Do organisations out-control humanity and thus threaten our extinction through their survival?
Organisations now dominate the Earth. They routinely damage ecosystems, act ignorantly of human need and damage all and everything in favour of their own survival. Whilst human-made and apparently/overtly human controlled, they are now human-unfriendly and many are human dangerous.
They now occupy the top of the food chain changing food acres to fuel acres, ancient sustaining forests to desert and fast-run-off, short term low yield producers of food and even dangerous chemicals and biofuels. They are now the greatest threat to our human well-being and the survival of all species. The decision-maker over this great wave of current extinctions is sitting in the boardroom right now. In short they organisations place their survival above that of humanity.
Yes, collective ownership does prevail. Yes, that's right, we all own some part of of most of these institutions – through pensions, taxes, public or charity organisation. Of course owning it (even if we mutually own all the shared parts) is not directly being in control. We have not the competence to communicate, control or understand the systems which will remove the undesirable effects of its existrence.
It is an interesting rule which they are governed by: “Directors must act in the interests of the organisation”. No suggestion of caring for humanity, the planet or the future unless it is a future for themselves.
Now I sit on boards, five to be precise, two global, two (UK)national and one European. No decision is made without deeply concerned discussion on ethics including environmental and cultural impact. We look over our shoulders to see who is watching as well as feel in ourselves the impact of decisions. Yet in our decisions which appear not only sustaining but potentially enhancing of humanity and environment, of well-being and happiness, the effect of damage to all continues.
I have seen this so often. The survival of the organisation – public, private, non-profit, led by the board, is passed down to people who need to work and who will almost always choose job-survival over job-loss. It is this need to protect one's livelihood that causes the problem When jobs can be lost and ethical choices made at every level in the organisation, without fear of hunger, our family's hunger, our status, progression, pensions and all, being threatened, we can sieze back the power of the organisation and enjoy the ethical sustaining rich fruits of our labours.
What to do?
Treat organisations as robots and apply the Asimov 'I Robot' Laws. First Law: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." Second Law: "A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law." Third law is about self-preservation, as long as it did not conflict with the First or Second Laws. All laws are to be applied with both short and long-term considerations taken into account, including ecological and diversity.
Unusually I am even in favour of some application of the precautionary principal – taking risks of the unknown and uncertain is not acceptible. No risk, even if we do not know there is a risk. The World Court should have basic powers to restrict and charge flaunting and cause organisations to cease existence if necessary quickly to prevent existing damage or risks. They should also have power to supervise the making-good of past damage, recovering from recipients any funds generated.....quickly and with questions following not preceding action.
This will allow humanity to regain control of itself and of its effects on the World. We should then move to the repair phase – regaining what we have already destroyed and put at risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment