You are here

Home

Indifference to indicators and root cause analysis


Indicators of Political Will, Remedial and Coping Capacity? (Part #8)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Whether or not it is accepted that some indicators of relevance are indeed missing, even more relevant is the importance seemingly decreasingly attached to any indicators deriving from any form of root cause analysis. This is a method of problem solving used for identifying the root causes of faults or problems -- as the pattern of global crises could be recognized to be. As indicated above, the framing of critical analysis may well now be rigorous, if not vigorous, but is resistant to any implication that it may be derivative (Vigorous Application of Derivative Thinking to Derivative Problems, 2013).

In the case of climate change, which was far from being an obvious factor of any urgency in the framing of The Limits to Growth (1972), can it really be claimed that it has been subject to an appropriate form of root cause analysis? The policy focus, and the calls for action now, have been concentrated on "reducing carbon emissions". No other factors have warranted consideration. Does this merit recognition as a derivative problem in the absence of appropriate focus on the factors driving such emissions?

The relative indifference to the assertions over decades of climate scientists and environmentalists in that regard have led them to evoke a whole literature on climate change denial. This is tantamount to denial of assiduously updated variants of selected graphs originally presented in The Limits to Growth (1972). There is no recognition whatsoever that those same disciplines might themselves be accused of being "in denial", as argued separately (Are Environmentalists and Climate Scientists in Denial? Climate change recognized as primarily a psychological challenge, 2019).

Indifference to the arguments of science is strangely (and perhaps appropriately) complemented by the indifference of science to the disciplines which might enable it to comprehend that indifference (Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science: insights from the crisis of science and belief, 2012). There is consequently little capacity to act in the light of "weak signals" -- nor to design processes to detect them -- in curious contrast to the enthusiasm of the security services and astronomy in that regard (Pierre Rossel, et al, Weak Signals, Futures: Special issue, 44, 2012, 3; Identifying Weak Signals is Vital for Strategic Foresight, Prescient, 20 March 2019; Peter Saul, Seeing the Future in Weak Signals, Journal of Futures Studies, 10, 2006, 3).

Exemplifying this failure is the absence of any understanding of how the leader of the world's superpower is a climate sceptic -- let alone sensitive to the other possible inferences of that Club of Rome report. More generally it could be argued that the policy-making community can be readily recognized as considering relatively irrelevant other more recent strategic reviews of impending crises, whether carefully documented by science or by economics. The most recent include:

Efforts are made to frame the urgency through devices such as Earth Overshoot Day, as by the Global Footprint Network. However such a device lends itself to similar criticism n failing to take into account the psychological factors detracting from the treatment of such a warning as of any significance. The point can be argued by shifting metaphors (Ecological Mouthprint versus Ecological Footprint: learning action avoidance from rabbits in anticipation of disaster, 2019).

Where are the studies of "learning capacity" in relation to such strategic challenges, especially in the light of constraints arising from information overload and other factors, as separately summarized (Comprehension of Numbers Challenging Global Civilization, 2014)? Does this suggest that recognition of impending disaster and the necessity of response may be highly dependent on "comprehension capacity"? Comprehension of complex systems is not a requirement of poitical leadership.

With respect to the perpective of President Trump (as with the indifference of other leaders, such as Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia), there is a remarkable contrast between that view and the recently relesed report commissioned by the Pentagon (Max Brosig, et al., Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army, United States Army War College, 2019). A summary notes that a combination of global starvation, war, disease, drought, and a fragile power grid could have cascading, devastating effects -- notably on the operating capacity of the US military itself (Nafeez Ahmed, U.S. Military Could Collapse Within 20 Years Due to Climate Change Vice, 24 October 2019). Coincidentally one precursor manifestation is evident at the time of writing (California Wildfires: millions warned of possible power cut, BBC News, 26 October 2019; Climate Change: California wildfires 'can now happen in any year', BBC News, 4 March 2019). Few would expect that such phenomena would engender significant policy changes in the USA -- or in Australia.

In the light of the political response of such leaders, and the framing offered by the mass media, the argument can be taken further by envisaging a thought experiment regarding a widely publicized imminent disaster of global proportions. As originally discussed, the announcement of mass death by starvation or an asteroid strike in the weeks or months to come invites reflection on the nature of the response (Remedial Capacity Indicators versus Performance Indicators, 1981). Typical responses would include brief panic for a news cycle, denial, and its challenge as a form of fake news. From that perspective it will be interesting to note the uptake of the conclusions of the 2019 report commissioned by the Pentagon (contradicting the perpective of Donald Trump) by comparison with the subsequent uptake of the Forrester report to the US House of Representatives in 1970. Missing from both studies is any recognition of the dysfunctional pattern of indifference to such reports, of which there are many (see, for example, Hemany Singh, List of Reports Published by International Organisations, 20 December 2018).

Arguably the phenomenon of so-called psychic numbing in response to disaster and images of it will become characteristic of global responses to any threats, as argued with respect to a specific exmple (Starvation Imagery as Humanitarian Trump Card? Counterproductive emotional blackmail engendering worldwide indifference, 2016). This tendency is reinforced by increasing intellectual disconnect from global issues through the filter bubbles identified by Eli Pariser (The Filter Bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you, 2011). Such bubles are carefully curated in support of political and commercial agendas. This metaphor offers a curious challenge, as argued separately (Pricking the Bubble of Global Complacent Complicity, 2017).

There is a sense in which the erosion of any collective coping or remedial capacity will be effectively preceded and enabled by a breakdown in effective global communication, as argued separately (Imminent Collective Communication "Info-death"? Collapse of global civilization understood otherwise, 2018). The potential for such breakdown would be expected to increase with increasing population numbers and systemic complexity.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here