This question was raised by Eugen Oetringer on LinkedIn. The question received thousands of views and many people responded with their particular remarks. Eugen made “yellow online post-its” of each of the remarks and subsequently tried to group them into comprehensive labeled buckets that could be seen as root causes of the impedements to address the issues at hand.
When he presented his analysis in the weekly School of Talents & Wellness online encounter I noted the possible bias in the interpretation caused by the way Eugen tends to structure his personal line of thinking. I wondered if someone else would come to the same or another interpretation, based on the same input? Eugen took on this challenge and I myself got motivated to do the exercize.
Indeed a totally different outcome was reveiled, one that surprised Eugen to such an extend that we decided to ask a few different people, with different backgrounds, to do the same.
The question and the list of responses was the same for Eugen and me. The grouping of the responses into buckets and the naming of these buckets is something subjective for both:
- Eugen: Fear, Missing common good (common responsibility and own interests first), Our metrics incentivize symptom fixing, Lack of Training or thinking in terms of Root causes.
- Jean-Paul: Fear, Laziness (uncertainty), Interests and Need for Professional Leadership
Now we are waiting for other people to do the same. What would be the reason (personal root causes?) of the differences in interpretation by Eugen and myself? What can we objectively or intersubjectively learn from this? At least we are now looking at a doubled interpretation, ready for a broader dialogue. On the other hand, does it bring us closer to addressing the original root causes as asked in the poll at the first place? Or have we only introduced more? If we can pinpoint root causes, who would we consider the ones to deal with them?
Another possible viewpoint is that “if we address the common root causes of our current institution or even society as a whole the entire society system may collapse”. This would mean that the root causes are original system design faults, inherent of the system. If we want to solve them we have to disgard the system entirely and build a new one based on different values and interrelations. We apply our knowledge of the past but do not attempt to repair, we reposition. This is in fact what we do with Sustainocracy. Many elements of the old system are still valid, also in the context of Sustainocracy, but with a difference. In Sustainocracy the objectives, with individual and shared responsibilities, are different, directly related to the human biological reality, resilience and sustainable progress.
Why them don’t enough people or institutions join Sustainocracy? Only partly the listed arguments remain valid, maybe 30 to 40%. In particular the lack of leadership is a mayor drawback. But more importantly is the blindness, the unawareness, the lack of openness to new options. This is a remark that Eugen also included in his analysis: the bias and inability to see things differently. This is not something we can teach, it needs time, our determination and our own leadership to expand with those that do.
Work in progress, will be continued……