A.I.—It’s a Gold Rush

Clearly there is much anticipation in regards to artificial intelligence (A.I.).  Depending upon your system of orientation, the anticipation is for profit to be made or of problems to be mitigated. So, we have to ask: Is there really gold in them-there hills?

The Context

This is happening within the context of capitalism. The capitalist society’s system of orientation is a mechanistic materialistic world wherein the environment (Nature and society) is comprised of objects to be manipulate and exploited in service of one’s own material gain—it is called self-interest maximization, profit, wealth accumulation.  It is a system of orientation void of morality since it is all about ‘me’ getting ‘mine’ with no regard for the impact on any ‘we’—in fact there is not ‘we’, especially in the neoliberal version.  Thus the captains of industry—those in authority—are forever seeking the next profit making thing, which is often the latest disaster to exploit or technology to use as the means to this end, with little to no regard for the adverse effects upon people and society—using instruments at hand to get what they desire.

Collateral Damage

For a very large swath of people in society, the commercialization of A.I. means the increased commodification of people—something tantamount to people’s manipulation and exploitation on steroids. It seems reasonable to see this as a logical extension of the mechanistic materialistic system of orientation, upon which capitalism rests. In this context, A.I. is essentially a machine (an instrument) for use in profit generating endeavors as are people (units of labor).  Given that machines are driven, why else would business leaders speak about ‘driving for results’.  Clearly, the terms we use are telling of our (unconscious) system of orientation guiding our decision-making and behavior, which includes what we value.  

If a cost doesn’t show up as a line item on the balance sheet or income statement, then it is an external cost (a.k.a. collateral damage in the pursuit of profit) and thus the lack of concern for and responsibility to society.  There are so many externalities when technology is a tool for manipulation and exploitation in the pursuit of profit and power.

A.I. Could Mitigate Soft-Skills Dilemma for Management & Reduce Costs

When people cease to be just units of labor and act out of their inherent humanness,  expressing what is felt, then managing/leading requires a very human core-to-core relationship between the leader and the led; a difficult task for those managing the machine and driving for results. Many managers, even leaders, in the business organization find it difficult to access their capacity for soft-skills—those associated with both social and emotional intelligence—to effectively work with subordinates who present very human (i.e. emotional) issues.

However,  A.I. replacing people will fit well with such business managers/leaders, since A.I. doesn’t express feelings, or a need for meaning, or a requirement to have basic human needs met.  Accordingly, with fewer people and their associated costs, A.I. could likely reduce the expenses/cost of labor and its associated items. Less expenses means greater profit, which is the intent of business. So, it’s all good! Or is it?

Past Patterns are Telling

How can we be confident that the enthusiasm and all-out excitement for A.I. is about the prospect of profit making without regard for any unintended adverse consequences to people and society?  All we have to do is do what an AI algorithm would do; use the pattern in data of the past to decide an action—note to decide is to predict that the chosen action will yield a desirable outcome.

Here are a few patterns from the past: a) the fossil fuel industry continues seeking profit unabated by the well-established detrimental impact upon the viability of life on this planet; b) the Internet technology afforded the commercialization of social media in the manipulation and exploitation of its users; and c) the gun industry continues seeking to maximize profit even while society is experiences ever-increasing frequency of gun violence and death.  All of these illustrate the manipulation and exploitation of people treated as objects–viewed as collateral damage and external costs—in the pursuit of profit.  What’s the likelihood that  A.I. in the hands of the business-minded (a.k.a. profit maximizers) would yield a different pattern?

As reported by Public Citizen

“Right now, businesses are deploying potentially dangerous A.I. tools faster than their harms can be understood or mitigated. History offers no reason to believe that corporations can self-regulate away the known risks – especially since many of these risks are as much a part of generative A.I. as they are of corporate greed. Businesses rushing to introduce these new technologies are gambling with peoples’ lives and livelihoods, and arguably with the very of foundations of a free society and livable world.”

It has even become evident to the business friendly press that the foreseeable `problems from AI’s commercialization are multiple.  A short list of these include: 1) manipulation through misinformation; 2) unemployment–life destruction through job loss; 3) bias from big-data itself; 4) the future is constrained by the past– limited creativity since A.I. is mere machine training using big-data which is of the past; 5) rarity of out-of-the-box thinking– likely A.I. can only foresee what the past would suggest; 6) people’s capability for decision making will go the way of people’s capability for cursive writing has gone due to keyboard use.

Let’s just consider this: While the decision-making process involves the use of information, if not knowledge/understanding, to decide a course of action, it also requires the use of values to assess the moral soundness of each possible action.  To a great extent this calls upon the morality and humanness—the care and concern of others—of the decision-maker. Though A.I.’s (machine) learning uses Big Data, which likely includes the correlations/associations or thoughts inherent in the patterns in the data, does this mean that an A.I. algorithm is or can be thoughtful in the same sense as a human being?

What’s more likely, that for those people whose job is lost to A.I. that: a) the leaders of the organization will find more meaningful if not creative work in the organization for them to do or; b) that the leaders will discard them as they would any other no longer useful tool? 

Internal Impact Upon the Organization Overlooked

What about innovation (from within), which requires the inventiveness of people who are doing the organization’s work?  After all, they possess the most knowledge about the work!  It must not be overlooked that people are capable of creating new knowledge to the extent that the leaders of the organization facilitate/enable collaboration between/among them, the sharing of knowledge (more accurately sharing understanding of knowledge), and dialoguing about ideas.  If, however, A.I. replaces many people then, even though robots can exchange information with other robots, one must ask, can new knowledge emerge through collaboration, sharing knowledge-based understanding, the dialogue on ideas among robots? 

Of course, the organization would not be void of people, just those whose job can be replaced by A.I.  For those remaining, what about the lack of trust that is enacted through the elimination of co-workers in the organization? What is the effect of mistrust upon organization to maintain its competitiveness and remain viable?  What benefit to society would be such organizations?  Just imagine the organizational culture and climate in such organizations!

A Wise Thing to Do: Perhaps We Should Stop and Think

Let’s challenge ourselves to critically think about the prospects of A.I.  Perhaps the following could be a starting point for exploration, perspective gaining and understanding:

• Who (or is it what) created A.I.?  Was it people/human creativity or just an organically emergent A.I. algorithm, without direct human involvement, from which it was created?

• Is A.I. really an equal replacement for human intelligence (H.I.)? If so, why is such a replacement necessary? In the replacement: What’s gained?  What’s lost?

• A.I. versus the human mind (H.M.): Should this be?

• In the A.I. replacement, what of the H.M.: with A.I., should we discard any development of the mind? Why?

• The H.M. can change/transform itself to the benefit of humankind.  Can A.I. do the same? If it can transform itself would this be one guided by a deep sense of connection to the living world?

• What could be the benefit of A.I. for humanity?  How can A.I. aid in our development as human beings?  As a society?  What should be the benefit of A.I. for people, for humanity?

• If A.I. development could benefit humanity, then who has the wisdom to administer over continued development and use? 

• What are the parallels between A.I. and nuclear weaponry? Should A.I. be developed? 

What Kind of Manager/Leader

Whether you are a unit supervisor, department manager, division director, vice president or president you no doubt are responsible for the functioning and performance of said entity.  So the question is, what kind of manager/leader are you?

The response categories for this question, if posed as multiple choice, are from the commonly used management/leadership books.  Specifically, which of the following best aligns with your go-to practice: a) laissez faire hands-off :b) authoritarian command-and-control; c) transactional reward-punishment-based; d) transformational vision-change based; e) servant leader-based?  

Bias in Self-Views

Many people will choose the category that they themselves would want to be managed/lead by, and if asked in an interview, they’d choose the category they think the interviewer requires.  It is also (very) likely, the response many provide aligns with the style they believe themselves to be—better than average–which may not fit with reality.  How many of us  feel we are a caring, honest, trustworthy, fair and better than average, and correspondingly an in-kind manager/leader? 

Note: Statistically speaking, assuming a human trait/behavior is approximately normally distributed—wherein the average is the center of the distribution—half of the population would be below average and half would be above average. Thus the tendency of many casting themselves as above average—effectually more favorably in comparison to others—contradicts this statistical fact thus indicating self-assessment bias.

If those who are egoistic, dishonest, untrustworthy, and generally uncaring actually acknowledged this about themselves, the few who had the courage—the inner strength–would make the necessary changes. Unfortunately, to such people image is everything, so they are quite adept both at denial and at charismatically presenting the very opposite facade to others, especially for career advancement.

Advance in the Organization’s Hierarchy

The fact of the matter is that there is a higher percentage of psychopathic behavior evident among those residing in the executive suite than is represented in the general population.

Perhaps some might ask: How could this be? 

Because behavior must be understood within a context (as argued here and here), I must counter with: In a capitalist culture/environment wherein self-interest maximizing is raison d’etre how could it not be? That is to say, with the incidence in the executive suite being 3 to 5 times greater, the evidence points to career paths to the executive level are paved by those with such traits.

Perhaps, at least in the (capitalist) corporate-world, the lesson tacitly learned is nice-guys/gals do finish last!

Context for Optimal Collective Functioning

Ever heard the adage (attributed to Ken Blanchard) none of us is as smart as all of us? Translation: The collaborating minds of many people is better—more effective toward understanding, knowledge creation and problem solving–than all complying with the thoughts of one person. If we all adhere to the thinking of one person, then only one of us is necessary—hardly an optimally effective group! 

Groupthink—often seen as compliance—occurs when the group decision-making process discourages, if not disallows, individuals to think critically and question.  Another relevant quote, this from George Orwell (1984), “power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”  Groupthink does this very thing!

The optimal functioning of the collective—be it a, group, a team, a department, a division, the corporation–rests upon the degree of realized interdependence among autonomous, self-initiating and free-thinking people comprising the collective. Accordingly for best performance, leaders must create the context—both physical and psychological space—for the constituent self-initiating members to realize their humanness and in so doing continue to embrace learning as they manifest their unique talents and creativity for the benefit of all.

The context provided for the group/collective by the leader is through the formal and informal organizing structure, which is greatly influenced by the system of orientation (i.e. mechanistic worldview versus living systems worldview) held by those in-authority. The former being mind-numbing and thus life inhibiting and the latter life sustaining, if not enhancing.

What We Often Experience

Let’s first consider managing/leading people as objects, as units of labor/skills. In this scenario, managers/leaders often are heard saying they are tasked with driving their group/team/department/division/company to goal attainment.  We must recognize that the  language we use can be telling in regard to our orienting view of reality.  So when people speak of needing to drive goal accomplishment they are expressing their mechanistic orientation—it is machines that are driven.  Accordingly, individuals as units of labor/parts of the company (i.e. profit-making machine) need to be acted upon/moved to act as the one-with-authority desires.

In this mechanistic context, the best way to move an object is with the application of a force, and in this case the force is in the form of the prospect of reward/punishment. That is, the application of Skinnerian behaviorism—which is mechanistic—via a stimulus-response mechanism.  This approach is in line with the implied employment contract, if you do what I want you to do then I will give you what you need (i.e. means to live life)! The corresponding punishment flip side of this proposition is, if you don’t do what I want you to do then I won’t give you what you need!  Clearly, offering of a reward/incentive can’t be separated from its opposite, the prospect of being punished, of not getting the reward.

In this scenario the manager/leader is the one motivated: that is, motivated to get the task done and the employee is the one acted upon (incentivized) to move in the manager’s desired direction (note that moving another is not synonymous with motivation of the other).  This approach aligns with both the authoritative and transactional styles of leading, which is position-based not relationship-based; it is a power-over others (as if property) way of managing/leading.

What Is Rarely Experienced Yet Needed

As argued here, organizational development greatly depends upon human development.  Moreover, organizations need leaders because the organization is at base a collective of people—it is the people who need the leadership experience (as argued here).

It is further argued again here, that the leadership that could best afford human development, and thus organizational development—and in turn a more sustainable world–is human development intended leadership which requires a caring, empathic, authentic, and morally-principled way-of-being.  After all, because we can only speak of leadership in regards to people, it ought to be personhood-based not position-based!

Perhaps we could begin thinking more deeply by exploring a few questions. What kind of person (that is, what way-of-being) would best be for a manager/leader to afford optimal functioning of a collective of people?  What approach to leading would enable power-to people thus enabling critical thinking and creative thinking?  What approach would foster the intra and interpersonal relationships essential to whole-person/human development, thus enabling higher level performance; that is, human productivity and in turn organizational productivity? What kind of management and organizing structure would turn the job into a joy? What way-of-being by those in-authority is needed for modeling-the-way for the members of the organization?

What You Need To Be

The above points to the essential need for people to be managed/lead in such a way so that they are enabled to be the self-initiating free-thinking persons who are interdependent with the other self-initiating free-thinking persons they are in collaboration with as members of the collective (i.e. group, team, department, division, company). That is, people as self-initiating persons are to be respected as such and supported in their development, not treated as objects to be manipulated and acted upon.

Accordingly, organizations need leaders of people who acts upon the understanding that the potential of the organization greatly depends the collaboration among the people and more specifically it emerges from the human productivity of these relationships.

So how would one manage/lead the collaboration of self-initiating people (not objects and units of labor)?  What way-of-being would afford this?

Flawed from the Beginning

Capitalism is a fundamentally flawed system and thus the effects from practice can’t help but be harmful to people.  The flaw lies primarily with its intention in relation to humanity and Nature, if not life, itself.  An article by Lynn Parramore offers a summary of Christian theology’s influence on eighteenth century economic thought highlights such notions as the import of individualism and competition, self-interest behavior making for greater economic good, private property ownership and the underlying notion that money-making is the pathway to heaven and accordingly, to sin is failing to maximize one’s personal gain.

So it makes sense where the self-reliant type of assertions about the poor likely come from such as, they need to pull themselves up by their own boot straps, or it is the result of their laziness, or the poor are unworthy. And about the rich, well they are rich because of hard work.

Adam Smith was influenced by those he closely associated with (e.g. theologians and philosophers of his time) as well as his religious upbringing. Thus, we can understand the origin of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ in his economic system.  Smith assumes a foundational premise that individuals seeking to maximize material self-interest serves the greater good (almost magically as an unintended consequence). This is also related to the seemingly all-powerful role of ‘the market’ as the one thing that will make the needed adjustments. 

In a system wherein what’s-in-it-for-me is the guide, concern for the common good, the We, is given no place in capitalism: Essentially, it is Me against We— this cannot foster morality or ethical behavior.  So, in the context of human society in Nature, wherein interdependence is a foundational characteristic, how could acting in our material self-interest as if we are independent of each other and Nature not lead to harm for all?

The system of capitalism is not broken!  It is working as intended and thus causing us to do precisely what it requires! 

Economy as a Machine

Further, the development path in the field of political economy from its beginning in (theological) philosophy likely was influenced by Newton’s discovery. That is, the findings and laws of physics arising from Newton’s work on the movement of planets was likely thought to be the holy grail for economist to do the same for economics.  Consequently, the economic thought influenced by Christian theological understandings was developed as a mechanistic quantitative science wherein laws regarding the aims of self-interest and wealth accumulation were sought, hypothesized and advanced through models as if they were inherent or immutable laws of human nature.  Necessarily, capitalist society is structured with people cast as primarily, if not solely, as self-interest seeking beings—the cogs in society’s wealth producing machine wherein capital employs labor. Yet, to date, few if any economic models prove all that predictive of the greater good being realized.  

Human Interest

So what is “our interest” as persons?  Apart from what I assume is the shared interest of continuing to exist/live, we each have interests that emerge from the context/culture within which we develop as persons—a culturally manufactured interest, what society requires.  On this latter point, capitalistic society requires us to believe that our interest is material self-interest; thus ensuring people believe themselves to be independent individuals competing for their very own self-benefit.  Likely in an effort to be accepted in capitalist society, we conform and unknowingly cooperate in making our world a dog-eat-dog world.

If we fully grasp the notion that behavior is context-based, then we could understand that our choices of how to live as persons in a society are greatly influenced by what the values and norms that society tacitly advocates and enables. That is to say, people are far less likely to come to understand their humanness and the commonality in their shared humanity when living in a society/culture with a mechanistic materialistic self-interest-based system of orientation such as capitalism—individualism predominates. 

Being Sold-Down-The-River

The fact that we live in such a context and behave in self-interested ways is not confirming evidence of the validity of this premise but rather evidence of our adaptation to the societal requirements in which we live (or is it operant conditioning, where our very human need to be accepted, to fit in is leveraged?). Accordingly we are tacitly taught that if we work hard—providing our labor—we will realize capitalism’s promise of wealth. Of course capitalism does create wealth, but only for a few.  It is like a loaded die or a slot machine, where the chance of winning is stacked against us.

The pursuit of wealth accumulation has led us to become a profit seeking society and, inevitably a life destroying society. With profit as the basis and measure of rightness of decisions, the vast majority of decisions by those in authority—captains of business/industry and elected officials–who impact the lives of so many people are so guide.  Accordingly, inner-value as persons do not matter, but rather people’s service to things of outer-value/material value is all that matters!  Essentially casting people as instruments for use to this end. It is a system requiring subservience of labor/people to capital/things. That is to say, what happens to people is of less importance than what happens to profit. 

How many among the business-minded advance ideas for tweaking or fixing the system and how many are challenging the very aim of the capitalist system? Doing the latter essentially acknowledges events emerge from the system requiring a change of the system and not merely a change in the system. We desperately need the latter, not the former! 

Changing the Intent Changes the System

A system is determined by its intent.  Capitalism’s intent is (private) profit and wealth accumulation.  Given the escalated commitment—a.k.a. addiction—to profit and its maximization, we likely can’t expect those in authority currently benefiting from this system to change it. This would take moral strength, courage, and a deep realization/understanding of our shared humanity—a rarity! 

Consider this: If I don’t know about the ill-effects of an action then what happens as a result of taking that action can be cast as a mistake or an unintentional accident. However, if I know the ill-effects of my decision to act and I choose to act (anyway) then what happens is no longer an unintentional accident but willfully harmful behavior.  By extension, what may have been a mistake in the actions taken in the 18^th (or even the 19^th) century, is today willfully harmful behavior.  Think: Tobacco industry and lung cancer; Oil industry and climate change; Agribusiness industry (not farmers) and destruction of healthy environment/biodiversity; Health Insurance industry with health services restricted or denied.  It sure seems as though capitalism opposes life in advocating for the primacy of profit.  If you doubt this, just from the above short list (to which more can be added) there was/is an unwillingness, if not resistance, for what is unmistakably needed life-saving action by the captains of these industries! Today the captains of industry don’t/won’t acknowledge the willfully harmful actions—which is tantamount to saying, look how much profit has been made, it can’t be wrong!

As we, especially those in authority, continue to adhere to the requirements of capitalism in structuring life in society, we become complicit in its life destructive ways.  Destructive to the environment we are so inextricably dependent upon and destructive to the human spirit we share—this complicity is tantamount to suicide.

To change the way the business is conducted requires unlearning and learning followed by a re-thinking of the intent of the business.  Doing so would be a conscious choice and one of moral strength and courage—you could call it authentic leadership.  Not doing so would be submitting to habits of thought and allowing the past to overtake the future, in light of what is now known about our dynamic interdependencies in life on this planet.

Let’s just give this a little critical thought: Given what we know today about our dynamic interdependence with each other and Nature on this finite planet, with its very specific habitable requirements, what is the likelihood that the capitalist system would be conceptualized and embraced by people as the organizing system for a viable and joyful life in society on this planet?   

A Fundamental

As human beings we share the very same fundamental needs/interests–that of the will to live and to realize our human potential, which involves learning how to cooperate and co-exist with all that is alive?  Isn’t this needed learning fundamental to us toward being and becoming more of what we are, rather than to accumulate and have more—be more, not have more?  That is, to continue in our existence as persons and to become more of what we potentially are as persons—to fully manifest our better qualities for the benefit of all—and not simply to acquire more stuff!  Shouldn’t this be the aim of a system of economics in service to a society of people, rather than wealth accumulation which can be realized only by a few?  Shouldn’t there be inner-value realized through our work? Shouldn’t we be enabled to develop and derive joy from our work and not just get a paycheck?

Unfortunately All Too Similar Prognostications

The Doomsday Clock has been recently set at 90-seconds. Why 90-seconds?  Let’s name just a few interrelated reasons: increased probability of nuclear escalation from a Ukraine war that continues without noticeable significant talks for peace; unabated warming of the climate thus diminishing the viability of a life on this planet; continued loss of biodiversity; continuing  pollution of air and water; disregarding the need to mitigate the emergence of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.  As Rachel Bronson, Ph.D. (president and CEO, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) said: “We are living in a time of unprecedented danger, and the Doomsday Clock time reflects that reality. 90 seconds to midnight is the closest the Clock has ever been set to midnight, and it’s a decision our experts do not take lightly.”

Yet, given this frank reality, few have been paying attention. Could it be that people are so consumed by the rat race (possibly even addicted?), in the day-to-day getting and spending to meet their basic needs?

Humans aren’t inherently consumed by or addicted to things, rather such behavior is a (tacitly) learned behavior in relation to that thing.  It is learned behavior through constant practice/experience—habitual behavior.  The constant practice and experience of capitalism has by design made for an un-attentive, if not apathetic, citizenry.  Most all industrialized societies are in different degrees capitalistic.

In the U.S., essentially since the early 70’s–following the blueprint put forth in the Powell Memo—the captains of business & industry (a.k.a. professional management class, the business-minded class) have successfully captured (and defunded) the public sphere. Effectually, making the political class a class of business-minded sycophants, turning main stream news and healthcare into profit seeking enterprises, remaking public education into a test-taking training space yielding an uncritical thinking citizenry, and turning higher education into an economic hardship for most.  In short, keeping people concerned about meeting their basic human needs—see  so they don’t have time to place focused attention to what’s really happening to them.

Management’s use extrinsic motivation (a.k.a. reward/punishment, operant conditioning) techniques as the way to incite desired behavior among those they have legitimate power/authority over is capturing us as individuals as well.  That is, many of us experiencing extrinsic motivation management practices which Ryan and Deci (2020) found that over time we internalize these extrinsic motivating sources.  The implication of extrinsic motivation becoming internalized is that individuals come to believe that the external sources are internal—that the motivation is coming from within them—when in reality the motivational stimulus is coming from outside of us, thus supplanting the emergence of inherent need for development—we become alienated from our very own humanity.  No wonder so many of us don’t experience the vitalizing spirit and joy from the work we do—and sadly we are unaware as to why.

Having captured society’s institutions, if not much of society itself, capitalism’s intent of wealth accumulation through each atomized individual pursuing unlimited material growth has created a general disregard for life itself.  Business as usual translates into societal suicide. 

It is long overdue that we think critically about what is actually happening and to do what we can to make this world a very human world, and reject the capitalistic “what’s-in-it-for-me-world’.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people aren’t even paying attention or capable of thinking critically. For them the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is no different than the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club. 

Reference

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices and future directions. Contemporary Educational psychology, 61, 1-11.

It’s About Being Responsible

The intent of this site is to offer an informed perspective on the business of business.  That said, the following, while at first glance might seem to not align, a little further critical thinking places it squarely within the realm of the business of business, more specifically the identification of the responsibility business or more accurately is it a problem of irresponsibility with business as practiced.  

If we continue to ask why, then we often get to the root toward a better understanding.

A Problem 

After a mass shooting event—and there are many each year—the go-to-utterance “our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the victims”, is heard from the public office holders we see at the other end of the camera.  But then, without missing a beat, their go-to-response to the shooting in the moment they unflinchingly offer their questions of exploration into why this particular tragic event, placing the sole blame on the shooter.  It is the mass shooting version of pilot error, disregarding the entire system facilitating it happening.

Mass killing-by-gun happens so often it is endemic in the U.S.—no other industrialized country comes close!  The U.S. presents the context (a.k.a. system). No, the U.S. doesn’t have a higher incidence of mental illness but the U.S. does have a higher market penetration of gun sales/ownership.  Moreover research has shown that most people with mental illness are not violent and so the link between mental illness and mass shooters is a weak one at best—far more other factors are involved.

The U.S. has the highest per capital firearm ownership in the world.  A PEW Research Center survey found thirty-two percent of U.S. adults are gun owners, yet the number of guns per 100 people is 120—a little over one gun for every person.  Clearly, gun ownership in the U.S. is highly concentrated within a segment of the population.  What a profitable business strategy, getting your customers to buy more of your stuff—now that’s customer loyalty!

Why?

Why do these mass killings continue to happen?  As noted above, the avoidance tactic of placing focus solely on the specific shooter in moment,  diverts attention and effort away from actually understanding the facilitating system that makes it possible, if not probable.  With each individual presenting his unique story, we never really get to understanding the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in general.  Yet, increasing the number of guns in the mix by arming teachers, resource officers and additional police presence are offered as the solution.  This will likely increase gun sales, but it doesn’t get at the root.

So, the story line is that there is not enough political will (a.k.a. moral courage) to stop it–to make it so that he can’t or is far less likely to happen!  

Why?

What’s influencing the political will?  Agency theory: Industry money flowing to elected officials with authority over policy transforms elected officials from agents of the public (i.e. care and concern for people’s well-being) to agents of the industry (i.e. care and concern for an industry’s profit ).  

Why?

Why the change in agency? There is just too much money to be had from those in pursuit of profit through growth in market penetration.  We mustn’t forget, how much money one accumulates (a.k.a. wealth) is the measure of success in capitalist society. There is little to be had in caring for peoples’ well-being and a boat load to be had in facilitating the intent of business.

Why?

Why is this continuing to happen?  

The simplest, logical and most obvious answer is because they can: that is to say, the system is facilitating industry, political officials—as well as shooters—so they can?

It’s just business (ah hum, ‘what’s in-it-for-me’), nothing personal!  

The Overarching Question

Since the above applies to all types of industry—all industries have lobbyists—we must ask, what is the meaning of corporate social responsibility when the intent of business is the maximization of short-term profit?  In effect, with the corporate intent not encompassing responsibility to society—actually running counter to it—then corporate social responsibility is an oxymoron. To the business minded a society (of people) is a resource for exploitation, not a responsibility—no different than any and all other resources (think Nature)!  

So here is something to think about: Should business/industry adapt to and meet the needs of people in society or should people in society adapt to and meet the needs of business/industry?

Wrong-headed Decisions

In regard to the health and well-being of society, most decisions made by those in both politics and business are wrong-headed (self-serving) decisions. A narrow focus of attention can’t help but to lead to far too many unintended consequences!

Examples are everywhere and emerge almost daily—in regard to healthcare, climate crisis, education, economy, etc.  Let’s look at just one: the current rise in consumer prices (a.k.a. inflation). Evidence shows that the vast majority of large corporations—those providing products and services to people in society—are realizing remarkable increased profit while at the same time consumers are finding meeting basic needs is costing more. Application of a little logic leads one to conclude that the large gains in profit are the result of increased prices.  Moreover, as Dean Baker’s analysis shows, with a declining wage share of corporate income inflation can’t logically be influenced by wage growth. 

Corporations are profit maximizing entities—the intent of business—and thus it is the primary reason why corporations increase the price of their products and services.  You can rest assured, that the business-minded understand this relationship between prices and profit quite well!  

So what has the political class decided to do in the face of this inflation?  Raise interest rates.  Why? It gives the impression of doing something without (actually) doing anything to address the problem. It is a decision that preserves profit making for corporations while intensifying the negative impact of higher prices on the public. Let’s not forget that price is not automatically/mysteriously set by some dynamic in the ether, but rather by people in the corporations—that is, the corporate decision-makers.

Accordingly, the malarkey unquestioned by the press and offered to the general public is that the reason there is inflation is that demand is too high and so there is a need to place downward pressure on demand.  So who winds up paying for this price hiking profit maximizing scheme (a.k.a. profiteering)?  The consuming public, who repeatedly pays—first for having basic needs (like the demand for food, shelter/housing, transportation to get to work, etc.) and in turn for continuing in seeking to satisfy these basic needs.

Moreover, there is little indication that the cost to consumers informs decisions and that the health and well-being of society is a concern. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the notion that these decision-makers are thinking critically; since doing so would necessarily mean that they’ve considered and assessed a wide range of perspectives.  But to the contrary, in essence, the decision-makers are saying to the general public, it sucks to be you!

What are we to do?  

There are two options:
1) Change minds of the decision-makers
2) Change the decision-makers

The first option is to provide the learning experiences that would change the thinking, knowledge, understanding and values held in the minds of the decision-makers. This of course will only be effective if the mind of the decision-maker is open to learning things that challenge, if not run counter to, the beliefs they’ve long held.  How do you change the mind of someone whose career success depends on no such change happening?

The second option is to replace the decision-makers with decision-makers who are of a different mind. That is, replace a mechanistic material-based minded person with a living system people-caring minded person. Unfortunately, there are so few of these both critical and systems thinking people.  Moreover,  those of such a mind likely have very little interest in business school and/or have a slim chance of rising in the hierarchy—perhaps this is why there are so few people of such minds in business, or politics for that matter.  

Correspondingly, in America’s two-party political system, wherein each party is beholden to their very own group of oligarchs, realizing such a replacement among the political class is very near impossible.  Why is it that a politician espousing business needs is applauded while a politician supporting people’s needs is disparaged and scoffed at?  

I repeat: A narrow focus of attention can’t help but to lead to far too many unintended consequences!

If only people understood!So, what might be a third option?  Could it be that we, the people, need to learn, to think critically?  

When Profit & Power Matter Most

The lack of action, on the part of adherents of capitalism (in its many versions), in the face of today’s life-threatening situations (climate change, COVID-19, nuclear proliferation) parallels a Jack Benny comedy bit between a street robber and Jack Benny, which went something like this:

Street Robber: “don’t make a move, this is a stick-up!”

Jack Benny:  “what?”

Street Robber: “you heard me!”

Jack Benny: “mister, put down that gun!”

Street Robber: “shut up, now come on…your money or your life!”

Jack Benny:  there is an extended period of silence

Street Robber: “look boss, I said your money or your life!”

Jack Benny: (slight pause) ”I’m thinking it over!”

Think this is a stretch?  Think again!

Facing the impending doom with (our) time running out, no meaningful significant change has taken place on climate change.

COVID-19 vaccines have not been universally produced and distributed to all to stop the spread and emergence of mutations.

Nations are not cooperating and collaborating to dissolve our common problems, but rather competing and showing/exercising (their) muscle over others toward gaining more wealth and power.

Yup, the adherents of capitalism are thinking it over, as they double-down.  

Could it be that capitalism has captured us all?

Recanting The Common Good

Of late there are two global issues—climate change and COVID-19 pandemic–that make quite clear what those who are in charge of human society truly care about and are concerned with.

As twenty-six climate summits have come and gone, humankind has yet to truly commit to doing what is absolutely necessary to avert our very own destruction—think self-annihilation, suicide. So, why is global warming not seen as the existential threat that it is? Having this understanding with its corresponding action will hurt the economy and thus impinge upon profit-making.

So, again, why is global warming not seen as an existential issue but a (business) problem nonetheless?
 It offers the potential for increased environmental regulation (government overreach is the problem)
 It increases the cost of doing business (but of course will be passed on)
 It increases companies’ healthcare benefit cost (but of course will be passed on)
 It impinges upon profit
.
.
Similarly, environmental cancer-causing pollution is a concern, because:
 It offers the potential for increased government—e.g. EPA/OSHA–regulation (government overreach impinges on profit)
 It shortens the life of productive workers
 It reduces the labor pool
 It increases companies’ costs, such as healthcare benefit cost (which can be passed on)
 It impinges upon profit, unless your business is in the symptom relief/treatment business

Today’s other global issue is the COVID-19 pandemic. Why haven’t the COVID-19 vaccine producers, as well as elected officials, enabled vaccine manufacture and thus distribution world-wide that would (likely) stop the spread of the virus and the emergence of future mutations?
 There’s relatively no material gain in doing so
 Belief that maximizing (their) profit is a right—patent protection
 Demand must continue to exceed supply (for maximum profit of course)
.
.

In The Mind of Those In Charge
Why do the business-minded (which includes elected officials) continue decision-making as they do?
 Economic (self) interests!
 Pursuit of unlimited material growth requires it!
 Mustn’t let indisputable scientific facts get in the way of pursuing what we want!
 There is so much more (yet) to exploit!
 There is so much more profit (yet) to accumulate!

Are the business-minded behaving rationally?
 To be rational in behavior essentially means to act in accordance with one’s intent
 If the intent is to pursue unlimited material growth—material self-interest—then of course the behavior is in relation to this intent: it is rational behavior.

But the essential question to explore is, is the intent rational in the context of life itself?
Rational, or in relation to what? Sustaining one’s viability as a living being?
 With the overarching intent being the pursuit of unlimited economic growth, and given a finite Natural world, the intent is not sustainable or as the business-minded like to say, it is not scalable.

Then, why don’t these people simply stop?
 Their worldview/system of orientation—the basis of capitalism—is about economic growth, not the common good and human progress, so their reasoning makes sense. That is, in the context of capitalism it is quite rational.
 They are addicted to material gain/profit

Need to Kick the Habit
The following question explains the above while answering itself:
Why is it that in the US (at least) the issue that its expensive we can’t afford it is raised when it comes to policy/legislation addressing the common good (e.g. climate change, universal healthcare, education) yet when it comes to policy/legislation benefiting the wealthy class (e.g. tax cuts for the wealth, funding war) the policy/legislation passes without the issue ever being raised?

This recanting of the care and concern for the common good, for humankind, is not an inevitability in human society. It is a human made phenomenon grounded in the worldview of capitalism, but it is not the only worldview upon which human society can be ordered. Contrary to what some have claimed way back in the late 70’s and early 80’s, there are alternatives.

The intent of life doesn’t have to be material self-interest maximization—a Hunger Game existence—which only serves the wealthy class. It is not our destiny to experience life in a society of competing individuals each seeking his/her self-interest—of a bunch of MEs wanting it all–with total disregard for the effect upon others. Isn’t this the kind of behavior you’d expect from an addict?

Acknowledging the need to kick the habit, to cease supporting (and cooperating with) business as usual means rejecting the maxim that ensuring the profitability of the corporation outweighs sustaining the viability of life itself. It means that you understand that conducting business as usual intensifies our problems, that it is suicidal to continue to do so. In the larger scheme of a life affirming worldview, human life is not merely a resource for the economic-engine.

Thought and Intent

Upon watching an interview with Alex Gibney about his latest documentary, “The Crime of the Century”, which presents the fraudulent behavior of the pharmaceutical industry in selling harmful drugs, namely OxyContin.  But beyond this the pharmaceutical industry (a.k.a. Big Pharma) is keeping their hold on Covid-19 vaccine patent protection (a.k.a. profit generator) to the detriment of (desperately) needed Covid-19 global vaccine manufacturing/distribution as well as diagnostics and oxygen.  

Yet, I found myself saying wait, wait this is not the only noteworthy crime.  In fact it is but one of many perpetrated upon people of society by industry, all in the name of profit. Here is a list of just a few:  

• Tobacco industry

Tobacco has killed and continues to kill people

• Automobile Industry

Multiple settlements  

• Chemical industry

Forever chemicals have killed and continue to kill people

• Pharmaceutical Industry

OxyContin is addictive and has killed and continues to kill people

• Big Tech (Media) Industry

Disseminating public health misinformation has killed and continues to kill people

• Fossil Fuel Industry 

Burning of fossil fuels has killed and continues to kill by destroying the life supporting environment—water, air, soil, climate–thus making life on earth uninhabitable

It should be noted that, in each case, the potential harm to people was known, so these are probably not from missteps/mistakes but reflect conscious decisions in support of a corporate profit goal absent of any concern for collateral damage/external cost. What’s operative in regard to the conduct of business is external (societal) cost or collateral damage and the internal private profit—the former doesn’t show up on the balance sheet.  

Corporations, in these industries, are often fined– which generally is a very small fraction of the realized profit—thus giving the appearance of justice served but (usually) without having to admit wrong doing or responsibility. Case in point, to put an end to lawsuits J & J and its distributors settled to pay $26 billion as a result of their part in the opioid crisis—a relatively small cost of doing business.  Moreover, to my knowledge, no one in authority within the companies in these industries has been convicted (let alone indicted) due to the criminality of their decisions. 

On the basis of the sheer number of lives harmed or killed, it seems the fossil fuel Industry is in the lead for causing The Crime of the Century (if not in the history of humankind, spanning both the 20^th and 21^st centuries).  As reported here, between 2015 and 2019 the 5 biggest fossil fuel companies spent at least $1bn in lobbying efforts denying the existence of climate change and investigations showed these companies knew for decades about the causal link between their products and climate change. 

What’s the Commonality?

It appears, crime does pay if you do it through the auspices of a capitalist corporation. The communality lies in the fact that each are grounded in and are practitioners of capitalism. The corporations are doing what is required: Each is seeking to increase/maximize their profit absent of responsibility for external costs. As previously explained here and even here, capitalism has no grounding in morality.  Hence if we are waiting and hoping for those in authority within these corporations (a.k.a. leaders) to demonstrate sound moral judgment, we’ll be waiting a very long time.  Such action requires a very different mindset than that of the current business-minded who occupy the C-suite. 

We do shape the leaders we get—leaders emerge out of our societal values in practice.  Hence the above list!

We Participate in the Reality We Experience

Unless the system changes, the list will grow–nothing will change.  To change of the system requires us to change what we actually care about—change what we think about and what matters–and with it we’ll change the intent of business and the experiences provided.

“For both the rich and the poor, life is dominated by an ever growing current of problems, most of which seem to have no real and lasting solution. Clearly we have not touched the deeper causes of our troubles…the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself, the very thing of which our civilization is most proud, and therefore the one thing that is “hidden” because of our failure seriously to engage with its actual working in our own individual lives and in the life of society.” 
― David Bohm

We All Need to Immunize

Herd immunity is the protection of society from an infectious disease, which is realized from either a high percentage (> 70%) of people surviving the infection and/or being vaccinated against the disease.  The importance of realizing herd immunity is about protecting one’s self and fellow human beings from becoming infected with a disease. Because of our inherent interdependence, it is about doing what one can to support each other’s/everyone’s well-being.  As evidence of the benefit of societal immunization, we no longer experience smallpox, polio and rubella!  Unfortunately not everyone is intent on being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Because a not-so-insignificant portion of the US population is unwilling to be vaccinated, several states have decided to appeal to peoples’ material self-interest toward realizing herd immunity.  Although this portion of the US population is unwilling to be vaccinated—even if it means having a high probability of protecting themselves and others against COVID-19—it appears they can be moved (i.e. acted upon, bribed) to be vaccinated by offering them a (very low) probability of winning a lottery (for something of outer value such as cash or event tickets). Ah, the power of extrinsic reward in appealing to people’s what’s-in-it-for-me way of looking at things.

Connectedness Denied

Has capitalism’s dictums of material self-interest and unlimited growth been internalized?  What does this say about what this portion of the population cares about?  What does it say about the extent to which this portion is capable of exhibiting care and concern for others—an essential characteristic of a life sustaining safe society?

While we each are different individuals (that is, individual I’s), we are not (inherently) separate Me’s whose sole concern is what’s-in-it-for-me!

Just because we each are different individuals doesn’t mean we are independent of each other—in fact, we are deeply interdependent, deeply connected. Society, at least a healthy viable society, cannot be a collection of separate independent individuals—that would be a large heap not a society. A caring society—a collective ‘We’—is as essential to each individual ‘I’ as are clean air and water.  

We are social beings as much as we are individual beings!  Our individuality doesn’t imply we must oppose our communality.  We are simultaneously individuals and members of a collective: each ‘I’ needs ‘We’ as much as we need a non-toxic and life supporting natural environment within which to live. We can’t remain viable (as a species) otherwise!

It is essential that we must not allow capitalism with its dictums of material self-interest and unlimited growth, to be the contagion that destroys society.  Contrary to the belief underlying capitalism, we are not at base material self-interest maximizing beings—we are so much more than this. As such our responsibility reaches far beyond what’s-in-it-for-me.  The individualistic approach of I take care of me and you take care of you, won’t cut it.

Immunize or We Perish

We must transcend self-interest to develop immunity from this contagion, by rejecting the notion that society is merely a collection of individuals whose life’s purpose involves the pursuit of maximal material gain. Believing in and acting as if this world is a dog-eat-dog world and that we are separate and independent individuals who must seek to get as much as we can for ourselves by exploiting and extracting whatever we can from each other and Nature runs counter to our nature and thus our continued existence. This view, which gives primacy to things of outer value, clearly serves capitalism, but it doesn’t serve the development of humanness (i.e. our better qualities).  The more this pervades society, the more we forsake our responsibility—as deeply interdependent people—the more we inhibit the emergence of a caring collective We (which we sorely need), the more unsafe society becomes, the hotter and more toxic the environment becomes, the less viable we (as a species) become, and thus the closer we move toward self-destruction (a.k.a. suicide).  

As Gregory Bateson asserted, evolution follows the path of viability.  If we, as a society, are to evolve toward a higher level of human existence—become more of what we potentially are—then we must ensure our viability.  To this end, we must immunize ourselves from this contagion.