Can you point to a more detailed reading about his arguments for this position?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_System_Development
Michael Christopher Jackson n.1951 and Michael Anthony Jackson n.1936 Both British born. Both prominent in systems design and theory.
And who knows, their model could be correct. But the unwillingness to consider "tradeoffs" makes me think it's just political angst and not a serious take
1) A one time pill that not only cured any existing cancers in a user, but also permanently prevented any further ones. And to make it even better, it also is somehow relatively simple meaning it could be easily cloned and made extremely and globally affordable.
2) A complex (enabling a defacto monopoly on production), lengthy, and expensive treatment program that is 100% effective at curing any 1 type of cancer - that must be repeated per cancer and per individual as they emerge.
I do genuinely think that all big pharma execs would choose #2. They'd probably rationalize it as something like 'Well I'm curing cancer, and now I'll ensure we have the funds to continue working to solve even more illnesses, and everybody wins." So I'm sure in their minds they aren't villains, but that's because humans are just really really good at cognitive dissonance.
I guess the question then is: what major world problems can be fixed by eliminating / preventing bad actors, and what problems require a different solution?
I'm not claiming to know the answer
There are bad actors - people who deliberately do or say the wrong thing for malicious purposes. There are also strategists who have learnt how to game the system. The net result appears to be a concerted, planned effort to create the problems we have in the world today, when in reality, they have mostly emerged is a result of complex issues - driven mostly by human behaviour and accidents - and that can’t simply be ‘engineered’.
There are players who are trying to (for example) avoid a move away from oil, but it’s naive to think that the conflict and environmental problems that it causes have a solution that could allow them to be ‘fixed’. There is a cost to everything we do, and there are always winners. Same goes for war, water or poverty.
I think your perspective is that the winners are taking home a disproportionate amount of the winnings - I agree.
Michael Jackson [1] is the another Systems Thinking guru, and argues that ‘wicked problems’ like these can never be solved, and it’s irresponsible to claim otherwise.
Instead, it’s only possible to improve the situation for those involved in it. It takes time, effort, leadership, a change in mindset - and almost always sacrifice - to instigate real change. You can’t just tell the bad guys to do the right thing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson_(systems_scientis...