Hi you all!
I'm working for just, #sustainable #transition at the Social Democratic think tank Sorsa Foundation (www.sorsafoundation.fi) in #Helsinki, #Finland.
I've been trying to advance #sustainability since about 2007. I originally have a background in #engineering and #design, and did a PhD about technological substitutes for critical resources. However, #energytransition has been my main focus.
I firmly believe that broadening #democracy is THE key to sustainability.
For a long time, I thought that we have to separate #socialjustice issues from #environmental and #sustainability issues in order to solve either.
I thought all of these were too complex in themselves, and entangling them would complicate the solutions even more.
I now think I was wrong. Environmental and sustainability issues ARE social justice issues. What's more, I don't believe an unjust society can ever be sustainable.
So it's a choice between justice or judgment day.
In my view, #humanity is in the grip of a two-pronged problem:
1. unsustainable use of the #Earth and its resources
2. #technology constantly increases the powers of the few.
These processes feed each other: more powerful technologies enable more #exploitation, and exploitation increases pressures to compete with more powerful technologies.
As a result, the Earth-system's margins of safety erode, and cascading disasters become more likely by day.
This vicious cycle has to be broken before it breaks our human #civilization .
I've given the matter considerable thought yet haven't found durable solutions - except one:
distribution of #power .
To stop the cycles of exploitation and prevent new ones,
1. No being should have so little power that exploiting them is easy;
2. No being should have so much power that exploiting others is easy.
In other words, I believe #democracy is THE answer.
Every alternative to #democracy requires steep #hierarchy - some beings having unilateral power to make decisions over others.
And then we're back at the problem of benevolent dictatorship: they invariably become mere dictatorships in short order.
What's more, a hierarchical society incentivises #competition .
Hierarchies force everyone to compete. Either for a higher position, or to avoid losing position: in a hierarchy, those at the bottom are at the mercy of the more powerful.
The steeper the hierarchies, the greater the rewards for the winners of the competition... and the greater the penalties for the losers.
Over time, this tends to make existing hierarchies even steeper. And competition more cutthroat.
In a world where infectious horsepox can already be assembled from mail-order RNA for $100 000 or less, cutthroat competition WILL lead to a disaster.
And #technology marches on. While #environmental margins of safety erode.
The ONLY truly #sustainable solution for this two-pronged problem is, I firmly believe, #democracy .
Share #power and #resources fairly and equitably.
THEN it may be possible to set safe, universally respected #limits to the use of powerful technologies and finite resources.
Because only fair, democratic sharing
a. reduces the pressure to compete, and
b. gives those in danger of being exploited enough power and resources to defend themselves.
Only in #democracy the grassroots groups of concerned citizens can reliably amass enough power and influence to stand against the encroachment of the powerful few.
Checks and balances.
A sustainable society needs powerful checks and balances, especially if it hopes to keep using powerful technologies.
The best bet for good enough checks and balances is to share the power to check and balance broadly and fairly.
That is, democratically.
Therefore, sustainability requires democracy.
I would never claim that #democracy is a silver bullet that solves everything.
I wouldn't even claim that democracy is automatically sustainable. Current democracies aren't.
I only claim that democracy is the least bad of all the alternative proposals, let alone experiments, of running an industrial society.
And I claim that there are some democracies that do better than others.
The Nordic social democratic model consistently wins just about every metric measuring societal success.
The #Nordic social democracies are far from perfect, and there are worrying signs that they may be sliding to the right.
But the basic #welfare state model remains extremely popular in the Nordics.
Even the right-wing parties CAMPAIGN on a platform to SAVE THE WELFARE STATE.
The Nordic model is popular because it works.
The Nordic model is also the best existing template, or springboard, for a #sustainable society.
That's why I joined a Social Democratic think tank, and that's what I do.
So here, in a (fairly large) nutshell, is why I say #democracy is non-negotiable.
I also happen to think that democracies have to protect each other. If democrats are divided, authoritarians can pick us off one by one.
For instance, #Russia has to lose the genocidal war it's waging in #Ukraine .
Any other result would encourage autocrats and very likely lead to more war in the future.
Hence, I'm a cautious supporter of #neoidealism . A great overview is here:
https://www.bylinesupplement.com/p/the-rise-of-the-new-idealists
I'd be very happy to connect with anyone who wants to hear more, tell me something, or just ponder how to promote #democracy , #justice and #decency in this world.
The world is a mess, but I remain an optimist.
#Activism works, and many things have genuinely much improved from my youth.
Deployment of #renewable #energy is accelerating, faster than most people (me included) believed possible.
There will be defeats, losses and tragedies. But there will be victories, gains and triumphs too.
@milesizdead you are doing EXTREMELY important work!
I too was so very frustrated with #democracy when I was young. I think it is somewhat inevitable, but at least for me, reading #history helped a lot.
As did the realization - through reading history - that slowness is not just a bug, it's a feature too.
New ideas are hard to implement rapidly. Which protects us when the new ideas are bad.
Here's even a mathematical explanation of why that's good :D
In some situations a number of agents each have the ability to undertake an initiative that would have significant effects on the others. Suppose that each of these agents is purely motivated by an altruistic concern for the common good. We show that ...
@milesizdead This frustration with politics was also very apparent in the Helsinki University of Technology when I studied there.
I'd say most engineers become engineers because they want to fix problems in the world. And politics seems such a frustratingly inefficient way of doing so.
That's IMO what gave birth to the "Californian Ideology," now "Silicon Valley Ideology."
https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideology
@rmattila74 Yes - taxation and redistribution would be the perfect way to share economic power more equitably.
I also greatly prefer market-based solutions over more clunky forms of service provision IF the differences in purchasing power aren't too great.
More wealth that goes to incentivise destructive activities and competition almost certainly hurts more than helps at this point. But poor countries need more.
@rmattila74 There are times when hierarchies are very useful, even essential. Innovation can be one of them.
But I'm certain we have to find a solution that doesn't just throw hands in the air and permit individuals and small groups amass immense economic #power beyond democratic control. The risks are just too great.
I can think of a few ideas, and would love to hear more, and feedback:
@rmattila74
One idea that comes to mind was presented by Joel Bakan in The Corporation: operating permits for corporations.
Corporations were originally conceived as entities with more clearly defined goals and a fixed lifetime.
The big problem with big corporations is that they've escaped their restrictions: they can be effectively immortal, and can amass massive economic (and political, sometimes even military) power. That and the pursuit of profit make them very dangerous "slow AIs".
@rmattila74 A publicly traded corporation is generally _required_, by law, to do what it can to increase the profits of its shareholders.
In some jurisdictions like the U.S., the shareholders can successfully sue if the corporation limits its profit-seeking.
Thus we already have unleashed the "paperclip maximizers" that AI researchers fear we'd unleash.
Operating permits and stronger sanctions for badly behaving corporations could help.
@rmattila74 Bakan for instance calls for the "death penalty" for corporations: the laws required to dismantle rogue corporations do exist, but the courts would need to implement them more often, "pour encourager les autres."
But obviously that is hard as long as big corporations have the resources and the incentives to influence politics!
@rmattila74
The second idea is related to the first. If we can't for some reason or other implement de jure limits to economic power individuals can wield, then I see no other alternative than to limit what that power can do.
That means more regulation and more hoops to jump through when actually using the resources, like wealth.
@rmattila74
I however dislike this alternative, because it would probably be deeply inefficient compared to simply putting limits to e.g. how much money one can spend in a month.
That's probably the way I'd do the wealth ceiling - in the late 1940s, economists studying the experiences of WW2 #rationing proved that it would be theoretically a very efficient method of rationing scarce resources. But politically it remains difficult.
@rmattila74 But the problem is how these limits can be maintained.
Economic power can be converted to political power. There will always be those who would like to abolish restrictions on "individual liberty," and those willing to provide them with resources to successfully campaign on this platform.
@rmattila74 There's also the very real problem that trying to restrict what money can buy is always slow and clunky. Inefficiencies and loopholes are guaranteed.
These sap the acceptance of such schemes in the long run. And for a good reason.
@[email protected] That can only be approached through the politicians. Benefiting from their position should be more strictly monitored and sanctioned.
@rmattila74 Agreed. The problem is how to sever this link.
Someone who has amassed desirable resources can always try to use them to influence policy and politicians. If disparities in resources are large, then politics are always likely to favor those with the most over those who can't hire people to lobby for their behalf.
@rmattila74 I agree. It's probably a necessary step for setting stricter limits to either wealth or what wealth can buy.
The steps I expect to see during my lifetime are:
1. more widespread awareness of why modern society has to set limits to the power of individuals and small groups.
And
2. economic power IS power, just like political power - which we already understand requires very strict limits, checks and balances.
@rmattila74 Yes, simply reviving the old antitrust legislation and arguments would help a lot.
There's interesting history explaining why and how the U.S. government was deliberately turned away from the original intent of antitrust legislation by a concerted effort of pro-business economists and lawyers. They argued, successfully, that monopolies should be regulated only if they can be proven to raise costs for consumers.
This is very hard to do.
@rmattila74 Unfortunately, the EU has been heavily influenced by the US legal practice and arguments in this matter, too.
Antitrust regulators should be spinning up their black helicopters every time industry threatens to concentrate, and prevent mergers much more often.
@jmkorhonen @rmattila74 Why though? Why are "hierarchies very useful, even essential" for innovation?
I see this being repeated like a mantra by centrists and people who like free markets without absolutely any evidence tied to it, time and again.
It smells incredibly elitist to me -- "we need hierarchies for innovation because we, the rich, are the enlightened ones" / "we need hierarchies for innovation because you need to reward it with something worthwhile, and the only worthwhile reward is unconsenting domination"
But in reality most innovation comes from small groups of people coming together. Even big industrial breakthroughs usually stem from public-funded research, and then private companies get to profit from it without paying it back.
And the rich and powerful stifle innovation at every turn to maintain the status quo.
Hierarchies are a problem, not an asset, and the fact that the rich and powerful gaslit most of the population into believing the opposite causes us harm in every sphere.
@rmattila74 @jmkorhonen I don't buy this "Tesla made EVs a reality" narrative.
If anything, it's another case of a highly oligarchical and captured market stifling innovation for decades, and maintaining the destructive status quo.
And don't forget that Tesla EVs are still bad for the environment. Actual innovation would look like better public transit in cities, more rail and waterway transport. Elon Musk has campaigned against this at every turn. Even electric trucks should be a second thought because just the energy and carbon cost of producing them is too high to justify during a climate crisis. Not to mention the waste.
Instead we're getting luxury electric cars that are inaccessible to the population, and that won't be accessible for the global population in time to deal with the climate crisis. We're getting standards wars for charger plugs. We're getting even less investment than necessary in cleanly generating the electric power required for EVs. We're getting more greenwashing and oligopoly.
@rmattila74 @jmkorhonen This stat seems to be pulled out of thin air.
Even in countries with good EV penetration (which is basically only in Europe afaik), the new vehicles are overwhelmingly hybrid models that still rely mostly on ICEs.
Whether hybrids compensate for the extra emissions from manufacturing is something I have not seen any study about yet.
@rmattila74 @jmkorhonen no only there's no source given, the info on that table also just confirms what I just said:
tiny fraction of rich countries, only counts sales of new vehicles and is not at all representative of actual vehicles in circulation, hybrids inflate the numbers, no discussion on whether they're even worth it over reducing overall production and retrofitting to begin with
@brocolie @rmattila74
I'm afraid there's a good argument to be made for Tesla's strategy, as much as it pains me to say this.
New technologies are always costly at first. It's not a question of who designs them, it's inherent in the newness.
Finding a so-called "technological niche" of users who are willing to pay for the new technology is very often what makes or breaks promising innovations. 1/
Niches are crucial, because otherwise only the projects funded by the deepest and most patient pockets can afford to develop the innovation from a "hopeful monster" to its refined form.
Finding these niches can be very hard. New technologies tend to have all sorts of teething troubles, and are often relatively costly in comparison to incumbent alternatives, which have profited from e.g. mass manufacturing and other improvements already. 2/
@brocolie @rmattila74
For electric vehicles, wealthy users are the niche.
They are the initial customers who are willing and able to pay a premium that 1) funds further development, including setting up mass manufacturing, and 2) attracts more entrants into the electric vehicle business (Including component manufacturing).
Further development to cut costs and ESPECIALLY mass manufacturing is crucial for driving down the cost, so that the less well off can afford EVs. 3/
@brocolie @rmattila74
This is exactly what happened with #solar panels.
NASA and #satellite operators paid for the very early development: the cost wasn't a concern because solar panels were so much better for Earth-orbiting satellites than any alternatives.
Further development was paid by wealthy countries and individuals. Germany's feed-in tariffs were IIRC quite important.
This got the mass manufacturing ball rolling. Now solar is poised to dominate. 4/4
@brocolie @rmattila74
This is a very good question, and I'm afraid I can't answer it very well. But I'll try.
First, I agree that the "Great Man" theory of #innovation is just wrong. Innovations crystallize in networks. Furthermore, what actually makes an innovation is hard to define: when we say things like "this is an innovation," we are usually putting a convenient, often post-hoc label on a nebulous, more incremental than radical phenomenon. 1/
@brocolie @rmattila74
That said, I believe even anarchists agree that there are at least some situations where #hierarchy may be acceptable, even necessary. I believe a common example is a ship in distress, or a similar emergency situation, where the time needed for democratic deliberation could spell disaster.
The point I've heard anarchists making - and I think it's a very good point - is that such #hierarchies ought to be temporary and voluntary. 2/
@brocolie @rmattila74
That's also how I understood Graeber and Weingrow in their #DawnOfEverything : they (IIRC) note in several places that societal hierarchies per se aren't the problem, and may well be very successful adaptations to particular circumstances (like in their examples of preindustrial societies organising hierarchically for the hunting season, and non-hierarchically otherwise). The problem is in hierarchies that become permanent.
I think this too is a very good point. 3/
Unfortunately, I don't recall in-depth studies that would really enable comparing the performance of hierarchical and non-hierarchical product development/innovation projects.
I did study innovation management and the history of technology and innovation for my PhD. Before that, I was a partner at a product development consultancy. If there had been prominent studies that show that hierarchies aren't needed at all, I believe I would've heard about them at some point. 4/
@brocolie @rmattila74
The accepted wisdom in product development circles is that while innovations are team efforts, "design by committee" is asking for a failure.
Real designs are always compromises that cannot satisfy everyone. The closer you are to the edge of what is technologically possible and economically feasible, the greater the trade-offs become. 5/
Team work is essential, because no one can master all the skills and knowledge required for more complex technologies.
But unless the team has uncommonly strong agreement of what the compromises should be, the projects tend to become rudderless and adrift. 6/
In my experience, which (I believe) most people with experience from #productdevelopment and #design can agree with, such projects tend to fail.
While I'm not very familiar with #opensource development projects, I've understood that the loss of a key "opinion leader" tends to cause problems there too, unless another one steps up. 7/
@rmattila74 @brocolie
Yes, that's one example. Though the 70s projects in particular weren't exactly smashing successes either :)
But I believe there's a good reason why I repeatedly heard "design by committee" used as a derogatory term for bad designs in general.
This is one reason why just about every entity doing product development, for-profit and nonprofit, assigns some specific person to be the "project lead" or "product owner."
It's easier to have someone who has the final say when there's disagreement - as there is always.
No doubt we could do product development differently. But I'm not at all sure it could be regularly done successfully without any hierarchies.
8/8
@rmattila74 @brocolie
Partially agree. Successful commercialization, or "deployment" (the third D in R&D&D) requires sometimes vast amounts of capital and motivated people with enough good luck to have their vision of the trade-offs align accurately enough with the reality.
But it doesn't follow that the current system is the only feasible one, let alone the best possible.
@milesizdead We'll see how long I can hold on :D
But Twitter has become even more a chore lately. I for one welcome Musk's decision to put it behind a paywall - makes the decision to quit much easier.
Janne M. Korhonen
JT Leskinen
Riku Mattila 
brocolie (tots not a vampire)