global decision making
Global Decision Making
I’ve started to worry about how mankind makes decisions, specially on big issues that affect just about everyone on the planet.
As a post graduate student, I spent time as part of the team designing the system to manage the refuelling of England's Dungeness and Hinckley Point nuclear reactors. In essence, there were four parts to the system. Measurement devices throughout the plant measured temperatures, pressures, flow rates and other variables. Because there was always the chance of a malfunction, there was built in redundancy and a problem monitoring system to identify aberrations.
The next part of the system analysed all the data feeds and formed a composite picture of the current status. This was then used by the next component of the system to predict what changes to flow rates, pressures, speed of movement of rods in and out of the core and other controllable variables were needed in order to ensure the safe continuation of the refuelling process. Finally a system of valves, motors and other devices was activated in order to carry out the next stage of the process.
More than forty years have elapsed since those reactors went live and to my knowledge there have been no refuelling mishaps even though the technology used is decidedly primitive by today’s standards.
Now the world in which we live is many, many orders of magnitude more complicated than a nuclear power plant. However, as I observe the complexity and the decision making required, I sometimes think the world needs a new control system, rather than the one we have today which was forged a century or two ago in a simpler age where man did not overwhelm the earth like it does today.
Already the data collection systems are in place capturing personal purchasing, earning, location and health data; corporate financial and share trading information; international trade data; temperatures and weather from around the globe; legal and other documents; research reports; personal behavioural characteristics based on our use of social media; and a whole lot more.
Data mining algorithms and supercomputers allow this mass of data to be sifted and analysed to identify problems and trends, challenges and opportunities. Sophisticated computer models allow alternative paths to the future to be identified and evaluated. In some areas the systems go even further and initiate electronic action such as automated buying and selling. The Internet makes much of this information available at the click of a mouse anywhere in the world.
Now, with all this information and analysis at our fingertips you would think mankind’s decision making would be superb. However, there’s a huge weakness in the process – we the people. I have made a stab at identifying some of our shortcomings.
The first is the tendency to simply follow our gut and ignore any contra indications. The joint American and British decision to invade Iraq despite clear evidence of Saddam Hussein not having weapons of mass destruction is a case in point and just look at the aftermath – carnage throughout the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, terrorist attacks across Europe and, now, the surge of migrants.
Another problem is the inadvertent or deliberate creation of misinformation which, given the power of Google, Facebook and Twitter can be transmitted to billions in seconds. In days gone by investigative journalists were able to dig into matters and sift out the garbage; as advertising moves to the internet, traditional media are having to cut staff and corners. In the popular media, propaganda driven by vested, religious or sectional interests is replacing news. And anyway, people prefer the information passed on by their nearest and dearest friends and net acquaintances. Too many seem blind to the need for reliable, unbiased information. The climate change arena is one particular area too important for myths to predominate.
If a retiree like me has trouble staying abreast of the major issues facing the world, what about people with full time jobs who return each night to homes full of children clamouring for attention? Take the issue of livelihoods for instance. Radical politicians are blaming globalisation and immigrants for job losses and stagnant incomes. But are those really the causes? What about the rise of the robot or the introduction of tax systems designed by rich lawmakers funded by even richer magnates to favour the super-rich?
I have always thought of democracy as a great way to get the best results but recently I have become less certain. In democracies political candidates, most often lawyers with no technical background, are empowered to make decisions for which they are not equipped. These candidates always have a platform; if an issue, such as abortion, is all important to you, then you vote for the candidate whose abortion policy appeals even if their policies on other issues don't align with yours. Maybe it would be better to vote for individual policies whose implementation would be carried out by professionals in the field?
Perhaps the biggest problem is that back in the eighteenth century the world was divided up into countries on some arbitrary basis. As a result we have no say at all in elections taking place in the country next door even though the policies being espoused could have a damaging impact on us. The European parliament is perhaps the only place where some type of compromise has been tried but even there candidates are elected on party platforms rather than on an issue by issue basis. Theoretically the United Nations provides a global forum, but nations have the same voice no matter their size or whether their government reflects the true wishes of their populace.
At the end of the day I’m not sure whether the answer is one cell phone, one vote or a super-robot making all the decisions. All I do know is that our antiquated decision making methods have to change.
I’ve started to worry about how mankind makes decisions, specially on big issues that affect just about everyone on the planet.
As a post graduate student, I spent time as part of the team designing the system to manage the refuelling of England's Dungeness and Hinckley Point nuclear reactors. In essence, there were four parts to the system. Measurement devices throughout the plant measured temperatures, pressures, flow rates and other variables. Because there was always the chance of a malfunction, there was built in redundancy and a problem monitoring system to identify aberrations.
The next part of the system analysed all the data feeds and formed a composite picture of the current status. This was then used by the next component of the system to predict what changes to flow rates, pressures, speed of movement of rods in and out of the core and other controllable variables were needed in order to ensure the safe continuation of the refuelling process. Finally a system of valves, motors and other devices was activated in order to carry out the next stage of the process.
More than forty years have elapsed since those reactors went live and to my knowledge there have been no refuelling mishaps even though the technology used is decidedly primitive by today’s standards.
Now the world in which we live is many, many orders of magnitude more complicated than a nuclear power plant. However, as I observe the complexity and the decision making required, I sometimes think the world needs a new control system, rather than the one we have today which was forged a century or two ago in a simpler age where man did not overwhelm the earth like it does today.
Already the data collection systems are in place capturing personal purchasing, earning, location and health data; corporate financial and share trading information; international trade data; temperatures and weather from around the globe; legal and other documents; research reports; personal behavioural characteristics based on our use of social media; and a whole lot more.
Data mining algorithms and supercomputers allow this mass of data to be sifted and analysed to identify problems and trends, challenges and opportunities. Sophisticated computer models allow alternative paths to the future to be identified and evaluated. In some areas the systems go even further and initiate electronic action such as automated buying and selling. The Internet makes much of this information available at the click of a mouse anywhere in the world.
Now, with all this information and analysis at our fingertips you would think mankind’s decision making would be superb. However, there’s a huge weakness in the process – we the people. I have made a stab at identifying some of our shortcomings.
The first is the tendency to simply follow our gut and ignore any contra indications. The joint American and British decision to invade Iraq despite clear evidence of Saddam Hussein not having weapons of mass destruction is a case in point and just look at the aftermath – carnage throughout the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, terrorist attacks across Europe and, now, the surge of migrants.
Another problem is the inadvertent or deliberate creation of misinformation which, given the power of Google, Facebook and Twitter can be transmitted to billions in seconds. In days gone by investigative journalists were able to dig into matters and sift out the garbage; as advertising moves to the internet, traditional media are having to cut staff and corners. In the popular media, propaganda driven by vested, religious or sectional interests is replacing news. And anyway, people prefer the information passed on by their nearest and dearest friends and net acquaintances. Too many seem blind to the need for reliable, unbiased information. The climate change arena is one particular area too important for myths to predominate.
If a retiree like me has trouble staying abreast of the major issues facing the world, what about people with full time jobs who return each night to homes full of children clamouring for attention? Take the issue of livelihoods for instance. Radical politicians are blaming globalisation and immigrants for job losses and stagnant incomes. But are those really the causes? What about the rise of the robot or the introduction of tax systems designed by rich lawmakers funded by even richer magnates to favour the super-rich?
I have always thought of democracy as a great way to get the best results but recently I have become less certain. In democracies political candidates, most often lawyers with no technical background, are empowered to make decisions for which they are not equipped. These candidates always have a platform; if an issue, such as abortion, is all important to you, then you vote for the candidate whose abortion policy appeals even if their policies on other issues don't align with yours. Maybe it would be better to vote for individual policies whose implementation would be carried out by professionals in the field?
Perhaps the biggest problem is that back in the eighteenth century the world was divided up into countries on some arbitrary basis. As a result we have no say at all in elections taking place in the country next door even though the policies being espoused could have a damaging impact on us. The European parliament is perhaps the only place where some type of compromise has been tried but even there candidates are elected on party platforms rather than on an issue by issue basis. Theoretically the United Nations provides a global forum, but nations have the same voice no matter their size or whether their government reflects the true wishes of their populace.
At the end of the day I’m not sure whether the answer is one cell phone, one vote or a super-robot making all the decisions. All I do know is that our antiquated decision making methods have to change.
Proudly powered by Weebly