Thread by @swardley

X : Any thoughts on COP26?
Me : Nope
X : I thought you were going?
Me : Nope
X : Just nope then?
Me : What do you want to know?
X : Could mapping be used to help to look at climate change.
Me : Of course. It's based upon competition, the act of "seeking together".

X : Eh?
Me : Competition is the act of seeking together i.e. one or more seeking something. You can do this through conflict (fighting together), co-operation (working together), collaboration (labouring together), cocreation (creating together) etc etc.
X : Connection to maps?

Me : The form of maps I use are based upon competition i.e. conflict, collaboration, co-operaton, co-creation etc. So, anything which fits in that space can be mapped.
X : Like climate change?
Me : Yep.

X : And?
Me : When you map the market, you discover it is based upon a singular principle - exclusion. This enables property, ownership and trade. When you map culture, you'll find Power Over is also based upon exclusion.
X : Not sure I see the point.

Me : Our market system and the most common form of power in the West are both based upon the concept of exclusion. The environment is not something people can be excluded from ... it's all around us. It doesn't "fit" with our current economic model or power structures.

X : What does that mean?
Me : It means we're going to try and paper over the cracks, hope that some technology will fix the problem, talk about kermit, give ourselves a pat on the back for meaningless gestures, never solve the problems and carry on.

X : Nothing will happen? Not very positive.
Me : Pragmatic. Nothing will happen until circumstances force something to happen. Not world leaders (power over i.e exclusion) talking about how a market (trade i.e. exclusion) can solve problems which are the antithesis of exclusion.

X : Bitcoin?
Me : The very ideas of exclusion (my coin, your coin) embedded in an immutable form (the chain) combined with privacy over who owns that exclusion wil solve problems that are antagonistic to exclusion (the environment). Pigs will fly first.

X : Are you going to say that China will ...
Me : China will lead the world on environmental issues. It has those core concepts of power with (Confucian) in its culture, it sees the market as a tool not a replacement for society. I'm not "going to say", I said this long ago.

X : No chance for the West?
Me : Always chance. There is a next generation of companies where sustainability is a core belief, that are moving towards more leaderless leadership (i.e. distributed, power with) and whose communications are driven by ethics.

X : So, what should we do?
Me : You want my advice?
X : Yes
Me : First. Adapt. Which means stop trying to force everyone back into the office for the sake of existing power structures and symbols (i.e. top floor offices etc).
X : And?

Me : Second, we need to have that "Me" versus "We" conversation at a national level at the very least.
X : Will that happen?
Me : That's the kind of dream that gets better the more people you share it with.
X : Is that a quote?
Me : Ribbit.

X : Is that it?
Me : Third, you need to be much clearer on the principles by which we run.
X : Why?
Me : Because you need to replace our systems of power with sortition.
X : That'll never happen.
Me : I know. That's why I'm not interested in talking much about it.

X : So, it's pointless?
Me : No. You just have to lower your expectations i.e. move away from ideas of solving climate change and look to mechanisms of mitigation. Given this market, given these power structures what is the best that we could do? For that, a map would help.

X : But if that changes power structures, won't mitigation also be resisted?
Me : In a culture based on individualism, it always has. Expect a fight just to mitigate the worst effects.
X : And if we don't fight for this?
Me : Don't expect much mitigation.

X : We are fighting for a better standard of a dystopian future?
Me : Unless you can find a way to overhaul the entire system to a more collective approach based upon power with others and dismantling of privilege.

X : A bit like Starmer's proposed changes to leadership elections?
Me : Ouch. That's below the belt but ... an unhelpful distraction which weakens the collective approach and reinforces privilege. Not exactly a cheerful move.