Traducción al español. No importa dónde vivan, los ciudadanos de Debout Global podrían necesitar actuar para ayudar a revertir el actual colapso de la humanidad. Este breve paper es el punto de partida de otro experimento de pensamiento que se está llevando a cabo en este blog. Como el colapso [1], por ejemplo, emergiendo del cambio climático es ciertamente global, ya que sólo hay un planeta, como resultado del aumento de las interdependencias de los países, la necesidad de actuar pacíficamente es responsabilidad de todos y cada uno de los ciudadanos interesados dondequiera que vivan. Esto se puede ver desde una nueva perspectiva democrática que invalida el principio de no intervención de los tratados de paz de Westfalia.
Esta vez explicamos que todos nuestros experimentos se hacen bajo un entusiasmo basado en la ignorancia parcial con el fin de tratar de aproximarse a sólo las consecuencias previstas que requieren el tercer grado de claridad [2]. Esta vez estamos respetuosamente pidiendo la colaboración proactiva y creativa de los ciudadanos globales para considerar libros y artículos altamente influyentes que entendemos favorecen los escenarios equivocados.
Así como el microscopio aumentó considerablemente su capacidad de observación con la aparición de la tecnología electrónica, la aparición de una nueva revolución de la información (mencionada más adelante) permite la observación del colapso que se está generando bajo la aproximación tradicional al Segundo Grado de Claridad en los libros y artículos mencionados. La nueva perspectiva se basa en el desarrollo del Modelo Marco de la Electricidad Sin Precios Controlados (EWPC-AF siglas en inglés) [3] que permite la aproximación al Tercer Grado de Claridad.
Basándonos en el EWPC-AF, por ejemplo, relacionamos lo que Peter Senge y otros dijeron acerca de la diferencia crítica entre una transformación requerida de cero carbono en oposición a las transiciones a bajo carbono acordadas en el Acuerdo de París COP21:
Los sistemas vivos no son máquinas. Los sistemas vivos se crean a sí mismos y están creciendo y cambiando continuamente. "El todo existe a través de manifestarse continuamente en las partes, y las partes existen como encarnaciones del todo". Cuando sostienes una mano, no ves una mano pero ves células que están continuamente muriendo y regenerándose en la forma temporal de una mano. Usted ve "la capacidad del universo para crear manos". El todo no existe sin partes y viceversa. "Esta es la conciencia que nos es robada cuando aceptamos la cosmovisión de la máquina de todos ensamblados de piezas reemplazables [4].".
Como confirmación de lo anterior, en el libro "Repensando el capitalismo", Dimitri Zenghelis escribió que "Y el problema es que las emisiones de carbono fósiles deben reducirse a cero si se quiere estabilizar la temperatura global. Esto surge del mecanismo básico del efecto invernadero. Los gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) permanecen en la atmósfera durante decenas y en algunos casos cientos de años [5]. "
En lugar del escenario de Globalización Brillante disponible con el Tercer Grado de Claridad, creemos que los ejemplos que se aproximan al Segundo Grado de Claridad podrían desarrollar consecuencias no deseadas y por lo tanto apoyar el escenario actual de 'No Globalización' dirigido erróneamente en respuesta al escenario marcha de la locura [6] de la 'Globalización Oscura que se introdujo como neoliberalismo cerca de 1990, pero que entendemos ha resultado ser neo-feudalismo.
La suposición clave de este paper es que los Tratados de Westfalia ya no ayudan a prevenir la guerra como resultado del Gran Cambio informático que exige una nueva civilización. Bajo la suposición de que la guerra está siendo promovida, por ejemplo, por Vladimir Putin e ISIS, como representantes de las primeras etapas de la civilización industrial y de la Edad Media propensa a la política religiosa, respectivamente, su escalada parece estar siendo validada con el fuerte aumento del presupuesto militar que Donald Trump está presentando al congreso de los Estados Unidos de América del Norte para luchar contra ISIS.
Sugerimos que Trump ganó las elecciones bajo la creciente incertidumbre creada por las interdependencias del Big Shift informático que permitieron la Globalización Oscura que resultó extendiendo mucho más allá de su vida útil la civilización industrial. También sugerimos que la nueva civilización ayudará a enfrentar con éxito la amenaza ISIS al invertir la fuente de escalada de los combatientes como personas en la nueva Base de la Pirámide (BoP).
Como dijo Henrietta Moore que todos los países son ahora países en desarrollo [7] esa reversión dará oportunidades disponibles para saltar la civilización industrial una vez que e cree la nueva civilización para permitir la Globalización Brillante. Curiosamente, esa creación se puede hacer un país a la vez. Esto no solo revertirá la migración del sur al norte sino que también reducirá el crecimiento de la población en el BoP a medida que las personas crezcas y se desarrollen bajo la nueva civilización en lo que Carlota Pérez calificó de "crecimiento verde inteligente" y "desarrollo global total [5]".
Aquí estamos tratando de confirmar que dichos libros y artículos no estaban conscientes de la aparición de una nueva civilización y siguen aproximándose a la Claridad de Segundo Grado que ya no es útil. Están siendo atrapados por el fuerte y globalmente generalizado ‘Pensamiento de Grupo’ de la civilización industrial que nos empuja hacia el colapso [1]. Esperamos que esos libros y artículos sean actualizados para ayudarnos a habilitar la Globalización Brillante apoyando la urgente necesidad de crear lo que hemos venido llamando la civilización sistémica.
El Gran Cambio informático señala que la nueva civilización de los países interdependientes evita la necesidad de la guerra. De hecho, Alvin Toffler dio fuertes argumentos que demostraron que la Primera y Segunda Guerras Mundiales no eran necesarias para que los países se desarrollaran en la civilización industrial, cuando desarrolló las ideas que comenzaron con "las estructuras comunes de todas las naciones de la Segunda Ola – eran independiente de sus diferencias culturales o climáticas, independiente de su herencia étnica y religiosa, independiente de si se llaman capitalistas o comunistas [8]. "
Aquí añadimos a los precedentes del Gran Cambio de hace unos 500 años que Peter F. Drucker [9] y Eamonn Kelly [10] reconocieron. De acuerdo con Douglas S. Robertson [11] hubo tres Grandes Cabios anteriores que corresponden a la invención del lenguaje, la escritura y la impresión (ver más abajo) al actual de informática.
The above mentioned books and articles need to be updated in the undestanding that time is of the essence for humanity. The emergence of a new civilization, that needs to be created as soon as possible, to avoid the current process towards an earlier civilization, like it happened with the feudalism of the dark ages, invalidates critical misunderstanding of books written by them under the assumption of the continuation of the industrial civilization, for example, Carlota Pérez’s Fifth Technological Revolution [12], the World Economic Forum ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ [13], Robert Gordon’s ‘prosperity has plateau’ [14], Thomas Piketty's ‘soaring inequality is here to stay’ [15].
Los libros y los artículos antes mencionados deben ser actualizados en el entendido de que el tiempo es esencial para la humanidad. El surgimiento de una nueva civilización, que necesita ser creada lo antes posible, para evitar el proceso actual hacia una civilización anterior, como sucedió con el feudalismo de la Edad Oscura, invalida el malentendido crítico de los libros escritos por ellos bajo la suposición de la continuación de la civilización industrial, por ejemplo, la Quinta Revolución Tecnológica de Carlota Pérez [12], la IV Revolución Industrial del Foro Económico Mundial [13], ‘la prosperidad esta limitada’ de Robert Gordon [14], ‘la desigualdad está para quedarse ‘ de Thomas Piketty [15].
En la definición del índice del Gran Cambio, John Hagel III, y otros, escribió: "Para el precedente y la inspiración, podríamos mirar a la generación de empresas que surgieron a principios del siglo XX [16]." De la misma manera, Carlota Pérez, dijo recientemente que "estamos ahora en un momento crucial de la historia similar a los años treinta, que requiere pensamientos y medidas tan audaces como las de Keynes, Roosevelt y Beveridge y tan ambiciosos como el acuerdo de Bretton Woods" [5].
En la introducción de su libro, Robertson dice;
Al principio puede parecer que no existen tales paralelismos, que la revolución informática es única en la historia. Pero no es única. Al menos tres inventos en el pasado -el lenguaje, la escritura y la impresión- tuvieron efectos muy similares a la revolución informática de hoy. Cada una de estas invenciones disminuyó el esfuerzo y el costo requeridos para producir, almacenar y distribuir información, causando así una explosión de información muy similar a la que está creando hoy la tecnología informática.
Para entender la importancia de estos tres inventos necesitamos situarlos en sus contextos históricos apropiados: cada uno está estrechamente asociado con el comienzo de una forma fundamentalmente nueva de la sociedad humana. La invención del lenguaje está asociada con el comienzo mismo de la raza humana, la invención de la escritura con el comienzo de la civilización y la invención de la imprenta con el comienzo de la civilización moderna.
Esas asociaciones son muy sugerentes. Los puntos de división más importantes en la historia de la civilización fueron acompañados por una invención que causó una explosión de información. Esto sugiere una posible relación de causa y efecto - que las explosiones de información pueden haber causado estas transformaciones de la civilización. Si podemos probar que tal relación existe, las implicaciones para la civilización de hoy serían profundas: la computadora podría ser la invención que cambiará la civilización en un grado no visto desde el Renacimiento, el tiempo de la última gran revolución en el manejo de la información.
Para demostrar que tal relación causal existe, necesitamos mostrar que las civilizaciones generalmente están limitadas por la información. En otras palabras, necesitamos demostrar que un límite en la producción de información impidió el progreso en el período que precedió a cada explosión de información: Para ello debemos estudiar en detalle los límites que se imponen a una sociedad por las restricciones a la producción de información.
Ahora tenemos otra manera de mirar esos límites de información. Son los grados de claridad que corresponden a cada una de las tres civilizaciones (la suposición es que la revolución del lenguaje que generó los bárbaros no es una civilización) que comenzó con la escritura como la primera, imprimiendo como la segunda y la informática como el tercer grado de claridad. Alvin Toffler, por ejemplo, sintetizó las dos primeras como civilizaciones agrícolas e industriales. Como saben los que nos han seguido, hemos estado llamando a la tercera como la civilización sistémica.
The following references include in most cases original sources as well to show how we have been following the process with representative examples of our GMH blog post closely related to those references. Some of those posts have several update which we consider as systemic civilization knowledge flows, as oppose to knowledge stocks of the industrial civilization whose value are decreasing. Although there are many tweets related to this effort, we have included some of the images included in those tweets while not including then in short this paper to try making our readers comfortable.
Las siguientes referencias (están al final del paper) incluyen en la mayoría de los casos fuentes originales, así como para mostrar cómo hemos estado siguiendo el proceso con ejemplos representativos de nuestro blog GMH estrechamente relacionados con esas referencias. Algunas de esas notas tienen varias actualizaciones que consideramos como flujos de conocimiento de la civilización sistémica, como opuestos a los niveles (stocks) de conocimiento de la civilización industrial cuyo valor está disminuyendo. Aunque hay muchos tuits relacionados con este esfuerzo, hemos incluido algunas de las imágenes (sin traducirlas) de esos tuits, mientras que no incluye dichos tuits en este breve paper para tratar de acomodar a nuestros lectores.
Not matter where they live, Global Debout citizens might need to act to help reverse the current collapse of humanity.
This short paper is the starting point of another though experiment being conducted in this blog. As the collapse [1], for example, emerging from climate change is certainly global, since there is only one planet, as a result of increased countries interdependencies, the need to act peacefully is the responsibility of each and every concerned citizen not matter where they live. This can be seen from a fresh democratic perspective that invalidates the no intervention principle of the peace Treaties of Westphalia.
This time we spell out that all of our experiments are made under an enthusiasm based on partial ignorance in order to try to approximate to only the intended consequences require by the Third Degree of Clarity [2]. This time we are respectfully asking for the proactive and creative collaboration of global citizens to consider highly influential books and articles that we understand favor the wrong scenarios.
Just as the microscope greatly increased its observation capacity with the emergence of electronic technology, the emergence of a new information revolution (mentioned below) is enabling the observation of collapse that´s being generated under the traditional approximation to the Second Degree of Clarity in the mentioned books and articles. The fresh perspective is based on the development of the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF) [3] which enables the approximation to the Third Degree of Clarity.
Based on the EWPC-AF, for example, we related what Peter Senge, et al, said about the critical difference between a required zero carbon transformation as opposed to the low carbon transitions agreed upon in the COP21 Paris Agreement:
Living systems are not machines. Living systems create themselves and are continually growing and changing. “The whole exists through continually manifesting in the parts, and the parts exist as embodiments of the whole.” When you hold up a hand, you don’t see a hand but you see cells that are continually dying and regenerating in the temporary form of a hand. You see “the universe’s capability to create hands”. Wholes don’t exist without parts and vice versa. “This is the awareness that is stolen from us when we accept the machine worldview of wholes assembled from replaceable parts [4].”
As a confirmation of the above, in the book "Rethinking Capitalism," Dimitri Zenghelis wrote that “And the problem is that fossil carbon emissions have to be reduced to zero if global temperature is to be stabilised. This arises from the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) stay in the atmosphere for tens and in some cases hundreds of years [5].”
Instead of the Bright Globalization scenario available with the Third Degree of Clarity, we believe that the examples that approximate to the Second Degree of Clarity might develop unintended consequences and thus support the current ‘No Globalization’ scenario being erroneously directed in response to the ‘Dark Globalization’ march of folly [6] scenario that was introduced as neo-liberalism about 1990, but that we understand has turn out to be neo-feudalism.
The key assumption of this post is that the Treaties of Westphalia no longer help prevent war as a result of the computing Big Shift that calls for a new civilization. Under the assumption that war is being promoted, for example, by Vladimir Putin and ISIS, as representative of earlier stages of the industrial civilization and the political-religious prone middle ages, respectively, its escalation seems to be being validated with the sharp increase of the military budget that Donald Trump is submitting to the congress of the United States of North America to fight ISIS.
We suggest that Trump won the election under the increasingly huge uncertainty created by the computing Big Shift interdependencies that enabled the Dark Globalization that resulted by extending well beyond its useful life the industrial civilization. We also suggest that the new civilization will help address the ISIS threat successfully by reversing the escalation source of fighters as people on the new Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP).
As Henrietta Moore said that all countries are now developing countries [7], that reversal is the result that will have opportunities available to leapfrog the industrial civilization once the new civilization is created to enable the Bright Globalization. Interestingly enough, that creation can be done one country at a time. Not only will this reverse south to north migration, it will also reduce the population growth in the BoP as person grow and develop under the new civilization in what Carlota Pérez characterized as “smart green growth” and “full global development [5].”
Here we are trying to confirm that said books and articles were unaware of the emergence of a new civilization and continue to approximate the Second Degree Clarity that’s no longer useful. They are being trapped by the strong global pervasive industrial civilization ‘Groupthink’ that’s pushing us towards collapse [1]. We expect that those books and articles will be updated to help us enable the Bright Globalization by supporting the urgent need for the creation of what we have been calling the systemic civilization.
The computing Big Shift signals that new civilization of interdependent countries avoids the need for war. In fact, Alvin Toffler gave strong arguments that showed that the World War I and II were not necessary for countries to develop in the industrial civilization, when he developed the ideas that started with "the common structures of all Second Wave nations— regardless of their cultural or climatic differences, regardless of their ethnic and religious heritage, regardless of whether they call themselves capitalist or communist [8]."
Here we add to the Big Shift precedents of about 500 years ago that Peter F. Drucker [9] and Eamonn Kelly [10] acknowledged. According to Douglas S. Robertson [11] there were three previous Big Shifts that correspond to the invention of language, writing, and printing (more below) to the current one of computing.
The above mentioned books and articles need to be updated in the undestanding that time is of the essence for humanity. The emergence of a new civilization, that needs to be created as soon as possible, to avoid the current process towards an earlier civilization, like it happened with the feudalism of the dark ages, invalidates critical misunderstanding of books written by them under the assumption of the continuation of the industrial civilization, for example, Carlota Pérez’s Fifth Technological Revolution [12], the World Economic Forum ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ [13], Robert Gordon’s ‘prosperity has plateau’ [14], Thomas Piketty's ‘soaring inequality is here to stay’ [15].
In defining the Shift Index, John Hagel III, et al, wrote “For precedent and inspiration, we might look to the generation of companies that emerged in the early 20th century [16].” In the same way, Carlota Pérez, has recently said that “We are now in a crucial moment in history similar to the 1930s, requiring thinking and measures as bold as those of Keynes, Roosevelt and Beveridge and as ambitious as the Bretton Woods agreement [5].”
In the introduction of his book, Robertson says;
At first it might seem that no such parallels exist, that the computer revolution is unique in history. But it is not unique. At least three inventions in the past -- language, writing, and printing -- had effects that were very similar to today's computer revolution. Each of these inventions decreased the effort and cost required to produce, store, and distribute information, thereby causing an information explosion very similar to the one being created today by computer technology.
To understand the importance of these three inventions we need to place them in their proper historical contexts: Each is closely associated with the beginning of a fundamentally new form of human society. The invention of language is associated with the very beginning of the human race, the invention of writing with the beginning of civilization, and the invention of printing with the beginning of modern civilization.
These associations are highly suggestive. The most important dividing points in the history of civilization were each accompanied by an invention that caused an information explosion. This suggests a possible cause-and-effect relationship -- that information explosions may have caused these transformations of civilization. If we can prove that such a relationship exists, the implications for civilization today would be profound: The computer could be the invention that will change civilization to a degree not seen since the Renaissance, the time of the last great revolution in information handling.
To show that such a causal relationship exists we need to show that civilizations generally are information-limited. In other words, we need to show that a limit on the production of information impeded progress in the period that preceded each information explosion: To do this we must study in detail the limits that are placed on a society by restrictions on the production of information.
We now have another way to look at those information limits. They are the degrees of clarity which correspond to each the three civilizations (the assumption is that the language revolution that generated barbarians is not a civilization) that started with writing as the first, printing as the second and computing as the third degree of clarity. Alvin Toffler, for example, synthesized the first two as the agricultural and industrial civilizations. As those who have been following us know, we have been calling the third as the systemic civilization.
The following references include in most cases original sources as well to show how we have been following the process with representative examples of our GMH blog post closely related to those references. Some of those posts have several update which we consider as systemic civilization knowledge flows, as oppose to knowledge stocks of the industrial civilization whose value are decreasing. Although there are many tweets related to this effort, we have included some of the images included in those tweets while not including then in short this paper to try making our readers comfortable.
[1] Jared Diamond (2005), “Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed,” Penguin Books 2006. See also the initial text of the post
Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon of April 2016, where ‘Groupthink’ is spelled out and the “Third update. Has global society chosen to fail with the Paris Agreement developed under representative democracy ‘Groupthink’?” of the post
World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?
[2] Charles Sanders Peirce, How to make our ideas clear, Popular Science Monthly 12 (January 1878), 286-302. The association to the Third Degree of Clarity emerged in the "Twelfth update. Proposal and complement of a third scenario for the IV CAF-LSE CONFERENCE in London January 13, 2017" of the post
A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence.
[3]
EWPC Blog full access index update now with over 1,000,000 total views, April 2015. That update added 16 more entries to the initial 321 entries. While the EWPC Blog is no longer available, most of the posts can be accessed in this GMH Blog.
[4] Peter Senge, Joseph Jaworski, Otto Scharmer and Betty Sue Flowers, “Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future,” Society for Organizational Learning, 2004.
[5] Michael Jacobs and Mariana Mazzucato, editors, “Rethinking Capitalism: Economics and Policy for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth,” published by Wiley / Political Quarterly, 2016. That book includes: Dimitri Zenghelis, Chapter 10, “Decarbonisation: Innovation and the Economics of Climate Change” and Carlota Pérez, Chapter 11, “Capitalism, Technology and a Green Global Golden Age: The Role of History in Helping to Shape the Future.” With regards to the need of full development, please see the “First update. Mr. Joe Biden: voters need a global framework change to a systemic energy policy act for maximum social welfare” and the “Third update. Contrary to a strong west back, should #GlobalDebout aim to strengthen the whole world?” of the post 2008 post
Leadership Answers What to do First.
[6] Barbara W. Tuchman, “The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam Paperback,” 1985. Tuchman defines folly as the pursuit by government of policies contrary to the interests of their constituencies. The precedent provoked by the Renaissance popes she describes for Italy and Europe is now a march of folly for humanity as a whole. As a Spanish entry, The March of Folly has been address in the “Segunda actualización. ¿Desvia Danilo Medina la atención de la marcha de la locura de la globalización oscura?” of the post
Aspiración del Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio a presidir el Consejo Económico y Social dominicano. That’s something like the “Second update. Does Danilo Medina divert the attention of the march of the folly of the dark globalization? Of the September 2016 post Aspiration of Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio to chair the Dominican Economic and Social Council.
[7] Henrietta Moore, The sustainable development goals: we’re all developing countries now, theguardian.com, September 2015. See also the “Twenty-first update. As we’re all developing countries now, it is time to leapfrog to the systemic civilization,” of the GMH post
A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence.
[8] Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Bantam Books, 1980. See section 2: The Architecture of Civilization,” of the Second Wave. See also the Janary 2015 post
Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015? Version 0.0
[9] Peter F. Drucker, “Management Challenges for the 21st Century,” HarperCollins, 1999, page 102. See also the October 2016 post
Is Drucker's Management Challenges for the Systemic Civilization on the opposite side force field of academic privilege?
[10] Eamonn Kelly, “Powerful Times: Rising to the Challenge of Our Uncertain World,” Wharton School Publishing, 2005, Chapter 1, “History Unleashed.” See the May 2017 11 Posts on Powerful Times and the September 2016 post
Eamonn Kelly's 'Emergence' scenario is the answer to financial, political, social anti-systems unvailed by 'hard to beat' Mohamed el-Erian
[11] Douglas S. Robertson, “The New Renaissance: Computers and the Next Level of Civilization,” 1998.
[12] Carlota Pérez, “TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS AND FINANCIAL CAPITAL: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages,” Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, 2002. Our formal conjecture of the emergence of the systemic civilization contrary to her Fifth Technological Revolution can be seen in the November 2013 post
A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal
[13] Klaus Schwab, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond,” World Economic Forum, January 2016. See the January 2016 post
World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma? Which at this time has eight updates.
[14] Robert Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War. Princeton University Press. 2016. See also “Seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems” of the post
A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence.
[15] Thomas Piketty's book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Éditions du Seuil
Belknap Press, August 2013. See also our May 2014 post
A comment posted under Forbes' Steve Denning article "What Thomas Piketty Got Wrong."
[146] John Hagel III, John Seely Brown, and Duleesha Kulasooriya,
“The 2011 Shift Index: Measuring the forces of long-term change,” Deloitte Center for the Edge.
“Advancing Technology For Humanity” is the IEEE Tagline that is described in the link http://www.ieee.org/about/tagline.html
“learning from the emerging future” is a concept introduced by Otto Scharmer
Of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Presencing Institute, based on his “Theory of the U.” One source for the concept can be found in the paper “The Blind Spot of Institutional Leadership: How To Create Deep Innovation Through Moving from Egosystem to Ecosystem Awareness,” which can found in the link http://www.ottoscharmer.com/docs/articles/2010_DeepInnovation_Tianjin.pdf
The first section of the paper “Tectonic Shifts,” is as follows.
We live in an era of massive institutional and societal change. During my lifetime I have seen four major tectonic global shifts happen: the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989; the collapse of the Apartheid system in the early 1990s; the rise of the World Wide Web during the later 1990s; and the rise of Asia as the new center of gravity of the 21st- century global economy over the past three decades. Four major tectonic shifts. Four times a massive wave of profound societal change that almost no one saw coming. And yet, four times, the seemingly impossible happened and all of a sudden the tectonic plates started shifting.
Seeing and participating in these massive societal change is what defines me and my generation—that is, the emerging generation of change makers and leaders within and across all institutions of society. Though the impact of these four shifts has been monumental, I personally believe that the biggest of all shifts is yet to come. It’s a shift that does not deal with a technological transformation but with a social transformation: the transformation of the relationship between business, government, and civil society from manipulation and confrontation to dialogue and co-creation. The purpose of this relational shift will be to facilitate profound innovation at the scale of the whole ecosystem.
@gmh_upsa: http://t.co/8jPtubSe James: I agree that Ethics should transcend technology, but I strongly disagree that the current IEEE Code of...
with some related information.
While this addresses some of the additional considerations for IT, and also provides a basis for licensing/certification of software engineers in the Ethics area, there may well be additional areas for consideration.
@gmh_upsa: http://t.co/JQhv7QEv James: “Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest.” Should we add that “IEEE members shall...
@gmh_upsa: http://bit.ly/GMH060 Thank you James. Most credit is due to Jack Casazza, who placed in my mind the seed to this discussion ...
The full comment went as follows: “Thank you James. Most credit is due to Jack Casazza, who placed in my mind the seed to this discussion a lot time ago. I guess that the full discussion objective is to make the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Support Advancing Technology For Humanity.”
I would hope for a line in the code of ethics that encourages us to occasionally reverse the order, advancing technology for humanity with the hopeful side effect of benefiting business.
Why does this matter? As chair of P1817, I am frequently warned that my rhetoric is ethically questionable because it might be construed as advocating public policy. It is hard to talk about technology to enable consumer ownership of digital objects without referring to the rights and expectations of consumers (humanity). Such talk should be encouraged, and categorized as ethical, by the code of ethics.
Taken separate, I think it might be possible to consider the 10 point the IEEE members agree in our Code of Ethics to be “do no evil,” but I think that the code as a whole is about “do good” when you firts include “We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct…” I see the business community as only one of the stakeholder to be served “the highest ethical and professional conduct,” but neither above our profession, our members, nor the human community.
I'd argue that advocating public policy is a likely. if not necessary ethical role. Should you let policy advance that is techniically unsound? We shouold be advocat4s for policy that improves the conditions for humanity where it is within our fields of experise. beyond that we also need to respect the differences that arise where teechnology is not a guide. And of course beyond 'partisan' perspectives, a diversity of cultures. etc also come into play/
On the other hand, it seems unduly restrictive for the Working Group chair of a "Standard for Consumer-ownable Digital Personal Property" project to not be able to express enthusiasm about the societal value of letting people own what they buy, especially since we believe that public policy changes are not necessary for the standard to be implemented. I agree with your sentiment, Jim. And I think that we should be encouraged to explore public policy ideas without being concerned that someone might think we individuals speak for the entire IEEE-USA or IEEE.
Back to the main topic: Our code of ethics does not admonish us to advance the interests of humanity as does the tagline. IEEE standards Working Groups are almost all organized as "individual" committees. Member ballots represent themselves, not their employers, and membership is open to the public. Practically speaking, almost every member's participation is on company time, but that is not the concern of the IEEE. It seems reasonable, then, that if members speak in favor of consumer interests, then the IEEE should not object, even though a member's employer might. And the grounds for objecting should not be that consumer advocacy is unethical in IEEE meetings or by IEEE members.
The code of ethics is fine as it is, but I would love to be able to point to something within it that identifies my consumer advocacy as ethical and appropriate speech.
In the preface of the 3rd edition of "How to become a professional Engineer," the author, John Constance, wrote: "An issue that has aroused intense interest and broad support among registered engineers is the so-called "industry exemption." For practical and political reasons, most, if not all, of the state registration laws have included an exception for engineering related to the design and manufacture of products. Now a movement is underway to eliminate these exemptions on the ground that faulty design of certain products by unqualified personnel is as much a matter of warranting legally binding qualification as the design of a bridge or water system. Not surprisingly, industry is fighting to retain its special exemptions status in the state laws..." This begs an update for wicked problems.
Given the above, is IEEE-USA controlled by industry, instead of the IEEE profession and all IEEE members? Does IEEE-USA controls the whole IEEE or should it be the other way around? Is the IEEE-USA situation in accordance with the IEEE Code of Ethics? I suggest to consider the following excerpt from the post "Which Country Will Take the Leadership of a Global Vision for Advancing Grids for Customers? ( http://bit.ly/EWPC57 )" for the full discussion:
... the USA is stuck in a losing strategy of advancing grids for utilities, as it is reflected from an insightful review of the IEEE-USA POSITION STATEMENT: National Energy Policy Recommendations. Adopted by the IEEE-USA Board of Directors on 12 February 2010, the strategic goals are:
#1. To ensure that we can reliably meet energy needs, we must upgrade our electrical generation and delivery systems.
#2. We must break our dependence on oil, which threatens the U.S. economy, national security and environmental health.
#3. We must mitigate the adverse effects of climate change by transforming our energy systems and our economy to one that is carbon free, carbon neutral or which successfully captures and stores carbon emissions. This will require a cultural shift in the way we use energy, a modernizing and strengthening of the electrical infrastructure and changes in the way costs are recovered.
#4. Finally, we must ensure that the cost of energy does not diminish our economy or impede its development.
An insightful analysis of those strategic goals reveals that: Goal #1 is a mostly technical policy that aims to protects the utilities status quo of vertical integration and organized wholesale market; Goal #2 is a mostly political US policy about its oil addiction; Goal #3 mixes a mostly global warming political policy with the prerequisite seeds of the mostly economic creative destruction of the electric power industry [12]; and Goal #4 is a mostly economic policy that also aims to protect the status quo.
A synthesis of the reviewed strategic goals reveals that: by separating from Goal #3 the seeds of the creative destruction and integrating with Goal #1, the result is a new Goal #1 mostly techno-economic policy of the creative destruction of the power industry; the new Goal #1 is a prerequisite predetermined element for Goal #2 and for Goal #3; Goal #4 gets dissolved with the high systemic leverage provided by the new Goal #1.
As Goal #2 is a US policy and the global Goal #3, as the uncertain replacement of the Kyoto Protocol is delayed at the moment, what remains to be taken at the moment is the global leadership of the industry, which as a prerequisite is needed anyway to place the industry at a higher productivity plateau, resulting from the EWPC-AF radical meaning innovation. The emerging strategy is to transform the global electric power industry with the shared vision of Advancing Grids for Customers with vibrant retail and wholesale markets that mutually reinforce each other.
First, thank you for leading this effort, standards committee leadership is non-trivial. I've lead two efforts: POSIX (high visibility, high engagement, lots of policy issues) and Web Site Engineering (low visibility, low engagement, lots of policy issues) ...
IEEE USA has limited roles in advocating policy - I'm a member of the IEEE-USA CCP committee which is a sister of IPC and a forum for non-IP Policy. Of course USA is limited to US policy issues.
While chair of POSIX I was a strong advocate for US and EU adoption of these standards as procurement policy. This included publication of the rationale in Computer and other magazines. And we were successful (FIPS guidelines established in the US, similar ones in Europe.)
The area of your standards work clearly overlaps with the IP policy committee -- once adopted, it might create an interesting question -- can IEEE USA adopt a policy position against an adopted IEEE standard? ... presumably you are not at that point yet. Until it is adopted, the best that can be promoted is that relevant entities participate in the work (OMB guidelines recommend this for US government agencies) and evaluate how the outcome might be used in their internal and formal policies. Until there is an adopted standard it would be impossible for an agency to take more than a "we expect to"... position in same.
-----
In the context of Jose's initial question
how does an engineer balance the ethical issues that arise from:
personal interest (what I like to do with the net, or ...)
professional interest (what is 'right' as a practicing engineer)
expert interest (what I know and can do as an expert in the field)
what is best for his/her employer (actual best, or consistent with management perspectives)
what is good for the related industry
what is good for your nation-state
what is good for humanity right now
what is good for humanity in a few generations
[is "good" the same as 'profitable' or ??? the word can be ambiguous]
I suspect I left out a few, but these are enough to give a strongly self reflecting engineer a headache.
jim
The Industrial exemption as I understand it does not reduce any liability, but relates to who may use the title "engineer" vs the formal approval of engineering designs. For many years I held a title with the term 'engineer' although as a software person and not a registered PE I would not be able to use that title in the 34 US states where it is restricted to PE's.
This leads to two lines of consideration:
a) what does it mean in fields where PEs exist and is it abused? ... presumably in civil and electrical fields (et al) where there are PEs, projects that require a PE review/approval have that signoff --- both as an ethical and legal consideration.
b) however, in fields like software, where some projects (my family web page) do not require real engineering (or risk to human welfare) it is not an issue. But for avionics controls, x-ray machines, and many other real-world applications real engineering of software is needed -- and rarely is required. The licensing of software engineers in the US is in-process, and that will help a bit. But the reality is that we need corporations and government to recognize that there are times when software engineering is needed, not just programming; and in these cases use the existing standards (IEEE/ISO) as well as best practices and certified/licensed professionals to at least review if not execute the work.
… the assumption with which I started this discussion that says: “As we have transition from an analog world to a digital one, it is possible to learn from the emerging digital future, which is critical for advancing technology for humanity,” and it is thus highly interrelated with this group as you will see in the post "Why the Current Smart Grid Process Doesn’t Let the New Steve Job Connect the Dots ( http://bit.ly/GMH075 )." I just added a new discussion about it.
In response to that SSIT comment [not repeated here], Peter Wiesner wrote on The Official IEEE Group that “Clint Andrews and I wrote an op ed piece for the Jan 2007 edition of Proceedings of the IEEE that appears to be relevant to this discussion thread… ABSTRACT: Engineers can express their professionalism through engagement with public issues, and the IEEE is uniquely positioned to foster that engagement on a global scale… http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04118461
In the introduction, of their op ed, entitled “Engaged Engineering,” they affirmed that “Professional engineering associations encourage their members to apply high ethical standards in developing technologies that involve public safety and environmental concerns. The IEEE’s code of ethics, in fact, requires its members to consider these factors. But is this enough?”
On the section THE IEEE APPROACH, they added “The IEEE currently addresses public policy through IEEE-USA, but at present there is no comparable way to reach the public on a global level…” End of the quotes.
While still expecting Paul’s response to be combined with the above, now I respond to Jim:
I will concentrate on the power industry, which is where I have identified an important wicked or systemic problem. When the power industry was vertically integrated, IEEE members considered the industry as a whole, reflecting on the public interest based on a least cost expansion planning to meet its purpose. The extended socio-technical system was under a regulated compact. I guess the IEEE Code of Ethics was fine for that situation in a mostly analog world.
But the world changed and the impact of the industrial exception comes to haunt us. Now that socio-technical system has been restructured and a new socio-technical system is emerging in a digital world that is a lot different than the analog world. As Clint and Peter add in their op ed:
Engineers have customarily depended on public consensus and governmental guidance to determine the accepted levels of socio-environmental risk involved in their work. This approach has only encouraged engineers to see themselves as specialists, skilled in developing new technologies, while leaving social and environmental concerns to others. Codified ethics have thus set a limit to engineers’ responsibility for the consequences of their work.
But circumstances have changed in recent years. Acceptable risk is now influenced by the public’s increased awareness of the unintended effects that technological and economic progress may have on public health and the ecosystem. The public, as a result, expects technical professionals to take greater responsibility for assessing the risks entailed in the technologies they develop and in establishing the necessary safeguards against them.
The public further expects engineers to communicate the risks as well as the benefits of projects as they progress, a requirement engineers often find outside their comfort zone. Many of these engineers are highly trained specialists who prefer to focus on narrow problems.
Below is the text of the IEEE Code of Ethics .... my question, which is one we should periodically raise in any case, is "what change(s) might improve the Code of Ethics at this point in time?"
=====================
The following is from the IEEE Policies, Section 7 - Professional Activities (Part A - IEEE Policies). (from: http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html )
* IEEE Code of Ethics
We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation
to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:
to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;
to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them
to affected parties when they do exist;
to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
to reject bribery in all its forms;
to improve the understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential consequences;
to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;
to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;
to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;
to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.
Changes to the IEEE Code of Ethics will be made only after the following conditions are met:
Proposed changes shall have been published in THE INSTITUTE at least three (3) months in advance of final consideration by the Board of Directors, with a request for comment, and
All IEEE Major Boards shall have the opportunity to discuss proposed changes prior to final action by the Board of Directors, and
An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the votes of the members of the Board of Directors present at the time of the vote, provided a quorum is present, shall be required for changes to be made.
-- 1) To call it the “IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics.”
-- 2) To change the first commitment in order: “to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public by proactively collaborating in designing and building whole systems that in addition do not endanger the public or the environment.
As safety, health and welfare are actually where wicked or systemic problems are actually big barriers on Advancing Technology for Humanity, the current first commitment is clearly non systemic. I understand that the best systemic explanation is the 7th Law of the Fifth Discipline: "Cause and effect are not [necessarily] related in time and space." In other words, as the examples provided in this discussion makes us aware, in wicked problems it may be totally impossible “… to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.”
@gmh_upsa: http://bit.ly/GMH083 Thanks again Ben. A Code of Ethics is a set of principles, not of policies. Policy must be informed by principles...
If YS&T's purpose is to break the non-systemic silos in S&T, I guess we might eventually have another overlap. In our case being driven by an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, which will help us address the huge complexity faced by IEEE members worldwide.
In that sense, the motto Advancing Technology for Humanity gives us an interface that simplifies the collaborative relationships of technology and society. I suggest that SSIT’s leaders may find the UnSummit and the workshop timely in order to explore a potential relationship with YS&T.
Next is a Theory U like example of what I believe that has been emerging through me in support of said motto. The first paragraph of “Which Country Will Take the Leadership of a Global Vision for Advancing Grids for Customers? ( http://bit.ly/EWPC57 ),” says:
As will be seen from this article, the emerging strategy is to transform the global electric power industry with the shared vision of Advancing Grids for Customers [1] with vibrant retail and wholesale markets that mutually reinforce each other [2]. To do it, it is first necessary to restructure the industry in accordance with the holistic, minimalist, emerging, radical meaning innovation [3] of the Electricity Without Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF) [4].
By the way, the emergence through Theory U can be in part seen in the EWPC Blog, which today has about 300 entries, 880 comments and more than 720,000 views.
I have two models I espouse - one is Robert Fritz's 'The Path of Least Resistance' which has a very useful model for structural tension to create a desired high-level outcome. The other is 'Positive Deviance' which looks for positive outliers from within the system, which can be self-discovered by the community itself, and then replicated. The promise there is that the solution arose in the ecosystem already present, and doesn't need outside drivers. It requires shared goals, and then knowledge sharing.
The quote from you link above -- "I did that because that transformation is more dependent on a mental model shift about energy policy than a technological one to satisfy customers’ needs and to reduce industry strategic risk. " indicates you are thinking the same way I am about framing and point of view.
I believe the new level of effective leadership is from within the group itself, though paradoxically it seems to need a person (or persons) willing to take the stand, unwaveringly, to 'collate' the energy of the group so it can become resonant.
Is the UnSummit and workshop timely? We would love to have participants to widen the effective hands-on discussions across sectors. It's April 23-25th, 2012 in the Washington DC area - is there an SSIT event near that time and location?
I profess I know very little about the power grid issues, though it seems similar perhaps, in that the umbrella of vision is not big enough to include 'thriving of all.'
While I am expecting to be shown where my two beliefs are is flawed, in order to learn, I also strongly believe that the power industry ‘status quo’ was 'thriving in survival mode' inside the IEEE by using 'The Path of Least Resistance' even after the 'Positive Deviance' found in the post “Institute For The Future’s J. Dunagan Announced the Winners of the Smart Grid 2025 Game (http://bit.ly/GMH020 ). As can be seen next, I guess that most IEEE officials are still not thinking like the President and CEO of the IEEE who is taking an unwavering leadership stand about advancing technology for Humanity.
In the current discussion “One Principle IEEE Members Are Not Expecting that Provides Very Meaningful Work,” I wrote that “I suggest that every IEEE member must read "The President's Column," by IEEE President and CEO, GORDON W. DAY, on the most recent version of "the institute," entitled "A Flatter World: It’s time to address the challenges of universal access to technology."
I also wrote that “Because it is in synchronicity with this and the preceding discussions ‘Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology for Humanity?,’ I really love the reference made in ‘A Flatter World’ to ‘…the work of engineers as creating a world that never before existed’ and also that “We are the profession that can make the world flatter.” In a sense, the President and CEO of the IEEE is telling us to learn about the emerging future.
Responding now to the beginning of your comment, by I mean by silos those scientific, technological, professional, Cartesian (non-systemic) disciplines silos that are the result of a conception of the nature of knowledge that has a fundamental mistake made by Descartes according to Robert G. Meyers ( http://rgm95.tripod.com/homepage/id10.html ).
Meyers writes that “According to Peirce, knowledge is a more or less unified body of beliefs accepted by the community to organize experience and to help us predict the future. Although the final goal is truth, we can never verify beliefs by comparing them to non-mental facts in reality, for we can never look beyond our beliefs about the world to the world itself.”
The best systemic explanation of IEEE’s unfairness is the 7th Law of the Fifth Discipline: "Cause and effect are not [necessarily] related in time and space." In other words, as the many examples provided in this long parallel discussions makes us aware, in wicked or systemic problems it may be totally impossible “… to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.”
Instead we need an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics in which every IEEE member should agree "to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public by proactively collaborating in designing and building whole systems that in addition do not endanger the public or the environment."
To read the three other comments that lead to this one on the IEEE Smart Grid Group. please hit the link http://bit.ly/GMH086
By the way, I am very happy on how the thread is doing. I know that I won your beer, as the status quo once again stroked out this thread, this time in today’s email with the subject "[1] manager's choice, [3] discussions and [1] comment on LinkedIn." You can see that in the message it says "Still Active Discussions (2)," but ours is not shown. It seems they don't want people to follow it.
The same thing happened several times when the status quo doesn’t like how the thread is going forward. This is what I wrote in a private message: “… However, today things have gone one step further in what may seem unimportant details. In the email sent with the subject "[1] manager's choice, [10] discussions, [6] comments and [1] job on LinkedIn" you can see "Still Active Discussions (2)." However, only one discussion is shown, which has 6 comments. The other 4 comments did not show up in the subject. Except for the number of active discussion … [the] discussion seems to have been deleted. Is that how the opposition is playing against Advancing Technology for Humanity?”
To read the other five additional comments that lead to this one on the IEEE Smart Grid Group, please hit the link http://bit.ly/GMH087
Thank you Kennan. To me at least, you don’t need to be sorry; please do as it make you feel confortable.
Once again, readers should place attention on status quo issues from above:
* 1. “The current system so protects the status quo that it all but assures that new systems will not be adopted, particularly any system that is effective, thus either killing innovations or neutralizing functionality in the adoption process.”
* 2. While I am expecting to be shown where my two beliefs are flawed, in order to learn, I also strongly believe that the power industry ‘status quo’ was 'thriving in survival mode' inside the IEEE by using 'The Path of Least Resistance' even after the 'Positive Deviance' found in the post “Institute For The Future’s J. Dunagan Announced the Winners of the Smart Grid 2025 Game ( http://bit.ly/GMH020 ).” As can be seen next, I guess that most IEEE officials are still not thinking like the President and CEO of the IEEE who is taking an unwavering leadership stand about Advancing Technology for Humanity.
* 3. By the way, I am very happy on how the thread is doing. I know that I won your beer, as the status quo once again stroked out this thread, this time in today’s email with the subject "[1] manager's choice, [3] discussions and [1] comment on LinkedIn." You can see that in the message it says "Still Active Discussions (2)," but ours is not shown. It seems they don't want people to follow it.
The same thing happened several times when the status quo doesn’t like how the thread is going forward. This is what I wrote in a private message: “… However, today things have gone one step further in what may seem unimportant details. In the email sent with the subject "[1] manager's choice, [10] discussions, [6] comments and [1] job on LinkedIn" you can see "Still Active Discussions (2)." However, only one discussion is shown, which has 6 comments. The other 4 comments did not show up in the subject. Except for the number of active discussion … [the] discussion seems to have been deleted. Is that how the opposition is playing against Advancing Technology for Humanity?”
* 4. Thank you Joerg for your comment: I must clarify that as Galvin's suggestions were deleted does not say they are wrong. They were just not convenient for the status quo.
To read the other eight additional comments that lead to this one on the IEEE Smart Grid Group, please hit the link http://bit.ly/GMH088
IEEE Smart Grid Group. Did you also ask moderator of The Official IEEE
Group whether your topic had
had its visibility intentionally reduced, or it was just an oversight that
they could help you rectify and get your discussion there back on track?
I think that some of the damage done by moderators is sometimes irreversible. So far, as there is no response yet on the status of the proposal for an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, it seems that is the case. I wrote privately to the moderator of The Official IEEE Group. No other comments were added after the many complaints. Think about it: only you and Jim responded proactively to the poll. From earlier experience, I believe that the other moderators are under systemic pressure.
Part of the challenge of any of these groups is to try to keep threads 'on topic' ...
(for example, we are in the meta discussion about IEEE ethics as we consider how moderators and linked-in threads are managed.) ...
I'm trying to digest the concept of "systemic" in the context of the evolution of IEEE's code of ethics ... let me give it a try and perhaps you can provide feedback that will help me and others grasp the idea.
Presumably an individual professional has some identifiable ethical obligations -- in the IEEE Code, perhaps other Codes (Software Engineering has an augmented one), and also perhaps some new factors that emerge as a result of technology evolution. Beyond this that individual is part of multiple 'systems', and there may be additional ethical considerations that should be identified as a result of this. Examples of such systems include corporate/research environments (beyond employer -- ethical issues emerge in collaborations, and even competitive situations); there are also nation-state and other 'affiliation' systems that may factor into all of this. Two examples come to mind -- one is cyber-security where disclosure of attach vectors is a non-trivial issue (to whom, when, etc) -- a second emerged in the Medical world recently with the publishing of the methodology for increasing the contagion factors for the flu virus. In both cases, the broad access to both the published information and the opportunity for non-professional use/abuse of the information is substantively different from what might have been the case a few decades ago.
Perhaps you can provide a few examples or comments on these with respect to "systemic" considerations?
By writing about a system/component hierarchy, you have approached quite well the systemic concept dimension that applies to an IEEE Code of Ethics. In the first example, I will write about purpose of the whole system. In the second example I will show the importance of the system dynamics, complementing your suggestions on cyber-security and flu virus.
Anyone looking for more examples, I suggest to go to the long discussion on the IEEE Smart Grid Group. I will take two of those examples to write about purpose.
The old vertically integrated power industry was expanded to minimize the whole sum of generation, transmission and distribution, for all investment, operation, maintenance and outage costs. That was reflected as the purpose of maximum social welfare. As the world change that system became obsolete, making outage (including bad quality) costs one half of a dollar on average on top of every dollar billed by utilities (this was settled in the IEEE Smart Grid Group already).
The maximum social welfare purpose or something similar got lost or forgotten when the industry was restructured. See for example (also settled in the IEEE Smart Grid Group) what’s happening in transmission, as explained in the post “FERC's Order 1000 as a Potential Example of Over-Regulated America ( http://bit.ly/GMH055 ),” where you can see that “It is very important to know that the origin of FERC's Order No. 1000 is a reform of FERC's Order No. 890 of 2007, which is itself a reform of FERC's Order No. 888 of 1996…” In contrast with what follow, as transmission gets separated artificially from distribution you have two subsystems ( T separate from D) that are in practice highly mutually dependent (tightly coupled). An unexpected change in one becomes an unexpected change in the other.
The EWPC-AF proposal separates the first level industry hierarchy in two second level lightly coupled subsystems, the Enterprise (smart markets) and the T&D (smart) Grid. Each of those subsystems is highly cohesive. The T&D (smart) Grid can be expanded to minimize the whole sum of, transmission and distribution, for all investment, operation, maintenance and its own outage costs. The Enterprise (smart markets) will be the subject of an architecture competition in order to maximize customer value in generation and commercialization. The combination of low cost on the T&D (smart) Grid and maximum value on the Enterprise (smart markets) leads to maximum social welfare.
Second example: The Millennium Bridge on its own, as a piece of engineering, was a fine and stable structure; but when we consider the interaction dynamics of the larger system made up of the bridge and its many simultaneous users, there were serious unforeseen problems in those dynamics that only came to light when it was too late.
You can find the context, details, and application to the Smart Grid as a System-of-Systems (SoS) next.
Smart Grid: SoS "… interacting in unpredictable ways that regulators and investors cannot comprehend, far less control.” ( http://bit.ly/GMH049 )
In principle this kind of discussion underline the difference between engineers and doctors! Doctors sworn and engineers are not doing it. From here I think start the problem with code of ethics. Smart Grids is the most complex concept of humanity and the biggest technological revolution. There is a cultural problem for many engineers and only time can solve it fast (??!!).” This was 19 days ago
My response was: “Thank you very much Călin for writing “Excellent discussion! Congratulations to all of You and specially to Mr. Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio for the initiative of the subject!” and for “Smart Grids is the most complex concept of humanity and the biggest technological revolution. There is a cultural problem for many engineers and only time can solve it fast (??!!).”In a normal polite way I should stop at that, but then we won’t learn anything else.”
In my case didn't agree and took exception on "In principle this kind of discussion underline the difference between engineers and doctors! Doctors sworn and engineers are not doing it. From here I think start the problem with code of ethics." I suggest that in my case the difference is for an engineer or doctor to become what the article of the discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth” describes. This new discussion mixes the battle for the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics into the war for the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework.
This comment was posted on the IEEE Smart Grid Group.
I suggest that you please leave this discussion and go to the IEEE Group discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth” in this same public group by hitting the corresponding link:
http://bit.ly/GMH095 for the IEEE Smart Grid Group
http://bit.ly/GMH097 for the IEEE SSIT Group
http://bit.ly/GMH096 for the IEEE Spectrum Group
In the case of private groups: The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Senior Group, search for the discussion to go there.
Jose,
We need to move these types of discussions over to the IEEE SSIT Group on Linkedin. You are doing posts of the same questions on multiple Linkedin Groups. As said before, this group is for discussions on the Smart Grid.
The Moderator of the IEEE SSIT welcomes your postings and participation his group.
Thanks,
Lee Stogner
Moderator, IEEE Smart Grid Group on Linkedin
After several thing happened, among which was the above idea of moving non smart grid post to the SSIT Group, yesterday The IEEE SSIT Group introduced an approach to facilitate that idea as can be seen in the thread “Some discussion suggestions (mine, and comment to add yours)” through the link http://bit.ly/GMH200
Next is my response:
Hi Jim,
I will look closely into your approach, but I think I may get away with a shortcut. In a non-systemic way, there is important value on a point being discussed in one main group which can be sure is the best group. This is where analysis is king. It is about learning from the past.
However, in a systemic way, there is good value to be obtained also from the interaction between groups discussing the same point. The actual value is obtained from intergroup dynamics, which is difficult to anticipate. This is where synthesis is the queen. It is also learning about the emergent future.
In the Code of Ethics discussion, insightful emergent value came from the interaction of three groups. In fact, the real problems on the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics are in the IEEE Smart Grid Groups, not in the very obvious IEEE SSIT Group.
The great American philosopher Charles Sander Peirce said something like this: ideas need to be discussed because there is no one truth about the enterprise. Instead, there are many partial truths. To try to get to the truth we need to collaborate with others, because we are limited and need that social learning.
Trying to reduce the number of threads, as you had advise me, yesterday, I introduce the idea of a semaphore that can be found in the discussion “How Active IEEE Members Might be Prepared to Embody the Change that Needs to Happen for Advancing Technology for Humanity.”
The comment on the IEEE Smart Grid Group mentioned at the beginning can be seen through the link http://bit.ly/GMH201
We have students who are following the discussions on this listing. I think it is important that they join the discussion. Language that is clear and informed for less informed which includes myself will encourage students not to just read the comments but join in. Post graduates, undergraduates and professionals outside of academia have very important knowledge of real time and technological interface. I would like to know how they feel technology is value adding?
I have taught criminology for many years, how are we using technology to provide evidence based knowledge in the justice system? How are we establishing mens reus and actus reus through the use of recording devices GPS systems or google glass etc.
I am about to teach a large cohort of Sociology students. How can I encompass my bright young scholars with their knowledge of technology (include) their knowledge within discussions of society, culture and how we understand ourselves in 2015.