With some humor I think you artfully explored the "isms" and the challenges that loom in creating perhaps non-belligerent international relations. Thanks!
Most interesting, but more useful academically than prescriptively, as it seems that none of the big powers driving the current transition in IR are much interested in “good” foreign policy decision making.
"I really do think that climate change is an incredibly complex challenge that has multiple dimensions, where uncertainty is often quite high, and the stakes of decision-making are quite high". We were addressing that - until Trumpkopf arrived on the scene and screwed it all up.
Have been re-reading Richard White's "Railroaded" as an analogy to what's going on with AI development. White recounts the continuing struggle the transcontinental railroad developers had to acquire finance - money that they acquired under the excuse of building & maintaining the railroads but which in great part went instead into their personal fortunes. Blatant corruption of Congress, officials, international financiers & investors, epic waste, social & environmental disruption & destruction... A gripping tale but hard to take because of the horrors described.
The obvious conclusion is that, once again, the artery running through everything is finance & the institutions set up to both facilitate & control it.
Welp. Now what do we do. Watching with keen interest what happens in China under socialism with Chinese characteristics. Was the jerking of Jack Ma's chain a highly significant moment?
Up early and as usual checked my Inbox first thing and there you were.
Immediately started reading but had to get up for a coffee refill and during the couple of minutes that took I was struck by the realization that I was EXCITED, yes, EXCITED, to get back to reading your post which continued to thrill until the end!
" Plural Perspectives" indeed. What a lovely concept Jane Flegal: you go girl!
Excellent stack post, and I look forward to reading the article. I come to this as a foreign policy practitioner and (lately, since retirement) university lecturer. I think you have identified the problem, and even some remedies - fundamental institutional reform, open dialogue on a wider range of perceptions and possible policy responses, a broader strategic imagination - are correct imho. But as we look for positive feedback loops with benign effects, I worry much more about emerging positive feedback loops with deleterious or even disastrous effects. Tipping points and other positive feedback catastrophes. The example of our response to global warming is indicative in this regard.
"Scholars like Hong and Page argue that groups with highly diverse viewpoints are better able to capture the contours of complex systems than groups with greater expertise but more similarity across their members’ understanding."
Immediately called to mind Philip Tetlock's "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?"
I took a course on systems analysis from Dana (Donella, a name she hated) Meadows in 1978. I cannot say I was her best student, but to all of us she was gentle and supportive.
I had the opportunity to play with World3, the program she brought us from MIT. Clearly, from my attempts, it was challenging to obtain a set of parameters that would not set the whole world crashing.
There was one sustainable solution the model supported, and is well described in “ Limits to Growth,”but this world hasn’t followed these recommendations these past fifty years.
What we have done in these decades was clearly delineated in the “Business as Usual” assumptions. This genie does not get put back in the bottle. There is no instant turnaround for us.
With some humor I think you artfully explored the "isms" and the challenges that loom in creating perhaps non-belligerent international relations. Thanks!
Most interesting, but more useful academically than prescriptively, as it seems that none of the big powers driving the current transition in IR are much interested in “good” foreign policy decision making.
"I really do think that climate change is an incredibly complex challenge that has multiple dimensions, where uncertainty is often quite high, and the stakes of decision-making are quite high". We were addressing that - until Trumpkopf arrived on the scene and screwed it all up.
Have been re-reading Richard White's "Railroaded" as an analogy to what's going on with AI development. White recounts the continuing struggle the transcontinental railroad developers had to acquire finance - money that they acquired under the excuse of building & maintaining the railroads but which in great part went instead into their personal fortunes. Blatant corruption of Congress, officials, international financiers & investors, epic waste, social & environmental disruption & destruction... A gripping tale but hard to take because of the horrors described.
The obvious conclusion is that, once again, the artery running through everything is finance & the institutions set up to both facilitate & control it.
Welp. Now what do we do. Watching with keen interest what happens in China under socialism with Chinese characteristics. Was the jerking of Jack Ma's chain a highly significant moment?
Up early and as usual checked my Inbox first thing and there you were.
Immediately started reading but had to get up for a coffee refill and during the couple of minutes that took I was struck by the realization that I was EXCITED, yes, EXCITED, to get back to reading your post which continued to thrill until the end!
" Plural Perspectives" indeed. What a lovely concept Jane Flegal: you go girl!
And, of course, you too HF, thank you.
Excellent stack post, and I look forward to reading the article. I come to this as a foreign policy practitioner and (lately, since retirement) university lecturer. I think you have identified the problem, and even some remedies - fundamental institutional reform, open dialogue on a wider range of perceptions and possible policy responses, a broader strategic imagination - are correct imho. But as we look for positive feedback loops with benign effects, I worry much more about emerging positive feedback loops with deleterious or even disastrous effects. Tipping points and other positive feedback catastrophes. The example of our response to global warming is indicative in this regard.
"Scholars like Hong and Page argue that groups with highly diverse viewpoints are better able to capture the contours of complex systems than groups with greater expertise but more similarity across their members’ understanding."
Immediately called to mind Philip Tetlock's "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C4UT1A4/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Foxes FTW ;^)
I took a course on systems analysis from Dana (Donella, a name she hated) Meadows in 1978. I cannot say I was her best student, but to all of us she was gentle and supportive.
I had the opportunity to play with World3, the program she brought us from MIT. Clearly, from my attempts, it was challenging to obtain a set of parameters that would not set the whole world crashing.
There was one sustainable solution the model supported, and is well described in “ Limits to Growth,”but this world hasn’t followed these recommendations these past fifty years.
What we have done in these decades was clearly delineated in the “Business as Usual” assumptions. This genie does not get put back in the bottle. There is no instant turnaround for us.