I have heard from a couple of folks on ideas for how to change
things. The first version is posted here, and I will write and post
a second version. But there is also a version in a wiki that you can
edit yourself (as long as you join that wiki group also.
Unfortunately, there is no wiki page within the Yahoo Group.)
http://commongood.wikispaces.com/A+Systems+Thinking+meeting+proposal

So anyway, here is a new idea. Acknowledge, on the basis of the
evidence of pervasive disorder, that the systems approach has been a
failure, either because it, and its purveyors, are completely
irrelevant, or, if the systems approach has been effective, that it
has been part of the problem and has helped bring us to this state of
disorder.

The meeting would then accept that either or both propositions were
true, and would reconsider how systems thinkers could become
effective, specifically in helping make the global transition that is
required.

So the problem remains as in version 1, which is an unformulated
notion that some transition is required from unsustainable growth.

Rather than continuing an ineffectual systems approach, we could
examine whether we could, as a group, thinking critically, with or
without our methods. One point of criticism would be to take the
facile, tired, systems thinking response to unsustainable growth,
which is the brilliantly insightful recommendation to substitute
development for growth. But the record shows that there are few
societies that have developed, and those that have, have grown.
Many 'developing' societies have only grown, not developed. Has all
the talk helped? Perhaps systems thinking is no better than all the
economists, but it claims to be better and to be honest. So why do
we keep repeating ourselves in the face of such massive evidence of
failure?

(Also, driving home tonight, it occured to me that it is plausible to
argue that the US is an impending "failed state". From the fact that
it isn't sustainable, it isn't secure, and on that score may be
compared with Somalia or some other conventionally failed state.)

The negative talk is just to get us started, and to sweep away the
possibility of repeating ourselves. The effort would be focused on
what would be effective for people like us to do, people who have
some ability to see wider problems and options, and to think
positively while also self-critically.

I don't know if that leaves us without a method or a structure for a
group effort. I still think that scenario work could be directed to
an honest scenario focused on initiating effects rather than
glittering end states that are never achieved. But I may be wrong.

Anyway, this is what I want to put in version 2. I need more input.
Whatever comes out, I would like others to want to do it.

Do we need to talk about specific settings where there is an
opportunity to have influence? One such setting is a new National
Intelligence University. What would you do with such an institution,
whose purpose is to educate leaders in the US intelligence
community? You might say that we have no influence over that, but
I'm not so sure. 9/11 families has a great deal of influence over
the commission report that initiated a lot of reform, some of which
has made a difference. If we knew anything about advanced management
education, that might be an interesting target.