...with the stuff that matters
The topic of balancing capital and economic priorities with humanity is huge, and I am obviously not trying to resolve it here. Or even project a view or conclude anything specifically - but I do want to learn more, so I'm throwing out some views and I'm keen to get some feedback!
Many of you in my network will have heard me talking and presenting under the banner of a Reimagined Humanity. Within my core job this theme is centred around the balance between technology, the new working or operating model, the future of work and the greatest challenges we face. For me personally though this topic is actually about much more, and in my life more broadly my current journey has been about discovering more answers to the situation we find ourselves in. Of course, I don’t have all the answers, far from it, but at this stage I am starting to conclude one thing.
In principle I believe we need to move from economic centric models and political systems (claiming to be citizen centric) where in actual fact we put these economic priorities above people in nearly all cases - claiming that this is in their interests. And instead put a planet & people centric model in place. And just like the way in which much of the western world has claimed to make "economic" decisions for the benefit of the country or the people more broadly, we must now put the planet first. I believe that this could easily lead to a better place for humanity generally, regardless of the motivating factors and how successful we are at averting or reversing the impacts of climate change.
“We need to move from economic centric models and political systems claiming to be citizen centric where in actual fact we put these economic priorities above people. And instead put a planet & people centric model in place. “
People often put up barriers presented by the economic system as the argument not to change, or why it is perhaps impossible to change so fundamentally - and of course people more connected to the purpose of humanity and our existence merely refer to the irony of not having a planet that can sustain life, but having money and material objects instead. I'll let you make your own mind up about which should be the over-riding factor. I do, however, strongly believe every political system can be reimagined around the idea of genuinely putting the planet and people first, it just won't be very easy. And the balance between planet, people and economy or value sharing more broadly can and needs to be made anew. Examples of this working already are social enterprises, b-corps, charity based orgs and so on, who typically distribute value in two ways. One is the direct exchange of value with the people that serve its cause, the other to take the money made in "profit" and redistribute this for further value creation or to solve problems. Now they don't all solve the problems we face entirely (although some aim to), but in all cases they do help establish a far more purposeful and human centred approach to value creation, and they can operate in the current economic system.
To make a move to a planet centric model possible and not just stand in conflict with people's current perceived interests, fears and concerns (which is partly as a result of having spent so long in the current economic and political systems they are in), will require people to feel more connected to each other and the planet itself, and thus more attuned to what really matters. What this planet is capable of providing us can enrich us far more than we currently allow. If we tune back in, I’m confident we will feel that an awful lot of the perceived compromises in favour of the planet will start to disappear - and a lot won't feel like compromises at all. This has certainly been the case for me.
If we look at the major issues we face, as I have a lot in recent years, and I think back to my parents own attempts to live more "self-sufficient" when I was growing up in the New Forest. My Father, a scientist by academic achievement, an engineer and comfortably the cleverest person I've ever met (came with a lot of flaws ;) concluded that "bringing things closer to you is the best answer". Now this isn't revolutionary, but still isn't happening on any scale. This will drive away much of the challenges with making supply chains work in a global context. It will centre demand much closer to each individual. Making them able to be more accountable and responsible for the impact they have. It reduces carbon footprints, makes you think about how you produce your own food, how energy supply can be sourced directly and generally grounds you in your community and into the ecosystem that supports you - arguably a far more enriching and beneficial way to live. People often talk to me about "China" or "India" in this context - they don't seem to be playing ball (I could currently add Trump's America into this list, and others as well). The issue with this is that those countries predominantly export and we buy it. We have outsourced our planet impacting issues. Therefore if we centred things closer to us the demand models would change and cause these countries to change with it. Again, this isn't new understanding, but we aren't currently acting on this.
However, it is also true that to make this happen we need the governments, large political organisations, commercial institutions and other large institutions to play their part. This needs to be a collective action. What isn’t true is that we can simply make people change their demands thus forcing the supply and supporting models to change with it. There are two many tensions, dependencies, knowledge gaps and issues with how monetary value is driving a wealth extraction process for this to simply happen at this base level. So, in my opinion, both changes need to happen simultaneously. Which is the major challenge, and why it's currently a process that's too slow to make a difference.
There is an elephant in the room, and that is the extraordinary population growth. With c.7.5bn people and growing fast this planet is creaking under the sheer weight of humans - for this I have no answer other than to say that surely this means we have an even greater imperative to act?
If we don't make these fundamental changes in both people and the large systems that are supposed to support them then we will always be left with a compromise, and that compromise is this planet. However, it is also impacting us at a human level, which is making us become increasingly detached and removed from what it actually means to be human. Being able to reason, have emotions, and being able to connect with others and the planet we live on.
Really keen to hear others views on this?
Inspiration via: Dominique Ashby; David Cushman; Peter Ahearn; Jessica Yates; David Knight; Dean Corney
Comments