Trilemma
Adding another curb to an over-constrained problem rarely helps - it's like adding a third group of people to the trolley problem where an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.
For us, the relevant impossible trinity is commonly phrased as cheaper, faster, or better. Most critiques simplify the problem to a dilemma, asking us to pick two. The detailed definitions driving these microeconomics may help suss out how:
(a) lower first cost
(b) first to market, or
(c) higher value
A more nuanced view starts with two of the elements. Then, build a plan to achieve the third over time. Just don't run out of time (e.g., competition) and/or money (i.e., financing) before creating a dent in the universe.
The macroeconomic constraints are similarly known:
(i) Goal - 1.5 to stay alive
(ii) Time - 2030 deadline, and
(iii) Capital - trillions required
For us, the relevant impossible trinity is commonly phrased as cheaper, faster, or better. Most critiques simplify the problem to a dilemma, asking us to pick two. The detailed definitions driving these microeconomics may help suss out how:
(a) lower first cost
(b) first to market, or
(c) higher value
A more nuanced view starts with two of the elements. Then, build a plan to achieve the third over time. Just don't run out of time (e.g., competition) and/or money (i.e., financing) before creating a dent in the universe.
The macroeconomic constraints are similarly known:
(i) Goal - 1.5 to stay alive
(ii) Time - 2030 deadline, and
(iii) Capital - trillions required
Science determines both target and deadline - dilemma done. Capital appears to be the limiting reagent for which to solve next. There are at least three viable paths to get it:
(1) Initiate a Global Green New Deal, through unprecedented peacetime transnational collaboration
(2) Rely on benevolent self-interest to part globalists from their capital
(3) Harness global capital flows to fund sustainable business
We can't risk only one bet; therefore, a portfolio approach makes sense. As ruthless pragmatists, we're unlikely to do more than share information that may support (1) or (2). Our only unique contribution could be shaping (3). Additionally, the options above are not collectively exhaustive - other approaches will be crucial. Nor are they mutually exclusive, especially given the family offices for (2) will be crucial allies in the next decade.
Back to the intractable trains from the top of this post - could the optimal solution to the trolley problem be to hit everyone, but do so equally? Distributing the force over the greatest area and mass would do less damage to the individual. Few would think of it that way. No one would do it, even if such problems weren't red herrings. Suffering is optional, only if we change the game. This third constraint may be our largest opportunity.
Back to the intractable trains from the top of this post - could the optimal solution to the trolley problem be to hit everyone, but do so equally? Distributing the force over the greatest area and mass would do less damage to the individual. Few would think of it that way. No one would do it, even if such problems weren't red herrings. Suffering is optional, only if we change the game. This third constraint may be our largest opportunity.
I'd argue (it's the thesis behind ClimateLink) that we don't need the "benevolent self-interest" of the global billionaires and the world's biggest banks. Their own self-interest and preservation will suffice as they are forced to change or lose billions to competition that is shifting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the legacy institutions that have failed to act quickly.
ReplyDelete