X : Brexit has messed up supply chains.
Me : Weakness within and poor understanding of supply chains existed long before brexit. If anything brexit has done us a favour.
X : How?
Me : By exposing this. You think we could cope with climate change if we had just continued?
X : Say that to ...
Me : ... people finding it difficult to get basic resources or suffering at this time? I think we're mostly delusional on the impact of climate change. This is an opportunity to reflect, try not to waste it in the way we did the referendum result.
X : How did we waste the referendum?
Me : It was a pressure release valve but rather than look into causes (which we had been blindly ignoring for so long), too many decided just to blame people with narratives that made them feel comfortable. Today is just the same.
X : I don't get it.
Me : We live in a grossly unfair society, with a massively disconnected and incompetent leadership, genuine suffering and growing anger. This has been building for 30 plus years. Brexit is a symptom. We are still not treating the causes.
X : And supply chains?
Me : Another symptom, lack of thinking or wilful ignorance in pursuit of market dogma and greed. An illusion of prosperity built on exclusion. CEO pay has soared 1,322% since 1978, HGV divers? Well, we knew of the shortage in 2016 - theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
X : I don't get your point.
Me : Stop looking for simple and comfortable answers ... "it's brexit" etc. The malaise is much deeper than this - the way we exclude, our failure to value people, to plan, to consider the context, our lack of situational awareness ... a long list.
X : But if we hadn't ...
Me : ... voted for brexit? Well, the underlying problems would have remained, we would have ignored them, they would have grown and they would eventually have hit us but with more force in the midst of a climate catastrophe. We need to look at causes.
X : What are the causes?
Me : The market is a useful tool but it has a context because it is based upon a singular principle - exclusion. It's where we get property, trade, inequality and "power over" others from. The environment is everywhere, you cannot exclude it ...
... to mitigate environmental impacts we're going to have to use "power with" others, inclusion and sharing. The environment does not fit the market. The symptoms you are seeing today are all because of excessive market dogma, exclusion, inequality, lack of oversight ...
... a lack of awareness, a lack of understanding that there is no one size fits all and the market has a context. It is not the answer to everything. It is not a replacement for society. It's why you see progress being made in China because this is understood.
So, in the UK, we knew in 2016 that there was going to be a 100,00 shortfall in HGV drivers - committees.parliament.uk/committee/153/… ... it is not something that should be left to "the market".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
Well, my 2014 prediction was wrong - blog.gardeviance.org/2013/11/a-spoi… - I expected "through a combination of the great firewall, official UUIDs, sanctions and official exchanges it will become difficult to use bitcoins internally to trade through non official routes" ...
There are several ways of thinking about this - enablement for the digital Yuan and/or more concerningly that China took a view that the horror of bitcoin - blog.gardeviance.org/2013/05/the-pu… - was not manageable even with the great firewall, sanctions, official UUIDs etc.
X : I tried mapping a space but it was too complicated.
Me : If you can't map it, try managing it. The space doesn't become less complicated just because we avoid looking at it.
X : So how do we ...
Me : ... manage a space that we avoid looking at? Gut feel is normal. Fiddling with bits and seeing what happens. Both valid strategies in the right context but not an excuse for not looking.
X : But I find mapping hard.
Me : Learning to drive is hard. That's not an excuse for jumping in a car, fiddling with some bits and learning by gut feel. Yes it can be hard but if mapping was easy then we'd have been teaching this stuff a century ago.
In the UK, there has been little to no understanding of our supply chains. In such an environment, when you discover critical national infrastructure in the hands of a few that has been switched off for commercial reasons ... you nationalise it. This is the wrong move ->
X : Why nationalise?
Me : You've just identified a hostage to fortune and signalled your willingness to pay. You might as well just give the company a blank cheque signed UK Gov.
Now, every single company out there will be trying to work out whether it's part of undiscovered critical national infrastructure and therefore inline for a bumper payout. This action is so wrong on so many levels.
I normally take the piss out of Gartner with their "dressed up as science" MQ, HypeCycle and Bimodal nonsense ... but this, is not bad. Much better, a definite improvement. I might even say that I like it ->
It's a fairly decent way of presenting aggregated perceived deplyment risk, perceived future value and anticipated adoption timeframe. Of course, it's highly subjective but it doesn't hide that. I like that. Well done @Gartner_inc
X : Do you know they use AI and text analysis to ...
Me : ... I thought it was clear that this was aggregated opinion and perception on the future. I do hope they're not going to start claiming it has some basis in science. That would be disappointing.
X : Do you think China will ever invade Taiwan?
Me : Doesn't need to.
X : Eh?
Me : China has been tackling poverty, it is moving onto tackling inequality. As China becomes seen as a growing economic, technological, environmental and social success (a more equal society) then ...
Me : ... it doesn't need to do anything. Others will eventually want to adopt its models. The art of war is not kinetic warfare but to convert everyone to your behaviours and beliefs.
X : But what about ...
Me : ... think about the direction of travel.
X : Will Aukus pact play a role?
Me : I would imagine China is bemused by the internal strife in Europe over business deals and frustrated by cotinuing provocation. Theresa May has this squarely nailed - theguardian.com/politics/2021/… ... it's a pity that Theresa isn't still PM.