Donella Meadows

> 1. The power to transcend paradigms. - Donella Meadows, Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven… If you're a Python Programmer, and you've made that your identity, you've trapped yourself into the mindset that you are a Python Programmer. Same with any other identity you ascribe to yourself (or allow others to ascribe to you). Separating yourself from your tools allows you to evaluate the tools independently of your identity and you will find yourself unaffected (or at least less affected) by reaching a conclusion that the thing you know well may not be appropriate to the job. You may not be appropriate for the job, and that's fine too. Getting past paradigms (or identities with how I'm extending it) gives you much greater freedom to explore and participate in the world.

Alexander is fun for sure for thinking about how we got where we are (I suppose if you were able to build your own house it could also be directly used to achieve various goals, which would be fun). Along similar lines I would recommend Donella Meadows' work, for example her essay Leverage Points[1]. 1: https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven…

One thing that might be worth considering is where the best leverage point in the system is. See http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene…

strategic questions: engaging people’s best thinking: https://thesystemsthinker.com/strategic-questions-engaging-peoples-bes… Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System: http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene… Tools for Systems Thinkers: The 12 Recurring Systems Archetypes: https://medium.com/disruptive-design/tools-for-systems-thinkers-the-12… Cynefin framework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework

It's worth reading the original 1999 essay in which these 12 leverage points were introduced. It's a shame the article does not link to it. http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene…

Others have already posted some fantastic, practical resources for creating technical systems. But for truly first-time system designers that haven't had much exposure to systems thinking before, you might find [1] useful. Donella Meadows[2] focused on environmental sciences and economics, so the specific examples/anecdotes mentioned may not be of interest to you. But she is also well known for her work in systems thinking, and the mental frameworks and general systems thinking principles sprinkled throughout are just as applicable to designing complex software systems as they were to her work. And make it significantly easier to evaluate the practical resources others have provided and interpret them in context to your own needs. [1] http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene… [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donella_Meadows

> The systems analysis community has a lot of lore about leverage points. Those of us who were trained by the great Jay Forrester at MIT have all absorbed one of his favorite stories. “People know intuitively where leverage points are,” he says. “Time after time I’ve done an analysis of a company, and I’ve figured out a leverage point — in inventory policy, maybe, or in the relationship between sales force and productive force, or in personnel policy. Then I’ve gone to the company and discovered that there’s already a lot of attention to that point. Everyone is trying very hard to push it IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!” http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene…

This resonates with me a lot, being at the "burnout" stage of trying to achieve organisational change from below. Although I'm not really sure what I could have done differently, given the immediate problem seemed to be that my line manager was too busy to see me outside a 1-hour-a-week status meeting with others. The linked article http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene… is absolutely fantastic.

Just got a partial answer from a team member of donella meadows archives saying I'll have to wait a week for the person who knows best about this to come back. In the mean time, here are the reading suggestions I got: - http://donellameadows.org/donella-meadows-legacy/danas-writing/article… - http://donellameadows.org/archives/the-club-of-rome-and-sustainable-de… - http://donellameadows.org/archives/forty-years-later-the-reception-of-… I'll ping you when the news come

I recommend this one for Android: https://github.com/markusfisch/ScreenTime It doesn't limit apps, it just displays your screen time in a permanent notification and allows you to view and export past statistics. I've found that to be very effective. From a systems perspective, it amounts to adding a new feedback loop, similar to this leverage point described by Donella Meadows[1]: There was this subdivision of identical houses, the story goes, except that for some reason the electric meter in some of the houses was installed in the basement and in others it was installed in the front hall, where the residents could see it constantly, going round faster or slower as they used more or less electricity. With no other change, with identical prices, electricity consumption was 30 percent lower in the houses where the meter was in the front hall. We systems-heads love that story because it’s an example of a high leverage point in the information structure of the system. It’s not a parameter adjustment, not a strengthening or weakening of an existing loop. It’s a NEW LOOP, delivering feedback to a place where it wasn’t going before. [1] Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System - https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven…

On sources: I'm highly partial to the work of William Ophuls who's been writing on this topic for a half century. His PhD thesis was published in 1977 as Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (with an update in the early 1990s). That largely lays out the problematique, both in terms of resources and political dynamics. The book's old enough that many of its own projections can be tested, and I think these hold out exceptionally well, particularly in highlighting the (then future) rise of China as a global economic, political, and military force. Ophuls has gone on to suggest at least the framework of solutions, most especially in Plato's Revenge (2009), though that remains fairly high level. What really makes Ophuls's works tremendously valuable is his bibliographic notes which are comprehensive and, to use a favourite word of his, synoptic. The note for Ecology in particular covers much of the previous several decades' literature on growth and perspectives from both optimistic and pessimistic viewpoints, and Ophuls is exceedingly fair in considering both. I've gone back to many of those sources myself (Maddox, Kahn, Simon) to compare notes. I've actually typed out the note from Plato's Revenge, which captures a sense of his practice, though that focuses more on recent and political topics: <https://web.archive.org/web/20230607050023/https://old.reddit.com/r/dr… In that sense, Ophuls is an…

> the book that featured this world model was a bestseller in the 70s Was "the book" she mentions the now debunked book "The Population Bomb"? The 70s had lots of catesrophic thinking because they had an economic crisis. Overpopulation concerns have been around for literally centuries, and crop up regularly from time to time. Thomas Malthus talked about it in the 1800s too, while at the same time not realizing that farming methods and enclosure acts were massively increasing the amount of food that could be produced - even tho he could literally see it happening from his doorstep. The article does a particularly bad job at summarising the premise of the paper. It doesn't say a single thing about why the paper thinks growth will reverse rather than simply slow (as one would expect if the premises of nearing limitations were true). It makes me wonder if the author even bothered to read the report. It is long, and who has time for that? (Hint, maybe someone who's getting paid to write about it could find the time). Here's a link to the actual report btw: https://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digit… It seems silly to me to sing the praises of a model that basically extrapolates historical data. Have trends continued? Yes. Was that surprising? Nobody has been surprised by this. The report claims that: "Technological solutions... may have some short term effect in relieving pressures caused by growth, but in the long run they do…

AD: Systems Thinking is getting out of date, but in the spirit of knowledge sharing, another fantastic systems thinker is Donella Meadows, heres her most linked piece on leverage points in systems: https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven… Her book 'Thinking In Systems' is a fantastic read to open your mind to continuous systems and modelling them, as well as the counter intuitiveness of larger systems. To expand on 'out of date' - systems thinking is centred around command and control, IIRC it came out of Cybernetics ala Norbert Weiner, Ashby and others. The command and control angle is based on the assumption that with enough information any system can be mapped, predicted and controlled. Whilst not wrong, it excludes another type of system which is truly complex and precludes mapping and prediction by the fact there are either/all too many variables to model or the very act of measuring or acting changes the system or the agents of the system can change the rules of the system. These systems are deemed by the sense-making community to be Complex Adaptive Systems or Anthro-Complex (specifically for human systems). To approach these systems you have to become comfortable with uncertainty and re-arrange your thoughts on cause-and-effect, which is a whole new world view for many of us in software. https://cynefin.io/ is great resource, Dave Snowden is a big name in naturalising sense-making and these broader views of complexity.

This disregards broader system dynamics. We are not simply looking to cut back on policing and stop there. The objective is to invest in people and attend to their fundamental needs in a way which produces lasting change. This goes beyond the particular short-term reactions to parameter changes in the system. Through the lens of Donella Meadow's work in complex systems, we can we policing pulling back and homicides increasing as: 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards). 8. Regulating negative feedback loops. 7. Driving positive feedback loops. Yet, this movement seeks to operate at a greater leverage point of: 2. The goals of the system. 1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture — arises. --- Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene…

> “but why not start small as well” Starting small is fine, when potential for impact is high. Otherwise it’s pointless, especially when the primary KPI is efficiency. Unlike in construction or transportation, carbon footprint and potential efficiency gains for software are tiny. There’re are plenty reasons why iMessage and co don’t appear on the Project Drawdown list. There are much more effective leverage points that demand the attention of developers and designers. Check them out: https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions The best thing small interventions can do, is raising awareness. But raising awareness won’t save our planet. A developer who codes for example a parametric design tool for CNC-made houses that can be disassembled after their end of life to reduce construction waste can achieve a magnitude more than the one who optimises a website to use 700KB less data or adds artificial friction to a communication tool. ––– Recommended reading on Leverage Points: http://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf

The answer below assumes the following: - You are talking about the application of general systems theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory - You would like to learn to apply 'systems thinking' principals and analysis in many domains or to new problems - You would like to learn to model systems - It is also important to note in many domains there are specific branches of systems theory that may be more applicable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_systems_theory - You could spend an entire lifetime learning in this field as many have done. Types of systems: Systems can be broken down by multiple dimensions: - Complex - simple - unitary - pluralist - coercive Systems thinking approaches: - Hard systems thinking - Systems dynamics - Cybernetics - Complexity Theory - Soft Systems - Emancipatory systems thinking - Postmodern systems thinking Learning More about Systems Thinking: - A great website is the systems thinker, that covers quite a bit of topics. The articles are actually archives of a newsletter called "The systems thinker" https://thesystemsthinker.com/ - To get an overview of various approaches to systems thinking from an organizational perspective: Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers by Michael C. Jackson. https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Thinking-Creative-Holism-Managers/dp/04… - For general systems theory: An Introduction to General Systems Thinking by Gerald M.…

RIP Donella Meadows, a great thinker. The interested reader may also like this slideshare overview of Thinking in Systems ch. 1-3: http://www.slideshare.net/sandhyajohnson/thinking-in-systems-donella-m… Another of her well-known works is Leverage Points, which is also great and goes into more detail on some of that which is summarized in OP's linked article. http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene… , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points Having worked in automated systems analysis and optimization across several fields, I think Meadows' thinking is very instructive. Some of her notions which stand out in particular to me: * The importance of the effect of feedback loops in complex system. When unexpected or counterintuitive behavior occurs, a hidden or misunderstood reinforcement feedback loop is often at root. * The requirement that systems that seek to automate or optimize complex interactive systems be constantly-adaptive because the system itself will interact with the observation/analysis/optimization acts. This can seem like crazy voodoo at first, but it is undeniable when you start to experience it in action. * Understanding of cost externalities vs benefit rewards for system actors and how they relate to system sources/sinks (or "stocks and flows"). This drives so much of our economy, as well as the subsystems which feed it and she has some illuminating thoughts and analyses on…

From Donella Meadows [1]: PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM (in increasing order of effectiveness) 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards). 8. Regulating negative feedback loops. 7. Driving positive feedback loops. 6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection. 5. Information flows. 4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints). 3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system. 2. The goals of the system. 1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, power structure, rules, its culture — arises. Regarding point 2: What is the goal of the current system? [1] https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven…

Not software engineering exclusively, but this article in system domain in general https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven…

The bottom line from https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_D… is this: "The BAU2 scenario shows a halt in the hitherto continuous increase in global welfare levels around the year 2030, and collapse setting in around 2040." The original book and 30-year updates are here: http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-di… and here http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Limits-to-Growt… Other COR publications can be found at https://www.clubofrome.org/publications/.

> We do pay people to clean up our messes. That X has happened in the past is not a moral argument for X > Do we care about some moral argument, or do we care about mitigating climate change? That's a false dichotomy since the two are not mutually exclusive. Yes, we do care about some moral argument, and indeed all moral arguments. They often get down to the root causes quicker than 5Y analysis. For a gentle introduction to the intersection of ethics and systems theory see [1]. [1] https://donellameadows.org/donella-meadows-legacy/danas-teaching/

And yet there was a systemic change last year. The system objective changed from brainless growth to saving human lives, and the Jenga game holded. I don't want to romanticize the pandemic but it disproved the TINA hipotesis (there is no alternative) As Donella Meadows pointed out [1], the most powerful leverage point is to change the objective of the system. We can make it if we start to be citizens and be involved politically. Let’s be involved in movements like extinction rebellion and Fridays for the future. And most of all let's question growth and employment as the goal of society. [1] http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf

That's strange. The article seems to be from 2002 (hit prev/next), but I thought she died in 2001? If you liked this, I strongly suggest you also read http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene… (unless you already did :) )

Relevant essay when thinking about stocks & flows in a system: http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene…

That sounds like the claims about using-up-willpower. It's questionable and not at all proven. It's also possible that, like muscle-building, we get more the more we use it. People who become thoughtful about their energy consumption think about impact more, think about global issues, and then are more likely to protest in favor of environmental legislation. There are limits, we can't attend to too much at once. But maybe we can actually see two ways of living where one has very limited chances for dedicated attention and another offers many hours of available dedicated attention. Be physically well, use good attention habits etc. Much of what you're saying amounts to priorities. We should indeed figure out our top priorities and then figure out the most effective means to get there. Makes me think of http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene…

You know, if you read the article about Systems and Leverage Points[1] that's on the front page right now, it's not hard to see the entire world as a function made up of other functions. And one of those other functions is you. The real question is, are you a serverless function? If someone likes you and wants more of you, can they infinitely scale you up on-demand, tuespetre? And if so, what will their AWS bill look like next month? [1] http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene…

1st "Thinking in Systems" http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557 2nd Article "Leverage Points" http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-inter… after these two you will have enough know-how on how to identify and manage systems (i.e.: your growing company) then the only thing between you and success is reality, for how to influence the company reality you live in please read 3rd "Seeing Systems" http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Systems-Unlocking-Mysteries-Organizationa… good luck and have fun (with the books, with your new responsibilities)

At the time of original release (1972), the Limits to Growth model (a set of coupled differential equations that purported to adequately describe environmental, demographic and economic trends over a 50+ year horizon) hit the Zeitgeist right on the nose. Catastrophism coupled with the all-knowing infallible digital computer, with MIT branding to boot. Mass media jumped all over the results. https://donellameadows.org/the-limits-to-growth-now-available-to-read-… Engineering professors at the time pointed to its many failings, chief of which were the lack of validation of the underlying model structure and a lack of adequate parametric/uncertainty analysis on its many, many dubious simplifying assumptions. The study severely underestimated the uncertainty intervals/ranges with the point forecasts, to the extent they were presented at all. Underestimating model uncertainties is a common problem with forecasting models, especially “life, the Universe, and everything” models. Consider the epidemiology models early in the pandemic, for example. Groupthink abounds and the modeler is tempted to make too strong a case, rather than provide the accurate, objective assessment of what is known/knowable and what isn’t. Even more tempting when the time horizon extends past the expected lifetime of the modelers. They aren’t going to be around to pick up the pieces, but they will get their kids college education paid for. The study lost its luster in the 1980s and 1990s. I…

I often wonder the same thing. A similar aim was expressed in at least one of RMS' essays. The other comments here remind me of how pessimistic and lacking in imagination the tech crowd tends to be. Because earlier attempts failed, does that make an endeavor "impossible"/"naive"? People cite "human nature", but forget that there exist and have existed systems of living, radically different from what they are used to, which gave rise to completely different "human nature" - or perhaps merely gave it a healthier environment, so it manifested very differently. (This "problem" is frequently refuted in anarchist texts.) I'll leave some links which I think are relevant to this quest. I hope they provide some answers, or at least provoke further searching. 1. https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven… 2. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-co… 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching I hope we find a way. And for those looking and trying to move beyond the status quo, I supply a maxim to bear in mind when facing the unimaginative and the complacent - "It's always impossible until it's done."

A few things come to mind along with what's already been mentioned: Assorted Non-Book Readings: - https://randsinrepose.com/dont-skip-this/ - http://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks - https://sysadvent.blogspot.com/2019/12/day-21-being-kind-to-3am-you.ht… - https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-interven… - https://grugbrain.dev/ - https://changelog.com/posts/rich-hickeys-greatest-hits - https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/master/design/ou… - http://www.cs.unc.edu/techreports/86-020.pdf Books: - The Phoenix Project: Gene Kim, Kevin Behr, George Spafford - Deep Work: Cal Newport - The Art of Leadership: Michael Lopp (Rands) - Extreme Ownership: Jocko Willink and Leif Babin (once you get through the ho-rah stuff it's a fantastic read) - Time Management for System Administrators: O'Reilly (fantastic for interrupt driven work) - Elements of Clojure: Zachary Tellman (not just for Clojure devs)