probably two decades, we expect this thought experiment might enable action as soon as possible, for example, on the part of the countries members of the European Union to change from a wait and see bureaucratic attitude to a mature proactive attitude, by country members designing an executing a referendum on globalization for their citizens. It is clear that in the UK this would be a second referendum on the Brexit process. 

Of course, this applies to any country of the world that wants to become interdependent. In the case of Spain and of Dominican Republic there are many post mostly in Spanish in this blog.

Coming back to the event, in the day of the conference I heard from the streaming video (and later on from the recordings) all that I could and also browse all the tweets and became aware of more than I could not hear using the hashtag of the event #CAFLSE.  After looking also at the Table of Content of the first edition of a book with 10 megatrends, central to the event, whose second edition was updated to respond to the surprises, for example, of Brexit and Trumps election, was just being placed in circulation by the book editor Harinder S. Kohli, and his blog post on the first edition[i], we spiritise (therefore we are), think, and feel, as a servant-leaders would do, that is more than enough to enable us to update the new world order proposal.

Based on the EcoIsOurs[ii] architecting synthesis as opposed to EcoNoMic analysis, the proposal update is organized below in accordance with a rearrangement of the 11 megatrends presented in the magnificent inaugural keynote address of the event by Michel Camdessus. The 11th megatrend about growth was added by Camdessus in his speech in which he mentioned his country France, as the “Sleeping Beauty.” We hope this post will wake up at least her, Germany and the UK as soon as possible, for the high potential leverage they have to help emerge the new order.

The rearrangement of the megatrends is based on the third scenario, which is also based on our contrasting definition of system and anti-systems, suggests the importance of the value creation or destruction resulting from the relationships among the megatrends. That definition is what permits the approximation to the Third Degree of Clarity that minimizes the existence of unintended consequences that Camdessus anticipated.

Such an approximation can be considered as structural explanations introduced by Peter Senge, that go well beyond “Pattern of behavior explanations [that] focus on seeing longer term trends and assessing their implications[iii],” that we suggest approximate the Second Degree of Clarity. One unintended consequence not mentioned in the event is the emergence of the Odebrecht positive Black Swan as a non-lineal disruptive opportunity to reduce the horizon from 2050 to 2030 (this fits with what Camdessus said in the next paragraph) on The Wealth of Globalization transformation.

Changing the order of Camdessus keynote, after the presentation of the megatrends and the corresponding challenges, he wisely suggested that there was a missing link and the potential emergence of other megatrends in the future, which fits with the need for transformation. Then he went on the suggest that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) as a historical breakthrough and a superb instrument for multilateral cooperation and the legitimacy for guiding the efforts during the next 15 years. He even argued that if by 2030 there is not important progress we need to forget about our objectives. Then he contrasted a few of the SDGs to the megatrends to give an example on how to proceed.

Let’s look at a United Nations news [iv] on what Ban Ki-moon said before the SDGs emerged, whose introduction says:

17 January 2013 – The world is undergoing big changes in the economic, development and political spheres, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today in a lecture at Stanford University, highlighting three essential ways to navigate through this “Great Transition.”

"Great transition" is a valuable clue to The Wealth of Nations. Ban asserted that “At the current rate, we will soon need two planet earths. But we have only one planet. There can be no Plan B because there is no planet B. Both science and economics tell us that we need to change course – and soon.” As we suggest that EcoNoMics is due to become EcoIsOurs,[v] which fits with pressures on the planet, we interpret that Plan A leads to SDGs for change or a strategy of terrain under The Wealth of Nations. Confirming that we only have one planet, we re-frame the idea that we need Plan B for a transformation or strategy of trajectory that reverses “the current rate” of a myopic expansion of the planet.

For convenience let’s repeat from the previous update of this post what is meant by change and transformation. Plan A, “By definition, change is a process. It can be incremental and subtle or it can be huge, but it must be consciously tracked, sustained, and curated. Effective change requires thought, effort, and persistence. Success can be benchmarked.” Plan B, “On the other hand, transformation is always big. It is more of a total shift in consciousness than it is a process. It is so fundamental that it creates a new set point – in fact, if transformation is successful, it creates a new reality.” Plan A is centralized for one world of independent countries, with the UK and probably the USA as examples. Plan B will be decentralized for many interdependent countries.

The above fits with Camdessus' insight about the excess of targets on the SDGs. Without those targets, the SDGs themselves may prove to be very useful guides for the strategy of trajectory with a few changes in accordance with the Decalogue Summary of the new world order post, which is also repeated here for the readers' convenience: 
1. Should Eurozone’s leaders search for the urgent truth (with its feeling and power) by leading with questions? 
2. Are Eurozone’s leaders convinced that they must take the leap to the stage to organize the world for the new order by giving the example of the kind of government market combination needed?  
3. Will Eurozone’s leaders believe that such powerful times involve more than a technological revolution?  
4. Can Eurozone’s leaders help become a reality a new world social order by enabling a new civilization based on the present Information Revolution that’s trying to emerge to displace the industrial civilization?  
5. Will 2015 (now 2017) be the year when a declaration of interdependence will emerge from the Eurozone?
 6. Are the Eurozone’s leaders ready to accept that the industrial civilization over expanded the production of energy above the limits of the world? 
 7. Are Eurozone’s leaders ready to follow German and Danish leadership modified under the assumption of the common sense behind interdependent countries?  
8. Are the Eurozone’s leaders ready to accept that market failures can be eliminated by adopting great and fair complete and fully functional markets under minimalist government regulation?  
9. Will Eurozone’s leaders help place wisdom above money?  
10. Are Eurozone leaders aware that a Golden Age is available under the common sense of Jobsims, which is where the magic happens at the Bottom of Pyramid where most chronic and particular systemic (now ant-systemic) crisis enables the greatest socioeconomic opportunities on that Golden Age?

Based on the above, we infer from the lineal assumptions on the Table of Contents' Overview placed in the first column and suggest the non-lineal disruptive opportunity on the second column as follows:

The World in 2050
under The Wealth of Nations
The World in 2030
under The Wealth of Globalization
Historic context and transformation (world transition in our sense) over the past 60 years
Historic context and transformation over the past 500 years
Drivers of future long-term economic growth
Heuristic systemic architecting policy design drivers for society well-being
Alternate scenarios
Only the third scenario
Development is more than growth (with SDGs on the path of Plan A of the industrial civilization)
Development for well-being with SDGs on the path of Plan B of the systemic civilization
Revamping (change) global governance
Creating (transforming) a minimalist global governance
A new leitmotif for sustaining a multipolar, multicultural, and interconnected world
The global systemic civilization of interdependent countries

In order to show the non-linear disruptive impact based on approximation to Charles Sanders Peirce Third Level of Clarity  we will try to fit the Plan A megatrends to the Plan B third scenario. The following comments reflect a different organization than what we understand suggest the first and second scenarios of The Wealth of Nations. 

The reorganization which we suggest reframes the megatrends into the following three groups on the third scenario.  Such reorganization tries to group megatrends that we suggest mutually reinforce more each other from the emerging perspective, where we highlight the a non-lineal effect on a few megatrends. Below we use brackets for cross-references on the megatrends [1-10] and group of megatrens [A-C], 

A. People and Society
1.            Demographics: An aging population
2.            Urbanization: Toward a predominantly urbanized world
5.            Rise of a massive middle class: Toward societies driven by new values and aspirations
10.          Violent non-state actors: A changing global security landscape

“Emergence of fundamentalism and non-state actors [10]“ is the result of the current global leadership vacuum we have repeatedly mentioned in this blog, that fits with the introduction of Harinder S. Kohli blog post, where it says: “Global governance and international institutions appear ill-suited for the tasks ahead.” Kohli’s blog post also says that “Violent non-state actors pose potential serious threats to global security and rule of law. Concerted cooperative global actions are urgently needed, together with an all-out effort to promote higher and more inclusive growth [10].” 

We expect a big non-linear move on all megatrends in this group.The main problem is that current rule of law has become anti-systemic (please consider and below the section 'The Big Problems are reframed here as anti-systemic problems,' on the Seventh update of this post).  In his keynote, Camdessus identified no one, but three emerging challenges: security, social and cultural on [10].

In our approach, that fits with those three challenges, such fatal emergence is due, for example, to fundamental flaws on Margaret Thatcher TINA (There is No Alternative to neoliberalism) and the Washington Consensus stories which have continued The Wealth of Nations well beyond its useful life for about two decades. The aging population in the developed countries and the rising population, for example, in Africa [1], tell the story of the escalation on the social and cultural response of anti-systemic migration patterns of the poor to cities and the people with reduced security under armed conflict.  By leaping activities to the systemic civilization, under the third scenario global population increase will, for example, be lower.

Kohli’s blog post also adds that “This sharp divergence in the demographic trends combined with difficulties in creating jobs for Africa’s bulging youth population will pose unprecedented challenges to the global community [1]." The rise of the middle-class under The Wealth of Globalization[vi] is related by the misunderstanding on the need for new values and aspirations [5], for example, of the Arab Spring, the 15 M and Occupy Wall Street movements. 

The challenge of the “predominantly urbanized world [2]” is faced by upgrading Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s book Revolutionary Wealth to support rural life as a mean to reverse the above mentioned anti-systemic migration in accordance with Plan B  [vii] which suggest, for example, to modify SDG 11: "Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable" to include rural communities. This reversal strongly affects the city megatrend of Plan A.

B. The EcoIsOurs Globalization
3.            International trade: An increasingly intertwined world
4.            Globalization of finance: Toward larger, more integrated financial markets
9.            Transformation of the global economy: Rise of the emerging economies

The transformation from the EcoNoMy to the EcoIsOurs places the needed transformation of the macroeconomic importance on trade and finance of the transformation of the centralized Top-Down[viii] current monetary anti-system [4] into a relevant EcoIsOurs which adds to the mix distributed Bottom-Up system. Here we quote Peter Drucker who said back in 1983 that “…it is becoming increasingly clear that it is Schumpeter who will shape the thinking and inform the questions on economic theory and economic policy for the rest of this century, if not for the next 30 or 50 years.’’.[ix].

Given that, there is less need for stability of the Top-Down monetary system (that have been operating on their limits since 2008) and more on the dynamic operation of living systems, based on increased entrepreneurial talent (not money which of course still has a role) as the scarce resource (an incentive to reverse brain drain) that helps develop all global societies [A] that create the systemic civilization for both emerging and developing EcoIsOurs [9] under a Global Way of Life [C]. International trade [3] under systemic markets of interdependent countries is due to increase global well-being, Please consider below the "Eleventh update. A letter to Ken Silverstein in response to his timely article  Is American Enterprise More Powerful Than The President Of The United States?” of this post.

The best opportunity of what Camdessus call for “The sleeping beauty” needs to follow what Peter Drucker suggested on an upgrade to politics and economics [x]. We first thought that Post-Fordism was to have emerged as Jobsism (Decalogue item 10), but now we understand that Jobsism might have added Aesthetics to Logic, but left Ethics out. That was introduced in reference 27 of the main text of the post on the new order, Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia," We know however, that Keynes wrote the following:
When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease … But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.
The Wealth of Globalization fits quite well with a high critical social and cultural importance of talent to execute Plan B enough to change our Code of Morals. That's why we owe to Odebrecht anti-systemic corruption practices that are no longer semi-criminal or semi-pathological, but criminal and pathological. 

C. Technology
6.            Competition for finite natural resources
7.            Climate change: The time to act is now...jointly
8.            Technological progress: Potential solutions to the world's evolving challenges
emerging

As the competition for finite natural resources [6] is reversed with Plan B, its relationship to the rising middle-class [5] is also reduced as we change from the current ‘American Way of Life’ culture centered on tangible goods to a ‘Global Way of Life’ centered on intangible goods [xi]. The scarce resource is talent, not money [B].  This is why China twin-track strategy seem to be overdue for big shift [xii]. 

The solution to anti-systemic challenges will emerge by heuristic policy designs based on the framework transformation model of the electric power sector of the Dominican Republic under global citizens support, as a result the Odebrecht positive Black Swan response [B]. Such a model is the first example of the direct democracy of systemic market deregulation, which has the potential of economies of scale on the demand side distributed resources. That’s the key technological progress [8] of the bright side.

The voluntary COP21 Paris Agreement strategy of terrain negotiated low carbon transition under the primacy of the political parts is then superseded by systemic action oriented strategy of trajectory referendum to cero carbon transformation one country at a time under the primacy of the whole that will support the creation of the systemic civilization [xiii]That model has the potential to dissolve the climate change anti-systemic challenge. There is then no need to act jointly on climate change, which is a very disruptive to the megatrend [7]. 



[i] This is based on the original 10 megatrends that are discussed in the book “The World in 2050: striving for a more just, prosperous, and harmonious global community, edited by Harinder S. Kohli. The blog post by Kohli is What will happen to global economics in thenext 34 years, July 8, 2016.
[ii] Replacing the Science of EcoNoMics with the System Profession of EcoIsOurs, GMH Blog post, September 2014. Its "Fourth update. Thought hypothesis.“I spiritize, therefore I am.” – José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio." January , 2017.
[iii]“ Third update. A proposal Brexit 23J and Spanish 26J voters are not expecting from EUCouncil but will love,” of the GMH Blog post Can 51 European business leaders of @ert_eu help fill the global leadership vacuum?
[v] Same as reference [ii].
[vi] See "Third update. Can this primer on The Wealth of Globalization be important for the future of humanity? of reference [ii]..
[vii] Would middle-class 'indignados' prefer direct democracy?, GMH Blog post, September 2014, class. Its "First update. #GlobalDebout #15M #OWS #TheWealthOfGlobalization #ElFinDeLaImpunidad (#TheEndOfImpunity) @lsnmafalda @giovannida," shows that under The Wealth of Globalization corrption is the root cause 
[viii] We praise Alejandro Foxley comments on the Bottom-Up approach. 
[ix] Peter F. Drucker, “Schumpeter And Keynes,” May 1983.
[x] Peter Drucker “Management Challenges for the 21st Century,” page x.
[xi] "Fifth update. Great Capitalism common sense to 'Make the World Great' as 'The American Way of Life' model is unsustainable, November 2016, of the GMH Blog post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first.
[xii] A black and white support for a critique discused during the event about the lack of innovation by China, can be seen in the news Christopher Hughes analizó el futuro de la política exterior china y su estrategia para Latinoamérica. We understand that China is supposed to be driving a Second and Third waves twin track, but as we see here there is big contradiction in those tracks. China must now leap to The Wealth of Globalization. John Hagel has at least one salient example about China's innovation in Platforms on the Third Wave track.
[xiii] There are extensive references in support of this. Several are included in this post. One of them the early ones is After a million total views in EWPC Blog, a climate change architecting hypothesis breakthrough for COP21 GMH Blog post April 2015.

Twelfth update. Proposal and complement of a third scenario for the IV CAF-LSE CONFERENCE in London January 13, 2017. 


Proposal of a third scenario for the IV CAF-LSE CONFERENCE

Scenario 1: SR[i] ‘New American Century’ and LR[ii] ‘Continuity.’
Scenario 2: SR ‘Patchworks Powers’ and LR ‘Tough Times.’

Scenarios 1 and 2 support a debate learning from the past under Cartesian and Kantian thinking which try to approximate a Second Degree of Clarity. The debate is based on the primacy of the parts under what emerged as the Industrial Civilization ‘Groupthink’ under Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations of independent countries, after the fourth information ‘computer’ revolution that replaces the third information ‘printing press’ revolution emerged.

Scenario 3: SR ‘Emergence’ and LR ‘Rising Expectations.’

Scenario 3 supports the generative dialogue to also learn from the emergent future we have been conducting under Peircian (systemic) thinking which tries to approximate a Third Degree of Clarity. The generative dialogue is based on the primacy of the whole which suggest creating the systemic civilization under The Wealth of Globalization of interdependent countries.




[i] Short run (SR) scenarios for 2005-2015. Eamonn Kelly, “Powerful Times,” 2006, Pearson Education, Inc.
[ii] Long run (LR) scenario see complementary shared image. Video Completo Conferencia Magistral Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio en Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana, 2012 (http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2012/08/video-completo-conferencia-magistral-dr.html ).


This is a complement to the proposal of a third scenario for the IV CAF-LSE CONFERENCE that can be seen as part of a tweet conversation.

 “The hopes of a brave new world of progress, harmony and democracy, raised by the market opening of the 1980s and the collapse of Soviet communism between 1989 and 1991, have turned into ashes.” -- Martin Wolf: The long and painful journey to world disorder, Financial Times.

According to the Toffler Associates’ blog post “Your New Year’s Resolution to Change is Too Limited,” this is the critical difference between change and transformation for CAF-LSE:

By definition, change is a process. It can be incremental and subtle or it can be huge, but it must be consciously tracked, sustained, and curated. Effective change requires thought, effort, and persistence. Success can be benchmarked.

On the other hand, transformation is always big. It is more of a total shift in consciousness than it is a process. It is so fundamental that it creates a new set point – in fact, if transformation is successful, it creates a new reality.

Based on the above definitions, we suggest that Martin Wolf’s quote belong to change processes under The Wealth of Nations, when what is urgently needed is a transformation under The Wealth of Globalization to create the new realty we have named as the systemic civilization.

Eleventh update. A letter to Ken Silverstein in response to his timely article  Is American Enterprise More Powerful Than The President Of The United States?”

Dear Mr. Silverstein:

Good afternoon!

This letter is in response to your article Is American Enterprise More Powerful Than The President Of The United States? Below we take Apple as an example not just as an American enterprise, but as a global one, while positioning power on getting closer to win-win wisdom that’s above the traditional win-lose incentives driven by money and politics.

Like most articles yours is strongly influenced by “The Wealth of Nations” concept of Adam Smith, which as you will see below has been getting for several decades farther away from reality. To get closer to reality, we suggest that emerging leaders all over the world must give due consideration to the post A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence.

That post has a trial and error emerging organization of though experiments added as updates as documental flows instead of stocks that are now depreciating. As part of a process of learning from the emerging future, this letter is also its Eleventh update. Other recent relevant experimental flows are:
Eighth update. See how the Industrial Civilization 'Groupthink' is hiding the Big Ideas emerging from The Wealth of Globalization.

Ninth update. Great System of Profound Knowledge ideas for the management theory of the Wealth of Globalization.

Tenth update. Can the solution to Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s Revolution 3.5 on Big Government be on The Wealth of Globalization?
In this thought experiment (widely open to improvements) we consider the two types of strategies of the ones suggested by John Hagel III:
Industry 4.0’s Strategy of Terrain:  it continues the industrial civilization of independent countries with an institutionalized primacy of the parts low carbon energy transition under Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations with the aim for The American Way of Life which necessarily leaves the people at the Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) under soaring inequality which in turns drives migration. ‘Good’ (mediocre) capitalism continues what W. Edwards Deming described as the tyranny of the prevailing style of management.
Platform Economics’ Strategy of Trajectory: starts by creating the systemic civilization of interdependent countries with a primacy of the whole no carbon green growth transformation institutional innovation towards minimalist governments and direct democracy of systemic markets (i.e. platforms) based on The Wealth of Globalization. Great capitalism is under servant-leadership where even people at the BoP have the opportunity to develop.
This letter on the power of global business versus than of country presidents also benefits from a comment to the article of The Economist, written by Mr. Adrian Wooldridge, Our Schumpeter columnist pens a dark farewell. We told him that we still have the possibility to prove right what he wrote as "This column was inspired by the young Schumpeter’s vision of the businessperson as hero—the Übermensch who dreams up a new world and brings it into being through force of intellect and will." One such man was Steve Jobs, whose insights were attributed to his capacity of a Reality Distortion Field (RDF).

We submit that the RDF does not belong to Mr. Jobs as a hero leader, which got very close to the emerging reality of the systemic civilization, but for all those myopic managers in the public and private sectors that confused consensus with the emerging truth in a world under revolutionary change. Emulating the old saying about Ford and America, we need a new consensus that will emerge as the answer to the question "Is Tim Cook saying 'That what’s good for Apple is also good for the world' and that we must be on The Wealth of Globalization?" That question is based on a quote of Tim Cook that says:
"Whether it's in this country, or the European Union, or in China or South America, we engage...And we engage when we agree and we engage when we disagree. I think it's very important to do that because you don't change things by just yelling. You change things by showing everyone why your way is the best. In many ways, it's a debate of ideas." -- Apple CEO Tim Cook on why he attended President-elect Donald Trump's tech summit.
In order to support the above, we adapt our comment to Mr. Wooldridge’s article "Management Theory is becoming a compendium of dead ideas."  If you are reading this letter in its Eleventh update, that comment is available below in the Ninth update.

While the reformation was a process of transformation that was supported by a wave like (as Alvin Toffler introduced it) change from one civilization to another, reforms have been used for transitions within one civilization. The similarity of the Catholic Church and the business gurus is the 'Groupthink' influence, where consensus is taken as truth, when truth is what must support consensus. Behind both transformation processes Peter Drucker identified as the prime mover the third (printing press) and the fourth (electronic computers) information revolutions.

One key outcome that emerged after reformation was Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. From 1980 to 2008 period, mentioned in the article, the industrial civilization 'Groupthink' based on Margaret Thatcher's TINA (There's Not Alternative) to neoliberalism story and the Washington Consensus that have returned the world to a new version of the Middle Ages.

Now on the four dead ideas, we start with the fourth which is the most important one to end the RDF consensus. The key outcome is on The Wealth of Globalization for the transformation of management theory. The key management theory we follow, for example, is that of W. Edwards Deming. Before he died in the 1990s he said that “… we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management.” His answer was the “System of Profound Knowledge,” which is as close as we can get to be led by wisdom.

He said that “It would be better if everyone would work together as a system, with the aim for everybody to win.” He wrote about broken systems which is what involves the first idea. From that we saw that system was a vague concept which we reframed as system only for what Deming suggested and anti-system when they don’t work together as a system and management has the aim to win at the expense of others. We have expanded his insights to a new win-win systemic civilization of interdependent countries on The Wealth of Globalization.

The second idea of an entrepreneurial society fits on the new civilization. That’s where technological companies are coming from. The third idea is that they are not coming faster because of 'Groupthink.'

José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
Servant-leader Dominican and global citizen

Tenth update. Can the solution to Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s Revolution 3.5 on Big Government be on The Wealth of Globalization? Under the same article mentioned in the ninth update john4law47 wrote the following comment:





Blaming business for trends which are deeply linked to the unproductive EXPLOSION of Government over the past forty or more years is wrong headed and empirically contrary to any set of statistics one can produce. Big Government is inherently hostile to agile and hard to control much less tax to the breaking point Small Businesses. Big Government needs to concentrate economic activity into highly controllable and taxable corporate behemoths in order to tax, regulate and distribute economic vote buying favors and goodies through corporate surrogates and instrumentalities. Try running a Small Business ( less than 100 employees and 15 million dollars in gross revenues) and "complying" with a MILLION or more tax, environmental, employment and employee benefits regulations and associated taxes and fees. It CAN'T be done. Just as the Church was TOO big and TOO controlling for the Modern Age to emerge as the Age of Discovery dawned, the Government is the biggest obstacle to robust growth or ANY growth whatsoever in 21st Century. Forget Global Warming as Humanity's BIGGEST obstacle to sustainable growth: Cancerous Growth of Unproductive Government threatens the Modern World with the same scenario of stagnation followed by collapse that the late Roman and other Empires experienced in their Over Mature phases.
Next is our response which is lightly edited to to make hyperlinks available:
This is a complement to my first comment on Big Government, which is the result of the Wealth of Nations. Recently we suggest it must belong to The Wealth of Globalization. It is adapted from the blog post Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon.

In the the book review “The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State,” Rosa Brooks [1] wrote that:
“The Fourth Revolution” is a lively book, romping briskly — if selectively — through five centuries of history. It makes quick stops along the way to explain “why ideas matter” and to check out the “three and a half great revolutions” that propelled the West into its now-imperiled leadership role. Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s first revolution was the rise of the European nation-state after the Peace of Westphalia; the second was the late-18th- and 19th-­century turn toward individual rights and accountable government; the third was the creation of the modern welfare state. Each revolution improved the state’s ability to provide order and deliver vital services while still fostering innovation. But as democratic publics demanded more and more, the state promised more and more, eventually overextending itself. In Revolution 3.5, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state.

[1] Rosa Brooks(2014), “A Call to Rally: ‘The Fourth Revolution,’ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,” The New York Times.

Ninth update. Great System of Profound Knowledge ideas for the management theory of the Wealth of Globalization. Under the very timely article Management theory is becoming a compendium of dead ideas on the Schumperter column of The Economist, I posted the following comment:




While the reformation was a process of transformation that supported by a wave like (as Alvin Toffler introduced it) change from one civilization to another, reforms have been used for transitions within one civilization. The similarity of the Catholic Church and the business gurus is the 'Groupthink' influence, where consensus is taken as truth, when truth is what support consensus. Behind both transformation processes Peter Drucker identified as the prime mover the third (printing press) and the fourth (electronic computers) information revolutions.

One key outcome that emerged after reformation was Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. From 1980 to 2008 period, mentioned in the article, the industrial civilization 'Groupthink' based on Margaret Thatcher's TINA (There's Not Alternative) to neoliberalism story has returned the world to the Second Middle Ages.

Now on the four dead ideas, we start with the fourth. The key outcome is on The Wealth of Globalization for the transformation of management theory. The key management theory we follow, for example, is that of W. Edwards Deming. Before he died in the 1990s he said that “… we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management.” His answer was the “System of Profound Knowledge.”

He said that “It would be better if everyone would work together as a system, with the aim for everybody to win.” He wrote about broken systems which is what involves the first idea. From that we saw that system was a vague concept which we reframed as system only for what Deming suggested and anti-system when they don’t work together as a system and management has the aim to win at the expense of others. We have expanded his insights to a new win-win civilization of interdependent countries on The Wealth of Globalization.

The second idea of an entrepreneurial society fits on the new civilization. That’s where technological companies are coming from. The third idea is that they are not coming faster because of 'Groupthink.' For more, please Google "A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence.

Eigth update. See how the Industrial Civilization 'Groupthink' is hiding the Big Ideas emerging from The Wealth of Globalization. The Wealth of Globalization is an emerging concept for interdependent countries as a result of the fourth information revolution that supersedes the old Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations concept for independent countries of the industrial civilization that emerged as a result of the third information revolution.  As Daniel Bell told us back in 1980, "Time and space are now organized in radically different ways from those of the past [1]." That sharp conceptual distinction clarifies and leads to a very big and necessary change.

A whole lot of posts of this blog actually belong to and support The Wealth of Globalization. Our thought experiments that help us learn from the emergent future are classified under Jobsism because of the great influence of Steve Jobs, given, for example, in this quote:
"[Y]ou can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something -- your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life." -- Steve Jobs, Stanford University commencement address, June 2005.
The Wealth of Nations concept applied to the USA in the Wall Street Journal article The Economy’s Hidden Problem: We’re Out of Big Ideas by Greg Ip is the trigger of this update. Our Wealth of Globalization reply has been available since July 2016 on the "Seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems." 

The key discovery for the Wealth of Globalization is the solo systems architecting act that''s explained in the left side shared image which was socialized with a corresponding tweet.  We will be going back to tweet this post link to that tweet and a few others a series of tweet conversations (some are shown below), which will be updated to clarify that we are not out of Big Ideas as Greg Ip tell us. 

The real problem is that our posts continue to be hidden to the general public by the Industrial Civilization 'Groupthink' synthetic concept. Such concept reflects the Wealth of Nations as the field of the past, that came from one of the earlier thought experiment which was considered in the second update of this post (but not in the 26 references points looking backwards of the seventh update) [2]:
So this is not about "neoliberalism," because in practice it has emerged as NO Liberalism that have degenerated into systemic corruption, as we can reinterpret the paragraph of Steve Denning's article Vampire CEOs Continue To Suck Blood, that says:
"The current situation is one of fundamental institutional failure across the whole of society. The behavioral breakdown is mutually reinforcing. Hedge funds are gambling risk-free with other people’s money. “Rats in the granary” are raking in baksheesh in massive amounts. CEOs are extracting value from their firms, rather than creating it. CFOs are systematically enforcing earnings-per-share thinking in decisions throughout their organizations. Business schools are teaching these people how to do it. Institutional shareholders are complicit in what the CEOs and CFOs are doing. Regulators pursue individuals and offer placebos but remain indifferent to systemic failure. Rating agencies reward malfeasance. Analysts applaud short-term gains and ignore obvious long-term rot. Politicians stand by and watch. In a great betrayal, the very leaders who should be fixing the system are complicit in its continuance. Unless our society as a whole reverses course, it is heading for a cataclysm." That's where the misery and inequality actually comes from.
We renamed systemic corruption to anti-systemic corruption after we reinterpreted the system concept at the end of 2015. Whether or not anti-systemic corruption can be consider hate speech, we learned to replaced it with Industrial Civilization 'Groupthink' as the main influence that result in the said "mutually reinforcing" "behavioral breakdown" that Steve  Denning described.

There are some other points not covered in the seventh update of this post. In his article, Greg Ip first sentence is "By all appearances, we’re in a golden age of innovation." We aren't because we are no longer in the context of The Wealth of Nations, which is the assumption under which Carlota Pérez envisioned the fifth technological revolution of the industrial civilization or what has been call the Fourth Industrial Revolution, for example, by the World Economic Forum (see World in its name).. Instead, we just learned from the emergent future that we are in the context of the Wealth of Globalization concept, which was anticipated in [3]. This is the first paragraph of its summary:
Adequate electricity system restructuring is a key subsystem component of the adequate global society system restructuring needed to enter the Golden Age of the first technological revolution of what this author conjecture is a systemic civilization. From a heuristic system architecting perspective that Golden Age will be the result of the design of the value creation generated by the highly complex socio economic system that none of the subsystems by themselves is able to provide. Such value is the result of the relationships among global society subsystems.
Looking closely in [4] it is easily discovered that professor Pérez was recently writing of a Global Golden Age under the influence the The Wealth of Globalization instead of that of The Wealth of Nations:
Fifth update. Great Capitalism common sense to 'Make the World Great' as 'The American Way of Life' model is unsustainable. To replace 'The American Way of Life' model, a 'Global Way of Life' model that is sustainable is in accordance to what is suggested by Prof. Carlota Pérez in her paper “Capitalism, Technology and a Green Global Golden Age: the Role of History in Helping to Shape the Future,” which argues for a radical change in policy. Being an integral part of this post are all of its updates, of which we highlight its "Fourth update. From actions that serve parts to actions that serve emerging Global Debout whole at Bratislava Summit," a recent though experiment to try to learn from the emergent future, that so far did not make a dent to that Summit, but which is very timely now.
Since 2013, when we conjectured the emergence of the systemic civilization, a lot of progress has been made except to create it. The most recent progress was made in the above mentioned tweet conversations, some of whose last tweets are inserted here.

One of the key issues discussed by Greg Ip is about government mandates, for example:
"The portion of a car’s price that pays to meet federal safety and fuel efficiency mandates has gone from zero in 1967 to 22% now, or $5,500 on a $25,000 car, according to Sean McAlinden, an economist at the Center for Automotive Research, an industry- supported think tank....Mr. McAlinden notes consumers may not have bought those features if given the choice."
That example of government mandates that don;t give choice to customers have led to what he adds for the electric power industry "So long as the frontier firm continues to innovate, that doesn’t hold back productivity. The risk is that once a firm becomes dominant, no competitor can match its network and innovation is less necessary to retain customers." The key reason why electric retail is not yet a frontier firm as described in the seventh update is given, for example, in the introduction of [5]:
Is the power industry one important instance of the Over-regulated America: the home of laissez-faire is being suffocated by excessive and badly written regulation, as The Economist documents in an article published on February 18th, 2012? Yes! As can be easily shown, the power industry is over-regulated. As a solution, The Economist suggests “A plea for simplicity,” identifying at the very end of the article “a real danger: that regulation may crush the life out of America’s economy.”
In fact, let's look into what Alvin Toffler described as  the "Techno-sphere [6]. This is the sphere in which goods and services are produced and distributed for use. It consists of:
Energy sphere, the energy system that powers the techno-sphere. For example, this could be human power, animal power, or fossil fuels. It also contains, for example, any buildings and machines used in energy production and consumption. 
The production system, that produces the goods and services (other than energy). 
The distribution system, that distributes the goods and services to where they are used. 
NOTE that, before the rise of the market, there was very little distribution, since most production was for direct use.
That NOTE hints at an additional insight to what's said in the seventh update of this post on electricity retail as the frontier firm that has at the moment a Big barrier on the whole Techno-sphere as a result of government mandates of the Wealth of Nations of the industrial civilization. It can be seen that the market of the systemic civilization production of energy, for example, with solar panels, comes back to direct use and export from the demand side. Such production is a key input for the frontier firm which have been calling Un País Sin Apagones for the Dominican Republic as the direct democracy of the system market (#DD_SM in Twitter) as a model for a global framework change. The production and distribution system (not anti-system) will be able to mutually reinforce each other with the self-regulated energy system that solves one of the critical Big anti-systemic problem for the Techno-sphere of society.

[1] Daniel Bell, "The Winding Passage : Essays and Sociological Journeys," 1980.
[2] Is systemic corruption.the main cause of inequality between rich and poor? See Electricity Pact, GMH post, May 25, 2015.
[3] A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal, GMH post, November 4, 2013.
[4] Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first, GMH post, September 17, 2014.
[6] Toffler's Spheres of Society, accessed on December 9, 2016 on the internet.

Executive summary: seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems. Inviting feedback, for practical purposes, we suggest that the apparent situation of the world’s society can be misunderstood by lineal thinking this way:  Jason Pontin, Robert Gordon, and Thomas Piketty arguments are that: 1) we can’t solve big problems, 2) prosperity has plateau, and 3) soaring inequality is here to stay, respectively, with big non measurable losses by the general population unaccounted for by management. Such a situation is due to the tyranny of the prevailing mechanical management mindset that the late W. Edwards Deming unveiled in the early 90’s. That old mindset myopia has been facing non lineal decreasing returns that will be addressed with a new systemic profound knowledge management increasing returns economic mindset as a result of an information revolution that has a precedent of 5 centuries. The real situation calls for the emergence of a global interdependent systemic civilization that needs to be created as soon as possible. We can then have the choice to leap from the saturated carbon energy upper segment, of the independent countries industrial civilization learning curve, to the hyper-growth green energy segment of the systemic civilization learning curve. As a result: 1) many of those big problems can be solved, 2) prosperity significantly increased, and 3) soaring inequality reversed. Overregulated market activities under representative democracy of the industrial civilization are candidates for less regulated direct democracy of the systemic market (#DD_SM), that could not be done with the old mindset. One strong candidate for #DD_SM is the electric power sector of the Dominican Republic, which is ready to become the framework change with a vibrant retail market’s increasing returns. That framework change will enable pattern change opportunities that will increase the systemic civilization global market share. There are 26 references in this update.



Resumen Ejecutivo: séptima actualización. Propuesta Global Debout para crear la Civilización Sstémica resuelve grandes problemas. Invitando retroalimentación, a efectos prácticos, se sugiere que la situación aparente de la sociedad del mundo puede ser mal interpretada al pensar de esta manera lineal: los argumentos de Jason Pontin, Robert Gordon y Thomas Piketty son que: 1) no podemos resolver grandes problemas, 2) la prosperidad tiene meseta, y 3) el alza la desigualdad está aquí para quedarse, respectivamente, con grandes pérdidas no cuantificables por la población en general no contabilizadas por la gerencia. Tal situación se debe a la tiranía de la mentalidad de gestión mecánica predominante que el difunto W. Edwards Deming dio a conocer a principios de los 90. Ese viejo modo miope de pensar se ha enfrentado con rendimientos decrecientes no lineales que serán tratados con una nueva forma de pensar gestión sistémica económica del conocimiento profundo de rendimientos crecientes como resultado de una revolución de la información que tiene un precedente de 5 siglos. La situación real exige la aparición de una civilización sistémica interdependiente global que necesita ser creada tan pronto como sea posible. Entonces podremos tener la opción de saltar desde el segmento superior de energía de carbono, de los países independientes de la curva de aprendizaje civilización industrial, hacia el segmento de la energía verde con híper-crecimiento de la curva de aprendizaje civilización sistémica. Como resultado: 1) muchos de los grandes problemas se pueden resolver, 2) la prosperidad aumenta significativamente , y 3) se invierte el alza de la desigualdad. Las actividades de mercado reguladas en exceso bajo la democracia representativa de la civilización industrial son candidatas para la democracia directa menos regulada del mercado sistémica (#DD_SM), que no se podía hacer con la vieja forma de pensar. Un fuerte candidato para #DD_SM es el sector eléctrico de la República Dominicana, que está listo para convertirse en el cambio de marco de referencia con rendimientos crecientes de un mercado minorista vibrante. Ese cambio en el marco de referencia permitirá oportunidades para cambios el patrón que incrementarán la cuota de mercado global de la civilización sistémica. Hay 26 referencias en esta actualización.

Seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems. This is a follow up to the January 2nd, 2010, post A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management, whose summary says:



As suggested by W. Edwards Deming, the main barrier to basic innovations, like the EWPC-AF, and an increased standard of living, is the prevailing style of management. A better decade is thus dependent on the adoption of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.
Interestingly enough with respect to what’s develop below in relation to great insights gathered from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), that post had a paragraph that said:
This article expands on the EWPC post The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market, which was posted under the blog post On the Evolution of Technology, by Jason Pontin, the Editor in Chief and Publisher of Technology Review. The text of this post has evidence that the missing retail market is in fact due to the prevailing style of management, which is based on obsolete mechanical thinking instead of on systemic thinking that leads to a superior solution path.
As a short answer, we first reiterate the above (to be expanded below) to Jason Pontin’s big story [1] of October 24, 2012, which was given by Deming at the end of his fruitful life. Deming used his wisdom to say right in the first sentence of the preface (more below) of his last posthumous must read book [2], that “… we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management.”

What Deming didn’t foresee back then was that in his book on the The New Economy he was suggesting calls for the emergence of The New Civilization of an interdependent world. That’s the same kind of world that Steven R. Covey was calling for in his best selling book at the same time, while giving the wisdom for us to change our habits to be more effective [3].

Covey suggested to embrace interdependence as something more mature while returning to the character ethic (that lasted about 200 years before World War II) in order to enable win-win or no deal success. For many reasons, we have been calling the new civilization the systemic civilization, which will increasingly take global market share from the industrial civilization (more below).

As the prevailing style of management has resulted in a global leadership vacuum, the systemic civilization has not emerged yet. For sure, under such vacuum we can’t solve the Big Problems identified by Pontin, but there are mounting evidence begging for their resolution, the most recent of which has to do with electoral contests [4]. We should give thanks to the late Peter F. Drucker for the insights [5], that let us learned that the assumptions that political parties, countries and unions of countries are operating all over the world are far way from reality.

This update is grateful to a collection of 7 stories sent by the MIT Technology Review, on July 2, 2016, in an email with the subject "Weekend Reads: July Fourth." Its introduction says:
For Independence Day, we’re taking a moment to look back at some of the grand challenges that have faced our nation and the obstacles that we must still overcome. Enjoy these long reads on your long weekend.
Instead of looking back, our aim has been for quite some time looking to the emergent future. From those great stories on the grand challenges we take insights to update this post and its previous six updates which deal with “the obstacles that we must still overcome” for the whole world. As a complement to the discussion of electoral contests far away from reality, one of the stories synthesis sent was "Political candidates opposed to free trade say Apple should make phones in the United States. Let’s see what that would look like [6]."

Those candidates are wrong, as a result of the distortion of anti-systemic markets which are protected markets. Instead what the world need is "In their 2008 book “the new age of innovation,” Prahalad and Krishnan suggested what I understand is a new normal synthesis based on two principles that beg for deregulation from Fordism into what I coined as Jobsism in the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog [7]:
N=1 (Firms have to learn to focus on one consumer and her experience at a time…) and

R=G (All firms will access resources from a wide variety of other big and small firms – a global ecosystem.)
Let’s try to overcome those obstacles based this on what Rahm Emanuel said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.” Embracing fully the first part of his quote, we have been concentrating on the second part in order to leap from the industrial civilization to the systemic civilization where it makes sense all over the world.

The Big Problems are reframed here as anti-systemic problems

Now we deal with the long answer to the obstacles. Taking insights from the stories, while having well in mind posts and updates of this blog related to other prominent key MIT researchers, like the late Fred C. Schweppe (on electricity), Peter Senge (on systemic thinking), Otto Sharmer (on the Theory of the U), to name a few, with respect to what we have learned from the emergent future consistent with a shift away from lineal into non-lineal thinking.  As a result, we think an interdependence Day is overdue in several ways. It is overdue with regard to what’s said to John Hagel in the initial text of this post, which for convenience is repeated here:
That's why I am surprised reading about a Declaration of Independence.  I have at least three arguments about Interdependence. While it is certainly true, what is written to support independence in "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for individuals to dissolve the institutional bands which have connected them with another," Isn't it also true when 'connected' is replaced with 'disconnected,' for example, about the disconnected people that live at the Bottom of the Pyramid. "

In addition, as the late Steven R. Covey told us: "the greatest human achievements come from people working at the third level, interdependence. This is when people work together to achieve a common goal, and is the level of maturity of many people in a mature society or organization. This is how mankind has achieved things together that no single person could do alone. Interdependence is the state of human development of greatest maturity and power." That's the underlying reason why I wrote, for example, the blog post Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on.

Further, the also late Peter F. Drucker wrote, we are only in the Fourth Information Revolution, on which I understand that very deeply that interdependence is as important, as it was the Third for independence. It is that huge difference that Cartesian thinking of independence lets us go to Systemic or Peircian (after the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce) thinking of interdependence. That shift is also about the emergence of what I have been naming the systemic civilization that's now doing what the industrial civilization did to the agricultural civilization."
That last paragraph will help us find the main flaw in the above mentioned Technology Review story, where Jason Pontin says:
But Silicon Valley’s explanation of why there are no disruptive innovations is parochial and reductive: the markets—in particular, the incentives that venture capital provides entrepreneurs—are to blame. According to Founders Fund’s manifesto, “What Happened to the Future?,” written by Bruce Gibney, a partner at the firm: “In the late 1990s, venture portfolios began to reflect a different sort of future … Venture investing shifted away from funding transformational companies and toward companies that solved incremental problems or even fake problems … VC has ceased to be the funder of the future, and instead become a funder of features, widgets, irrelevances.  ... what seemed futuristic at the time of Apollo 11 “remains futuristic, in part because these technologies never received the sustained funding lavished on the electronics industries.”
We believe that is the most important insight from the seven stories. It is not in any of the thought experiments of the seven stories, but in what "Founders Fund’s manifesto" says at the very beginning, because it is easy to see that there are very few opportunities left in the industrial civilization:
The Problem: We have two primary and related interests:
Finding ways to support technological development (technology is the fundamental driver of growth in the industrialized world).

Earning outstanding returns for our investors. 
While we will show below that technology is not the fundamental driver, in fact, it is those two interests: trying to drive growth in the industrial civilization and only thinking for investors to win are what have been driving soaring inequality. The problem is the management (marketing) myopia [8] of the saturation of the learning curve of the industrialized world doesn’t allow much gain anymore. We will return below to address on how to solve what we believe are the two most important of the big problems:  energy and climate change with the above mentioned missing vibrant retail market.

It is only under such saturation that the Technology Review story by David Rotman [9] makes sense. Referring to Northwestern University economist Robert J. Gordon, he synthesizes that “Despite the allure of apps and social media, today’s digital technologies are doing little to generate the kind of prosperity that previous generations enjoyed...”

When we increase the architecting scope in time to 500 years ago and in space to the whole world, Gordon’s story doesn’t make any sense as we reframe it to support the emergence of the systemic civilization. Then entrepreneurs can leap to the hypergrowth range of the learning curve of the systemic civilization, where productivity is discovery driven [10]. We are now able to use social media to raise the productivity to a higher plateau, from quantity to quality collaborations [11]. As we will see next the problem is not the tech slowdown, but management myopia which has been threatening not just the American Dream, but the dream of people at the Bottom of the Pyramid.

Such a dream is in contrast to the finding on the Technology Review story by Kevin Bullis [12], which says “Given the resilience of coal, though, it’s hard to be optimistic that the decreased rate of emissions will persist—absent new regulations.” That’s the problem of the transition agreed upon under COP21 [13] under the primacy of the parts, we upgrade it to absent the systemic civilization. Instead of a low carbon transition, we suggest a zero carbon transformation under the primacy of the whole that will bring high green economic growth [14].

Returning to the idea that the Global Interdependence Day is overdue, let's say it is from at least from the beginning of the 1990’s, the time that MIT published W. Edwards Deming book [2], whose first paragraph of the preface says:
This book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of Management. The huge, long-range losses caused by this style of management have led us into decline. Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way people interact. This interaction afflicts all aspects of our lives – government, industry, education, healthcare.”
In perfect alignment with Steven R. Covey, the first of the last two sentences of the second paragraph say:
It would be better if everyone would work together as a system, with the aim for everybody to win. What we need is cooperation and transformation to a new style of management.
As the world has become highly interdependent, the first insight from those seven sentences is that such a tyranny has not led just the USA into decline but most of the whole world which is under soaring inequality. The second insight is that such tyranny is the result of entities that don’t work together as a system and that a new style of management needs to emerge. We believe that such an style has been emerging, as we consider a post by Steve Denning about the publication of an article in the Harvard Business Review [15], which says:
The article correctly notes that “Innovation is what agile is all about” and that Agile is central because “these days most companies operate in highly dynamic environments.” Yet the article misspeaks when it says that Agile teams “can churn out innovations faster.” Agile teams don’t churn out things. Innovation isn’t something that can be “churned out” To suggest that it can is to adopt a 20th Century industrial mindset, which is the antithesis of Agile and innovation.
On that timely observation, we are only concerned on the meaning of “20th Century industrial mindset.” Does that mean that Agile is about 21st Century industrial mindset? We are not only on a midst of a technological revolution, but also and more important of an information revolution. Peter Drucker said that the precedent is the 3rd information revolution [16].

One of the key aspects that Deming insisted is about management (not just product or service) quality under a systemic (interdependent) mindset. In the first chapter, after introducing some of the usual suggestions for improvement of quality and telling what’s wrong with them, he writes:
Quality is determined by the top management. It can not be delegated. Moreover, an essential ingredient that I call profound knowledge is missing…
A reinterpretation of why quality can’t be delegated has to do with what used to be called unintended consequences, which have become larger than management’s intended effects, in many highly interdependent situations, like soaring inequality. So management must be responsible for all effects by being responsible to adopt Deming’s profound knowledge. One ineteresting example of lack of profound knowledge from the weekend reads sent by Technology Review is the effect of the USA as an independent warrior, which has resulted in "Thousands of U.S. soldiers have survived powerful explosions in Iraq. Many are returning home with brain injuries that could result in long-term disabilities [17]."


Based on a recent update on this blog that quoted Deming’s book we reaffirmed our naming of entities organizations and disorganizations as systems and anti-systems [11]. Anti-systems are those we keep operating under representative democracy from the public and private sectors by overregulating markets that have also become anti-systemic. That’s why we suggest that Deming should be considered the Father of the Direct Democracy of Systemic Markets (#DD_SM in Twitter).

This speciphically updates what we said about a conjecture on e-government in the initial text of this post, as direct democracy of the State, for example, a referendum, is complemented by a market direct democracy that emerges in the systemic civilization. This is where Rahm Emanuel quote gives us “… an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

The example on which #DD_SM emerged to address one the ‘wicked’ problems of the industrial civilization, which first we consider as a systemic problem, is suggested to be understood as an anti-systemic problem. Its solution had the benefit of insights that came from the MIT Technology Review article at the beginning of this update [18, 19], with the subtitle “New technologies are missing many things, but especially their markets,” where Jason Pontin wrote:
One market-oriented way of thinking about the protracted adoption of new technologies is to understand that among the “missing pieces” of new domains are the modes of business that will sustain the constituent technologies. That is to say: the real economic value of new technologies is almost always imperfectly understood because the technologies’ markets do not yet exist.
Having said that, we are now able to respond what Pontin said in two of his paragraphs of his Technology Review story [1] sent on Saturday:
Blithe optimism about technology’s powers has evaporated, too, as big problems that people had imagined technology would solve, such as hunger, poverty, malaria, climate change, cancer, and the diseases of old age, have come to seem intractably hard.

Sometimes we fail to solve big problems because our institutions have failed. In 2010, less than 2 percent of the world’s energy consumption was derived from advanced renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels. (The most common renewable sources of energy are still hydroelectric power and the burning of biomass, which means wood and cow dung.) The reason is economic: coal and natural gas are cheaper than solar and wind, and petroleum is cheaper than biofuels. Because climate change is a real and urgent problem, and because the main cause of global warming is carbon dioxide released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels, we need renewable energy technologies that can compete on price with coal, natural gas, and petroleum. At the moment, they don’t exist.
Yes! The institutions of the industrial civilization have failed us with anti-systemic markets. However, we have now the institutional innovation of #DD_SM, which is available in the Dominican Republic as a solid global framework change [20]. It is easy to see that the economic reason is that of decreasing return wholesale markets of the industrial civilization which don't fit the highly variant distributed solar and wind energy technologies, whose "markets do not yet exist." As we discovered, the missing market for solar and wind technologies is the retail market of the systemic civilization where increasing returns are available to the whole world.

As it happened, those problems that are intractably hard are hard because of the tyranny that Deming described as the prevailing style of management.  But as described below, the missing market is related to knowing first what’s socially desirable.  In fact, a there is now conclusive evidence that the electricity anti-systemic problem dissolves a big chunk of the climate change anti-systemic problem [21].

Learning from the past with a mechanistic mindset (that led to Fordism), in an industrial civilization (composed of independent entities) that is operating in an experience curve that has become saturated [8], both economist Thomas Piketty and Robert Gordon came to conclusions about a world managed under Deming’s tyranny, without considering the emergence of the systemic civilization that has been begging to be created by global leaders for quite some time. Piketty documented the increasing inequality people face all over the world. Our response [22], included this:
I guess the most important issue with his book refers to the future, as you have been pointing out both in the article and in the comments. This starts with the same error of Ricardo's extrapolation, under the assumption that the future is a continuation of the past. That assumption is integral to the restriction of his macroeconomics tools. But today, it is possible to learn from the emergent future. In addition, such learning is leading increasing returns based on positive feedback.
Taken from the Technology Review story by David Rotman, the above comment also applies to Gordon as “technologies are doing little to generate the kind of prosperity that previous generations enjoyed [7].” If technologies are selected for prosperity, we are left with: Can decreasing inequality be reversed under increasing returns?

One of the characteristics of the prevailing style of management of the industrial civilization is that there was no need to consider solutions to be socially responsible after restructuring in the 1990s. Earlier than that, the vertically integrated power industry at some jurisdictions were designed and operated for maximum social welfare. In Deming's terms electric restructuring brought a new fixture, that didn't consider MIT's Fred C. Schweppe and its reseach team warning that said: "We believe the deregulation which considers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is dangerous and could have very negative results [14],"

As a result of the fourth information revolution we will show that anti-systemic (‘wicked’) problem resolution can benefit now from a software first system architecture approach that was not available in the past. This responds to what was anticipated in a September 9, 2013 conjecture [23], whose complete text says:
The conjecture is a generalization of the findings of the article Great electricity service. As smart-grids are no considered to be socially desirable, the social wicked electricity problem is not addressed.

The main problem is that smart-grids system architecture was based on the hardware first architecting system approach. In this case, the client of the system is the utility.

To follow Steve Jobs heuristic to "start with the customer experience and work back to the technology and not the other way around," a software first architecting system approach is implied to address the wicked system problem. In this other case, the client is the customer.
As can be seen, the strong supporting details about “to be socially desirable,” are based on the outstanding books “Good to Great," by Jim Collins, and “Change by design," by Tim Brown [24]. Here we see that Steve Jobs quote is also in line with the Technology review story about Rob Fisher [25], by saying:
Although the computer made the work possible, Fisher views technology as only a means to an end. “I want to find the simplest expression of technology to do the job,” he says. “It’s the way nature works. A river finds the simplest way out.”
However we will also prove Steve Jobs architecting heuristic is about the systemic civilization. To do it, let’s take what John Hagel wrote on his March 28, 2011 post [26], under the section “From diminishing returns to increasing returns:”
What is the full potential here? By taking experience design to the next level, we may for the first time have the opportunity to shift diminishing returns performance curves into increasing returns performance curves.

What does this mean? Think of the well-known experience curve, developed and popularized by Boston Consulting Group.  Over the years, they have demonstrated that it applies to an awesome array of industries, ranging from semiconductors to Japanese beer and toilet paper.  It is a remarkably accurate description of operating performance improvement in many industries.  But it is a diminishing returns curve – the more experience an industry accumulates, the longer and harder people have to work to get the next increment of performance improvement.  Perhaps this helps to explain the increasing stress most of us are experiencing.

What if there were an alternative? What if we could turn this diminishing returns curve on its side and unleash an increasing returns curve, one where the more people who join in, the faster everyone would learn? What would that require?

Well, for one thing, it would require a major shift in our beliefs and practices – a key dimension of what we call the Big Shift – and a corresponding shift in design focus.
While there is a clear hint of a technological revolution, Will we be operating later on a different experience curve after the Big Shift leads us into a stable environment? If that’s the case, as the Big Shift is a global scenario, away from the industrial civilization, we might be in a new civilization, which is documented in this post and its updates. Last but not least,

References:

[1] Jason Pontin, Why we can’t solve Big Problems, MIT Technology Review, December 21, 2009.
[2] W. Edwards Deming , “The New Economics: for industry, government, education,” The MIT Press, 1994, Second Edition.
[3] Steven R. Covey, “The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People.” 1990.
[4] "Second update. Advice to the European Council and Global Debout for the transformation of the European Union," June 25, 2016, of the GMH post Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on, September 15, 2014.
[5] Peter F. Drucker, "The Theory of the Business," Harvard Business Review, 1994.
[6 ] Konstantin Kakaes  The All-American iPhoneJune 9, 2016
[7] "Second update. Whichever party embraces a Systemic Energy Policy Act strategy will probably win the 2016 election," March 26, 2016, of the GMH  post Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, March 17, 2016.
[9] David Rotman, Tech Slowdown Threatens the American Dream, MIT Technology Review, April 6, 2016.
[10] "Tenth update. Help #GlobalDebout entrepreneurs at the Bottom of the Pyramid 'Be discovery driven,'"May 16, 2916, of the GMH post Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?, October 2, 2015.
[11] "Segunda actualización. W. Edwards Deming: Padre de la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM)," July 1, 2016, of the GMH post Debate electoral: ¿no será una distracción contra la democracia directa?, February 10, 2016.
[12] Kevin Bullis, How Energy Consumption Has Changed Since 1776, MIT Technology Review,, July 3, 2013.
[13] "First update.  Does a disruptive #ClimateChange transformation for #OWS & #15M, makes #COP21 too little too late for #Davos 2016?" January 21, 2016, of the GMH post World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?, Januaary 19, 2016.
[14] GMH post Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon, April 12, 2016.
[15] Steve Denning, HBR's Embrace Of Agile, Forbes, June 7, 2016.
[16] Peter F. Drucker, “Management Challenges for the 21st Century,” page 102.
[17] Emily Singer  Brain Trauma in Iraq, April 22, 2008
[18] Jason Pontin, On the Evolution of Technology, MIT Technology Review, December 21, 2009.
[24] GMH post  Great electricity service, July 22, 20113.
[25] Sally Atwood, Declaration of An Artist, MIT Technology Review, April 1, 2004.
[26] John Hagel III, Anticipating the Next Wave of Experience Design, March 28, 2011.

Sixth update.  A Systemic Declaration of Interdependence model for COP21. As Conferences of the Parts (COPs) are based on the primacy of the parts, they have been organized by independent governments of the industrial civilization, up to this one, to try to enact an emerging future having forbid the consideration of a deep transformation that requires a generative dialogue to help emerge a system architecting effort that's unprecedented. Hereby is a complement of the "Fifth update. Can COP21 participants address energy antisystem strategic myopia?" of the post Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia.

Such declaration must be based on a mindset shift to the primacy of the whole in that, for example, systems results from transformations of antisystems. Another way of looking at systems organizations is to consider them as agile organizations, while antisystems are consider as fragile ones.

Under such mindset shift, COP21 participants would be able to develop a global systemic declaration of interdependence based on the model corresponding to the agile organizations, which reads as follows:

Agile and adaptive approaches for linking people, projects and value

We are a community of project leaders that are highly successful at delivering results. To achieve these results:
We increase return on investment by making continuous flow of value our focus.

We deliver reliable results by engaging customers in frequent interactions and shared ownership.

We expect uncertainty and manage for it through iterations, anticipation, and adaptation.

We unleash creativity and innovation by recognizing that individuals are the ultimate source of value, and creating an environment where they can make a difference.

We boost performance through group accountability for results and shared responsibility for team effectiveness.

We improve effectiveness and reliability through situationally specific strategies, processes and practices.
In addition to take into consideration the post The Systemic Civilization is reconfirmed by curating John Hagel's post The Dark Side of Technology as part of the primacy of the whole, to support the development of the Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence, COP21 participants need to agree the they are dealing with fragile antisystems when they concentrate on the primacy of the parts. In that regard, when the Editor of Fortune Magazine, wrote the post The Six New Rules of Business, I responded essentially as follows to support the emergence of the systemic civilization:
To Mr. Alan Murray.

Good morning!

I find that Mr. Colvin's article "Why every aspect of your business is about to change," is a must read for everyone. I was led to it when I started reading the article "Can The 21st Century Corporation Operate Without Agile?," by Mr. Steve Denning, but my attention was shifted when I saw that “'The world,' ... 'is in the midst of a new industrial revolution.'”... Would what follows help in any way your post to become a foot on the door for the time-pressed to read the whole article as soon as possible?

I guess "a new industrial revolution" may be an important denial of risk and peril, as Jim Collins tell us in "How the mighty fall." It is also important, because in promoting his own article (which was what attracted me in the first place) Mr. Denning tweeted "Mindsets are more important than methodologies." I understand that the Cartesian industrial civilization mindset needs to be changed.

I respect and follow Dr. Carlota Pérez analytic scientific research. She suggested at the very beginning of the 21st Century that we are shifting from the 4th to the 5th technological revolution of the industrial civilization. But somehow I found there was a disagreement with Alvin Toffler's synthetic Third Wave. Later I learned that the current Big Shift (not Change - as John Hagel III characterizes it) is not unprecedented. Peter Drucker wrote that about 5 centuries ago we had the 3rd information revolution associated with the printing press.

Based on the above, I suggest that we are in the midst of the 1st technological revolution of the systemic civilization, as I named it. That's where mechanistic Cartesians mindsets are changed to organic systemic mindsets. Most of the above insights are pinned on my personal @gmh_upsa Twitter account.

Please advise!

José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph..D
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
Servant-leader Dominican and global citizen

Fifth update: Will the Eurozone continue in its Doom Loop unless the Troika is killed? The members of the Troika were organized to protect the industrial civilization, but as the world has changed significantly they have become the main protector of the international systemic corruption of that civilization that has enable the debt crisis. Such a Doom Loop, introduced by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great, was recently described by Joseph Stiglitz in his article Europe’s Last Act?, as "The troika’s forecasts have been wrong, and repeatedly so. And not by a little, but by an enormous amount. Greece’s voters were right to demand a change in course, and their government is right to refuse to sign on to a deeply flawed program." It is clear that such forecasts are not just for Greece but for Europe as a whole.







While the greek government was expecting the Troika to be killed to increase the power of the greek state, what Europe should seriously consider is killing the Troica on the emergence of a new world order, by follwing up the advice of a referendum in the fourth update just below.

Fourth update: What about a high leverage European referendum that avoids the Greece's crisis go to waste? We understand that the message of the third update didn't get accross as intended. I strongly hope this adjustment that integrates the main text (in response to John Hagel III) and all updates will. The opportunity to do it emerged with this new input: "Tsipras announces bailout referendum" on 5 July for voters to decide whether to accept a bailout deal offered by international creditors."



Reinforcing that input is the following tweet: Yanis Varoufakis ‏@yanisvaroufakis - Democracy deserved a boost in euro-related matters. We just delivered it. Let the people decide. (Funny how radical this concept sounds!). What if it's not radical enough, not just for Greece, but for people all over the world being pressed by debt whose main origin is international and local systemic corruption. This must remind us of what Rahm Emanuel said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

What's at stake is the urgent need for Europe to consider a high leverage referedum organized for themselves on the dismantling of the systemic corruption that is in great part the reason of the debt crisis in many countries all over the world. In either referendum we need to suspend civil obedience to express their understanding, not on a yes or no vote to the bailout deal, but instead:

Yes vote: to enable private sector innovation, for companies that add value to people. This is about great (systemic civilization) capitalism that gives oportunities to all.

No vote: to continue private sector systemic corruption with the help of government regulations that substract value to people. This is about good (industrial civilization) capitalism for a few.

Third update: How much does Greece matter to the 99.9%? As a starter, Should the Electricity Pact be redesigned? This is a very different perspective from that of CNBC news with video How does Greece matters to US markets. It is also a translation and an upgrade to the comment placed yesterday under El País news ¿Cómo vive Wall Street el drama griego? (How Wall Street lives the greek drama?), which is placed at the end of this post.



Instead of being an analysis, this synthesis is in general a follow up to many GMH blog posts, and in particular, for example, to the "Séptima actualización: Los Indignados de Clase Media global (Nativos Digitales) necesitan que el Pacto Eléctrico sea rediseñado para el 99.9% que está por encima de la política" of the post Una propuesta anti-corrupción sistémica para Podemos y Ciudadanos que los Nativos Digitales no están esperando pero les encantará, which is something like "The Global Middle-Class Indignados (Digital Natives) need that the Elecicity Pact be redesigned for the 99.9%," of the post "An anti-systemic corruption proposal for Podemos and Ciudadanos that Digital Natives are not expecting but will love."

In both languages, the initial comment said:
One thing is the interpretation we have been reading from the journalists who are covering the negotiations in Europe. Very interesting, valuable and timely is the second interpretation that was made by Wall Street analyst: fears that negotiations with Greece become a precedent for future negotiations with, for example, Spain, Portugal or Italy. As some already know, there is a third interpretation I have been offering based on a very different common sense from those two interpretations which are based on Cartesian thinking . This appears in the second update of this post, "in which the actor Matt Damon reads part of Howard Zinn's November 1970 speech "The problem of civil obedience." What do you think?
 Una cosa es la interpretación que hemos venido leyendo de parte de los periodistas que están cubriendo las negociaciones en Europa. Muy interesante, valiosa y oportuna es la segunda interpretación que hace ese analista de Wall Street: teme que la negociación con Grecia se vuelva un precedente para futuras negociaciones, por ejemplo, con España, Portugal o Italia. Como algunos ya saben, existe una tercera interpretación que he venido ofreciendo con base a un sentido común muy distinto al de esas dos interpretaciones que se basan en el pensamiento Cartesiano.  Esta aparece en "Second update:  5 min. video. Is systemic corruption a problem of civil obedience? (2da actualización: Video de 5 minutos. ¿Es la corrupción sistémica un problema de obediencia civil?)" de la nota "A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence (Una declaración global de interdependencia de la civilización sistémica) (  http://bit.ly/664GMH  )," en la que el actor Matt Damon lee parte del discurso "El problema de la obediencia civil," que Howard Zinn pronunció en noviembre de 1970. ¿Qué les parece?
Second update: 5 min. video. Is systemic corruption a problem of civil obedience? In recent updates in Spanish blog posts (see them in the right hand column of the blog at this time), we have come to the conclusion that systemic corruption is right now a feature of the industrial civilization and that we need to help emerge, for example, the systemic civilization to end it. Please recall, for example, the post Is systemic corruption.the main cause of inequality between rich and poor? See Electricity Pact. In the transcript of the following video the conclusion is a call for a Global Declaration of Interdependence.



My hope is that this kind of spirit will take place not just in this country but in other countries because they all need it. People in all countries need the spirit of disobedience to the state, which is not a metaphysical thing but a thing of force and wealth. And we need a kind of declaration of interdependence among people in all countries of the world who are striving for the same thing.


First update of February 2, 2015. Under the article More On Why Managers Hate Agile, I posted the following comment (with redundancies removed) that reinforces the need for a systemic civilization global declaration of interdependence to his author :
Dear Steve Denning,

Thank you for a very timely and valuable article. I agree with you that there are two and only two very “different understandings about how the world works.” The Copernican paradigm shift after the Middle Ages gave way to the industrial civilization. Now we are in a similar situation as the industrial civilization doesn’t work anymore, as can be seen in Thomas Piketty’s discovery a huge inequality problem, which is similar to a second Middle Age in the making.

More than 200 years ago, the nation-states emerged after their declaration of independence. In the 4th technological revolution of the industrial civilization, the factory underwent an institutional innovation led by Henry Ford, in what is being called the common sense (I prefer it from ideology) of Fordism. Just Google #Fordism to see the tweets I have been pinning on Twitter.

In those tweets, I have been saying that a new civilization, which I call systemic, wants to emerge from a Declaration of Interdependence. The inspiration on that declaration comes from the 2001 agile declaration of interdependence.

Just as the factory served as the institutional model of the industrial civilization, we now have agile networks value chains that serve as the new model, which I call the common sense of Jobsism (after Steve Jobs). To reinforce Jobsism we can take this article and the one you wrote 3 years ago with the title Is Apple Truly ‘Agile’?,” which together with this post shows a strong support on the common sense of Jobsism.

We need to see Fordism as a common sense without the Internet, while the Internet being a key characteristic of Jobsism.

Best regards,

José Antonio
Under John Hagel III's article A 21st Century Global Declaration of Independence, I posted the following comment:

While reading articles written by Steve Denning, a contributor to Forbes, I have learned a lot of insights from John Hagel III. In a comment under Mr. Denning's article "Can A Big Old Hierarchical Bureaucracy Become A 21st Century Network?," that doesn't involves Mr. Hagel, I wrote 8 month ago: "Dear Steve Denning Thank you for your view of the current situation that prevent Agile approaches and the change you infer that emerged from the Occupy movement. I guess the promise of e-government may be viewed from a technological revolution or from an information revolution perspective. If the invention of the printing press was what enable in due time the declaration of independence of many states, of which the Constitution of the United States is one of the best examples of a lasting design, I conjectured earlier that e-government will be the result of a declaration of interdependence. By looking at the examples of the nimble networks, presidents will no have the power they [have] today. I know many questions might spring from the conjecture, but the key one might be if it would lead, for example, to interdependence wars?"

In that light, I am testing the following hypothesis: "As Piketty's inequality is due to Feudalism corrupting capitalism, Can we transform capitalism to go for a Golden Age, like Luther reformed Catholicism to get out of the Middle Ages?" So far I have received comments in the Linkedin groups of the SSIT in http://lnkd.in/ehteX6N which right now has 8 comments and of the IEEE Spectrum in http://lnkd.in/diWy8t9 with 2 comments also so far."

That's why I am surprised reading about a Declaration of Independence. I have at least three arguments about Interdependence. While it is certainly true, what is written to support independence in "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for individuals to dissolve the institutional bands which have connected them with another," Isn't it also true when 'connected' is replaced with 'disconnected,' for example, about the disconnected people that live at the Bottom of the Pyramid. "

In addition, as the late Steven R. Covey told us: "the greatest human achievements come from people working at the third level, interdependence. This is when people work together to achieve a common goal, and is the level of maturity of many people in a mature society or organization. This is how mankind has achieved things together that no single person could do alone. Interdependence is the state of human development of greatest maturity and power." That's the underlying reason why I wrote, for example, the blog post "Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on ( http://bit.ly/522GMH )."

Further, the also late Peter F. Drucker wrote, we are only in the Fourth Information Revolution, on which I understand that very deeply that interdependence is as important, as it was the Third for independence. It is that huge difference that Cartesian thinking of independence let´s us go to Systemic or Peircian (after the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce) thinking of interdependence. That shift is also about the emergence of what I have been naming the systemic civilization that's now doing what the industrial civilization did to the agricultural civilization."

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Consulting engineer on electric sector systems architecting."

No hay comentarios: