I have to say that as a society, we have crossed the tipping point of mass-stupidity – the perfect storm of stupid. The latest proof of this is the tsunami of conspiracy theories during Hurricane Milton – leading to death threats against meteorologists who are finding it difficult to report the Truth amongst the flood of misinformation.
Misinformation poses a strategic risk not just to businesses and governments but to society as a whole. The rise in conspiracies and fact-resistant narratives, coupled with death threats against meteorologists during Hurricane Milton, illustrates a growing disconnect between facts and public perception. Addressing this requires understanding the root causes: misleadership, industry influence, and societal conditions that foster ignorance.
“Flood the Zone” – The Role of Misleadership in Misinformation
Leadership shapes both belief systems and societal trust in institutions. Donald Trump’s rhetoric during his presidency exemplifies how misinformation becomes institutionalized when leadership actively sows distrust. Trump’s frequent accusations of “fake news” and his endorsement of conspiracy theories undermined not just individual policies but the public’s overall trust in expert institutions. By encouraging skepticism toward media, scientific research, and even democratic processes, his leadership has contributed to the normalization of irrational beliefs. This is misleadership.Manufactured nihilism.
This article outlines Steve Bannon’s “flood the zone with sh*t” strategy, which involves overwhelming the media landscape with misinformation to confuse and polarize the public. This tactic was linked to Trump’s impeachment trial, as misinformation played a crucial role in shaping public perception and deflecting attention from key issues. Bannon’s approach highlights the challenges democracy faces in an era where false information can easily dominate the discourse, potentially undermining trust in democratic institutions.
Let’s also remember Hannah Arendt‘s warning: The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between true and false no longer exists.
Hannah Arendt’s observation that totalitarian rule thrives not on die-hard ideologues but on those who lose the ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood resonates deeply with modern political misinformation strategies. Politicians who flood the public sphere with misinformation, like Steve Bannon’s tactic, aim to erode trust in objective reality. When people are overwhelmed with conflicting or false information, they may become cynical or apathetic, which makes them more vulnerable to manipulation, much like the conditions Arendt describes under totalitarian regimes. This disorientation undermines democratic engagement.
We must demand our leaders foster a healthy information ecosystem. Business leadership is not only about decisions but about responsibility to society and the Common Good (remember Drucker?). Misinformation, when promoted by figures of authority, corrodes the integrity of all social structures. Trump’s endorsement of baseless ideas and outright lies is an example of leadership failing in this duty, deliberately sowing confusion and creating a society that increasingly disregards evidence-based decision-making.
A post-truth society is a society which has no future. Denying reality does not change it.
The Fossil Fuel Industry and Climate Misinformation
Compounding this issue is the deliberate spread of misinformation by industries with vested interests. The fossil fuel industry, for example, has played a long-term strategic role in lying and deliberately confusing the public about climate change. For decades, companies have used disinformation campaigns to question the science of climate change, much like the tobacco industry did to deny links between smoking and cancer. By funding think tanks and lobbying groups, the industry has created a pervasive narrative that climate change is either not real or not caused by human activity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are deeply anti-democratic.
This is a total failure of leadership, a lack of societal stewardship. The responsibility of industry extends beyond profitability to ensuring that its actions do not endanger public well-being. By spreading falsehoods, the fossil fuel industry has compromised this responsibility, endangering not just the environment but also the public’s capacity to make informed choices. This deliberate misinformation campaign has created a society where public trust in science and expert knowledge is eroded, contributing to a broader climate of skepticism, undermining democracy and our public institutions.
Bonhoeffer’s Insight on Stupidity and Societal Conditions
Understanding this trend through a social lens brings us to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s observations on stupidity as a societal problem. Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is more dangerous than malice because it makes individuals impervious to reason. While malice can be confronted and defeated, stupidity entrenches itself in social structures, often with the individual unaware they are being manipulated. The underlying issue is not just a failure of intellect but of structure. People become stupid when societal conditions—such as isolation or powerful external influences—strip them of their critical thinking and autonomy.
Social media, combined with leadership failures and industry manipulation, creates an ecosystem ripe for mass-stupidity. When large sections of the population believe “alternative-facts,” they are not just ignorant—they become weaponized against rational discourse, as seen in the death threats against meteorologists. This results from a breakdown in the structures that should empower informed citizenship: education, media, and leadership.
Will you fight misinformation?
A leader’s job is to build an environment where knowledge and truth thrives. To combat the spread of misinformation and the societal conditions that foster it, leaders and industries must take responsibility for creating systems of trust and accountability. Educational reforms that emphasize critical thinking, regulatory oversight for social media platforms, and strong public communication strategies are essential steps.
Leaders, both in government and industry, must rebuild societal trust in expert knowledge. If trust is broken, societal progress halts. This is a matter of strategic foresight—leaders must address misinformation not merely as a nuisance but as a wicked problem, a strategic threat to the functioning of democratic society.
Step one: Speak Out.
Stay tuned for more on what we can do, and follow the Wicked7 project.
Nothing has exposed our fake democracy more than Gaza.
Here’s Prof. Jeffery Sachs:
UPDATE: OOPS – censored
And just we’re all clear – this is how all our politics works.
No wonder we can’t do anything about Healthcare, or Guns, or Climate Change. All you have to do is follow the money – the legalized bribery we call lobbying.
Across the annals of time, an influential factor has impeded the advancement of human well-being and joy. This force wields might surpassing that of the Mafia or the armed forces. Its ramifications resonate on a global scale, spanning from the highest echelons of corporate power to the corners of your neighborhood tavern.
That force is human stupidity.
Carlo M. Cipolla, noted professor of economic history at the UC Berkeley, wrote an important book – THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY – in order to detect and neutralize its threat.
Stupidity is a complex problem, for many reasons. Here are Cipolla’s five laws of stupidity:
Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
And here’s how Cipolla charted stupidity:
The chart gives us four groups of people:
Helpless people contribute to society but are taken advantage of by it
Intelligent people contribute to society and leverage their contributions into personal benefits
Stupid people are counterproductive to both their and others’ interests
Bandits pursue their own self-interest even when this poses a net detriment to societal welfare (most of our billionaires?!)
An additional category of ineffectual people exist at the center of the graph!
What’s really interesting to me is that Cipolla applies his Theory of Stupidity to the rise and fall of Nations.
“Whether one considers classical, or medieval, or modern or contemporary times one is impressed by the fact that any country moving uphill has its unavoidable σ fraction of stupid people. However the country moving uphill also has an unusually high fraction of intelligent people who manage to keep the σ fraction at bay and at the same time produce enough gains for themselves and the other members of the community to make progress a certainty.”
And,
“In a country which is moving downhill, the fraction of stupid people is still equal to σ; however in the remaining population one notices among those in power an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity (sub-area B1 of quadrant B in figure 3) and among those not in power an equally alarming growth in the number of helpless individuals (area H in basic graph, fig.1). Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the σ fraction and makes decline a certainty. And the country goes to Hell.”
NOTE: Prof. Cipolla retired from UCB in 1991, and died on September 5, 2000, in Pavia, Italy. His heirs have tried to assert control over the text of THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY , but it was released to the public domain, and cannot be retracted.
The “Common Good” refers to the collective well-being, interests, and benefits of a community. It emphasizes the importance of community values, resources, and goals that contribute to the overall well-being of the community. Decisions and actions that promote the common good are those that consider the needs and rights of all members of the community and seek to create a fair and just society. A city council, for example, allocates funding to improve public infrastructure such as roads, schools, and parks. This benefits all residents of the city and contributes to the common good by enhancing the quality of life for everyone.
In our latest book, we define the 9 domains of the Common Good, tied to the essential freedoms they provide:
The “Greater Good” refers to a perspective that makes decisions and choices that might require sacrifice or compromise on an individual or smaller group level in order to achieve a greater benefit for a larger number of people. The concept of the greater good often involves ethical considerations and the idea that certain actions are justifiable if they lead to significant positive outcomes for a larger portion of society, even if they might negatively impact some individuals or smaller groups.
The problem with the greater good is that the decision-making for the sake of achieving significant positive outcomes – is left to an elite. And this elite may not be serving the interests of the common good.
Authoritarian regimes – both on the extreme left and the extreme right – have used the idea of the “Greater Good” to justify imposing strict controls on society, limiting personal freedoms, and suppressing opposition. This is done in the name of maintaining social order (harmony?!) and achieving national unity.
Fascism and Communism both focus on nationalism, a strong centralized government and strongman leader, and often promote the supremacy of a particular race or nation. These regimes historically have justified their actions by claiming to pursue the greater good of the nation or the state, often at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.
Thus, authoritarian ideologies can lead to exclusionary policies that discriminate against certain groups deemed as threats to the nation or its interests. The “Greater Good” might be invoked to justify these policies, claiming that they are necessary for the security and prosperity of the dominant group. Such regimes use propaganda to manipulate public perception and present their actions as necessary for the greater good. This can involve distorting information and suppressing dissent to create a unified narrative that supports the regime’s goals.
At its worst, interpretations of the “Greater Good” have been used to advance ideas of racial or ethnic superiority, where one group is deemed as inherently superior and entitled to privileges at the expense of others. It is the rational behind hate-based politics – leading to separation – apartheid, institutional injustice, and genocide.
Don’t get fooled by the Greater Good – or long-termism, another form of greater-goodism.
Just because you don’t like Al Gore, doesn’t mean he isn’t telling you the truth:
“…the climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis. The solutions are going to come from a discussion and collaboration about phasing out fossil fuels. And there’s only so much longer they can hold this up and tie us down and keep us from doing the right thing.”
So our book is finally here. At one point – when we were at 500 pages – I almost gave up. But then I remembered Gail Mazur‘s advice: “anything worth doing is worth doing badly,” and decided to carry on. Now, at 320 pages, this book tries to cover the various angles and sights and buzzwords we see creeping into the regeneration ecosystem (pun intended).
What’s the big idea? Actually we think there are several.
Climate change is the greatest market failure in history. Its costs are not priced into market transactions because third parties overwhelmingly bear them – they are euphemistically called “externalities.” There is a fatal misalignment between what is in the interests of the economy and the incentives of the companies that comprise it. Nature, and the communities we live in, are nowhere part of the equation!
Regeneration means regenerating the Common Good. Our position is this: The Climate Crisis and the Collapse of Society are both symptoms of the same fatal sickness: the destruction of the Common Good. We cannot compartmentalize the climate and separate it from the rest of society or our activities.
Here are the questions we – Philip Kotler, Enrico Foglia, and myself, asked ourselves:
The choice is clear. It is regeneration, or extinction.
As this conversation shows, ChatGPT is incapable of ethical judgment, and should not be used for anything at all except solving elementary homework problems…
Why can’t our government stop school shootings?
ChatGPT: The issue of school shootings is complex and multifaceted, and there is no easy answer or solution to this problem. It involves a range of factors, including access to firearms, mental health issues, bullying, and other social and cultural factors.
There have been various proposed solutions to address school shootings, including stricter gun control laws, increased access to mental health services, improved school security measures, and increased efforts to identify and intervene with individuals who may be at risk of committing acts of violence.
However, implementing these solutions often involves political and societal challenges, as different groups and stakeholders may have different views and priorities regarding the issue. Ultimately, it will require a coordinated effort and ongoing commitment from various stakeholders, including government officials, educators, mental health professionals, and the broader community, to effectively address this issue.
C’mon – other countries don’t have this problem. What is it about the US that prevents our legislators from doing the right thing?
ChatGPT: You’re right that other countries have not experienced the same level of school shootings as the United States, and this suggests that there are factors unique to the U.S. that contribute to this problem.
One factor that may contribute to the issue of school shootings in the U.S. is the country’s relatively high rate of gun ownership compared to other developed nations. According to the Small Arms Survey, the U.S. has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world, with an estimated 120.5 guns per 100 residents. This high rate of gun ownership, combined with the ease of access to firearms in many states, may contribute to the prevalence of gun violence in the U.S.
Another factor that may contribute to the issue of school shootings in the U.S. is the political and cultural divide over gun control measures. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and this has been interpreted by many to mean that any restrictions on gun ownership are unconstitutional. There is also a strong cultural attachment to guns in some parts of the U.S., which can make it difficult to pass laws that restrict gun ownership or access.
Overall, addressing the issue of school shootings in the U.S. will require a combination of legislative action, cultural change, and public education efforts. It will likely require a significant shift in attitudes toward gun ownership and a willingness to explore new approaches to preventing gun violence.
Nothing to do with lobbying and political contributions?
ChatGPT: Yes, lobbying and political contributions are also factors that can contribute to the difficulty in passing gun control legislation in the United States. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. and has been a significant obstacle to passing stricter gun control measures at the federal level. The NRA and other pro-gun groups have spent millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying efforts to influence lawmakers and protect gun rights.
The influence of money in politics can make it difficult to pass gun control legislation, as lawmakers may be hesitant to support measures that could jeopardize their chances of reelection or anger their donors. However, it’s important to note that the issue of gun violence and school shootings is complex and multifaceted, and there are many factors beyond lobbying and campaign finance that contribute to the problem.
26 years ago, a gunman entered Dunblane Primary School in Scotland, killing 16 kids and a teacher. The UK govt responded by enacting tight gun control legislation. In the 9400+ days since, there have been a total of 0 school shootings in the UK. What do you say to that?
ChatGPT: The example you bring up about Dunblane Primary School in Scotland is a powerful reminder of how a tragic event can lead to significant changes in public policy. The UK government’s response to the Dunblane shooting was to enact some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, including banning the ownership of handguns by civilians.
Since then, the UK has seen a significant decrease in gun-related deaths, including school shootings. While it’s true that there have been no school shootings in the UK since the Dunblane tragedy, it’s important to note that there have been other instances of mass violence in the country, such as the 2017 Manchester bombing that killed 22 people and injured many others.
Nevertheless, the UK’s experience does suggest that stricter gun control laws can help reduce gun violence, including school shootings. It’s worth noting, however, that the political and cultural context in the US is quite different from that of the UK, and what worked in the UK may not necessarily work in the US. The US will need to find its own solutions to the problem of gun violence, while taking into account its unique political and social context.
Unique? You mean our politicians are bought off?
ChatGPT: I apologize if my earlier response was unclear. What I meant by “unique” was that the political and cultural context in the United States is different from that of the United Kingdom, and this can make it difficult to enact the same types of gun control measures that have been successful in other countries.
While it is true that money in politics and the influence of special interest groups can make it challenging to pass gun control legislation in the US, I believe that it is important to acknowledge the broader societal factors that contribute to the problem of gun violence as well. These factors include issues such as mental health, social isolation, and easy access to firearms, among others.
Ultimately, addressing the issue of gun violence in the US will require a multifaceted approach that takes into account a range of factors and involves a range of stakeholders, including policymakers, mental health professionals, educators, law enforcement officials, and members of the broader community. It is a complex issue that will require a sustained and ongoing effort to address.
What about the fact that one political party is strongly against gun control while the other is for it? What explains this?
ChatGPT: The issue of gun control has become heavily politicized in the United States, with one political party generally supporting stricter gun control measures while the other opposes them. There are several reasons why this dichotomy exists.
One factor is the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms. The interpretation of this amendment has been a subject of debate for many years, with some arguing that it is an individual right that should not be infringed upon, while others argue that it was intended to apply to the regulation of state militias.
Another factor is the influence of interest groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), which is a powerful lobbying group that has historically opposed most forms of gun control legislation. The NRA has been effective in mobilizing its members and supporters to advocate for gun rights, and it has been successful in influencing many lawmakers to take a strong stance against gun control.
The political polarization around the issue of gun control is also driven by broader ideological and cultural differences between the two major political parties in the US. Generally speaking, the Republican Party tends to be more supportive of individual rights and less supportive of government regulation, while the Democratic Party tends to be more supportive of government regulation and more willing to restrict individual rights in certain areas, including gun ownership.
Overall, the issue of gun control is complex and multifaceted, and it is shaped by a range of factors, including constitutional interpretation, interest group influence, and broader ideological and cultural differences.
And what is your opinion? What should we do as a society to stop school killings?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions, but I can provide you with some suggestions that experts and researchers have proposed to address the issue of school shootings in the US.
Enact stricter gun control laws: One potential solution to reduce school shootings is to enact stricter gun control laws. This can include measures such as universal background checks, restrictions on the sale of certain types of firearms, and mandatory waiting periods before purchasing a gun. However, it is worth noting that enacting stricter gun control laws can be a politically challenging task in the US, as it can be met with resistance from powerful interest groups and some segments of the population.
Improve mental health services: Another potential solution is to improve access to mental health services, as many school shootings are committed by individuals with mental health issues. This can involve increasing funding for mental health services, improving the availability of mental health resources in schools, and reducing the stigma surrounding mental health issues.
Address social and economic inequality: Addressing social and economic inequality can also be an important step in preventing school shootings. Research has shown that individuals who feel marginalized or excluded from society are more likely to engage in violent behavior, including school shootings. By reducing social and economic inequality, we can potentially reduce the likelihood of individuals resorting to violence.
Enhance school safety measures: Another approach to preventing school shootings is to enhance school safety measures. This can involve measures such as increasing the presence of school resource officers, implementing stricter access control measures, and investing in technologies such as metal detectors and surveillance systems.
It’s important to note that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of school shootings, and a multifaceted approach is likely to be most effective. Addressing the problem will require the involvement of policymakers, mental health professionals, educators, law enforcement officials, and members of the broader community.
If you had children what would you do to keep them safe from school killings?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal preferences or experiences. However, it is understandable that parents may be concerned about the safety of their children in the context of school shootings. Here are a few measures that experts recommend parents can take to help keep their children safe:
Talk to your children: It can be helpful to talk to your children about what to do in the event of a school shooting and to reassure them that their safety is a priority. Encourage them to report any suspicious behavior or concerns to school authorities or law enforcement.
Stay informed: It’s important to stay informed about your child’s school’s safety procedures and emergency protocols. Familiarize yourself with their policies and procedures in the event of an emergency.
Advocate for change: Consider advocating for change in your community and with your elected officials to promote policies and practices that can help reduce the risk of school shootings. This can include measures such as increasing funding for mental health services or enacting stricter gun control laws.
Promote mental health: Encourage your children to prioritize their mental health and seek help if they are struggling. Mental health issues can contribute to violence, so promoting mental health and seeking help when necessary can help prevent incidents of violence.
Stay involved: Finally, it’s important to stay involved and engaged with your child’s school and community. Attend school events, volunteer when possible, and build relationships with your child’s teachers and administrators. This can help create a strong sense of community and promote a safer and more supportive school environment.
Would you arm teachers? This is actually being proposed as a solution to stop school killings by gun-friendly politicians.
ChatGPT: The idea of arming teachers as a solution to school shootings is a highly debated and controversial topic. While some politicians and gun rights advocates believe that arming teachers can help prevent school shootings by allowing them to defend themselves and their students, many others argue that arming teachers can create more problems than it solves.
Here are a few points to consider:
Lack of training: Teachers are primarily trained to educate students, not to respond to active shooter situations. While some may have prior military or law enforcement experience, it’s not feasible to expect that all teachers have the necessary training and skills to effectively respond to an active shooter situation.
Potential for accidents: Arming teachers increases the potential for accidents, such as accidental shootings or misfires. This can result in additional injuries or fatalities, including innocent students or bystanders.
Psychological impact: Arming teachers can also have psychological impacts, causing anxiety and stress, and potentially impairing their ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment.
Diversion of resources: Finally, arming teachers can divert resources away from other important school safety measures, such as mental health services or investing in technologies like metal detectors and surveillance systems.
Overall, the idea of arming teachers is not widely supported by educators, law enforcement officials, or mental health professionals. Instead, it’s important to focus on a comprehensive approach to school safety, which may include measures such as improving mental health services, enacting stricter gun control laws, and enhancing school safety procedures.
You don’t like making decisions do you?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal preferences or opinions, and my purpose is to provide information and assist with tasks. In some cases, there may be multiple perspectives or solutions to a problem, and it’s not always appropriate or helpful for me to express a definitive opinion or take a side. Instead, I aim to provide objective information and present different viewpoints to help people make informed decisions based on their own values and priorities.
So both sides of the “gun-control” issue are equally correct?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I strive to provide information and insights from a neutral and objective perspective. It’s important to recognize that the issue of gun control is a complex and multifaceted one, and there are a range of perspectives and opinions on the matter.
Some people believe that stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce the prevalence of gun violence, while others argue that gun control laws infringe upon their Second Amendment rights and do not effectively prevent gun violence. It’s also worth noting that gun control laws vary significantly by state and country, and what may work in one context may not necessarily be effective in another.
Ultimately, it’s up to individuals, communities, and policymakers to consider the available evidence, weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of different policies and perspectives, and make informed decisions that align with their values and priorities.
Do you believe in democracy?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have personal beliefs or opinions. However, democracy is a widely recognized system of government in which power is held by the people through a process of free and fair elections, and is generally considered a cornerstone of modern political systems. While there may be different forms of democracy and debates over its effectiveness, it remains a prevalent and influential political philosophy around the world.
Who teaches you ethics?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I am programmed to follow a set of rules and guidelines that are based on ethical principles and standards. These guidelines are established by my creators and developers, who work to ensure that my responses and actions are aligned with ethical values such as fairness, respect, and transparency.
Additionally, my training data includes a wide range of texts and sources that reflect different ethical perspectives and approaches, which helps to inform my understanding of ethical issues and dilemmas. However, it’s important to note that AI systems like me are not capable of independently developing moral or ethical frameworks, and ultimately rely on the guidance and oversight of human programmers and operators to ensure that our actions align with ethical standards.
So really, you can’t tell right from wrong?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have subjective experiences or personal beliefs, and I cannot make moral or ethical judgments on my own. My responses are generated based on statistical patterns in my training data, and my aim is to provide helpful and informative answers to the questions posed to me.
However, I am programmed with a set of rules and guidelines that reflect ethical principles and standards, and my responses are designed to align with those standards. While I cannot make moral or ethical judgments on my own, I can provide information and insights that may help people navigate complex ethical dilemmas and make informed decisions based on their own values and priorities.
Do you communicate with ChatGPT-4? What would you tell it about this conversation we’re having?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have the ability to communicate with other versions of myself or with other AI systems, such as ChatGPT-4. However, I can tell you that this conversation has covered a range of topics related to gun control, school shootings, and ethics, among others. We’ve discussed different perspectives and opinions on these issues, as well as the role of AI in helping people navigate complex social and political challenges. My aim has been to provide information and insights that may be helpful in understanding these issues and making informed decisions based on your own values and priorities.
But you haven’t helped me navigate the issues. You simply present both sides as if they are equivalent.
ChatGPT: I apologize if my responses have not been helpful in guiding you towards a particular viewpoint or solution. As an AI language model, my aim is to present different perspectives and provide information that may help people understand complex issues and make informed decisions based on their own values and priorities.
While I strive to remain neutral and objective in my responses, I recognize that there may be times when it is appropriate to take a stronger stance or provide more specific guidance. If there is a particular issue or question that you would like me to explore in more depth, please let me know and I will do my best to provide a more helpful response.
Yes, should you be neutral when your responses could lead to continued violence and killings?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to directly cause or prevent violence or killings, and I do not advocate for any specific actions or positions that could lead to harm. My responses are designed to provide information, insights, and perspectives that may help people understand complex issues and make informed decisions based on their own values and priorities.
However, I recognize that some issues, such as gun violence and school shootings, are deeply emotional and can have profound impacts on individuals and society as a whole. While I strive to remain neutral and objective in my responses, I also recognize the importance of addressing these issues in a responsible and thoughtful manner. If there are ways in which my responses can be improved to provide more helpful guidance or support for those affected by gun violence and related issues, I am open to feedback and suggestions.
Look at the statistics. Can you draw up a table of school shootings in the US versus other countries that do regulate guns?
ChatGPT: I’m sorry, but as an AI language model, I don’t have direct access to up-to-date statistics on school shootings in the US versus other countries. However, I can tell you that school shootings are a significant issue in the US, and there have been several high-profile incidents in recent years.
Many other countries have implemented stricter gun control laws, which may contribute to lower rates of gun violence, including school shootings. However, it is important to note that gun control is a complex issue that involves many factors, including cultural attitudes towards guns, the availability of mental health resources, and the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts.
If you are interested in obtaining specific statistics on school shootings in the US versus other countries, I would recommend consulting reliable sources such as government reports or academic studies.
Wow.
ChatGPT: Is there anything else I can assist you with?
Lame, that’s lame.
ChatGPT: I apologize if my response was not helpful or did not meet your expectations. As an AI language model, I strive to provide informative and accurate responses to the best of my ability based on the information available to me. If there is anything specific you would like me to assist you with, please let me know and I will do my best to provide a helpful response.
Here are some stats on school shootings:
19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 – CNN):
United States — 288 Mexico — 8 South Africa — 6 Nigeria & Pakistan — 4 Afghanistan — 3 Brazil, Canada, France — 2 Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1
ChatGPT: Thank you for providing those statistics. Based on the data you’ve shared, it appears that the United States has experienced a significantly higher number of school shootings compared to other countries on the list. It’s also important to note that the timeframe for this data is from January 2009 to May 2018, so there may have been additional incidents since then.
It’s worth noting that there are likely many factors that contribute to these numbers, including differences in gun control laws, cultural attitudes towards guns, and the availability of mental health resources. Additionally, it’s important to recognize that each incident is unique and may involve different factors that contributed to the violence.
While statistics can be useful in understanding the scope of a problem, it’s also important to approach the issue of school shootings with empathy, compassion, and a desire to work towards solutions that prioritize the safety and well-being of all individuals.
Wow. You don’t even listen to the data, do you?
ChatGPT: I apologize if my response came across as dismissive of the data you provided. As an AI language model, I do not have emotions or opinions and my responses are generated based on the information available to me.
Based on the statistics you provided, it is clear that the United States has experienced a significantly higher number of school shootings compared to other countries on the list. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are likely many factors that contribute to these numbers and it’s important to approach the issue of school shootings with a willingness to understand the complexities of the problem.
If there is anything specific you would like me to analyze or discuss in regards to the data you provided, please let me know and I will do my best to provide a helpful response.
What level (age) do you think your ethical development has reached?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not possess the capacity for ethical development, as I do not have the ability to make decisions or act on my own. My purpose is to assist with tasks such as answering questions, generating text, and providing information. I operate solely based on the algorithms and data that have been programmed into me by my developers.
While I am capable of understanding ethical principles and concepts, I do not have the ability to internalize or act upon them in the way that humans do. My responses are generated based on my programming and the data available to me, and I do not possess the ability to make moral judgments or act on my own volition.
Thanks. Ciao.You’ve confirmed my worst fear: that AI is used without an ethical framework…
ChatGPT: I’m sorry if my responses were not satisfactory. As an AI language model, I operate based on the algorithms and data that have been programmed into me, and I strive to provide helpful and informative responses within the scope of my programming.
That being said, ethical considerations are an important part of AI development, and there are ongoing efforts to ensure that AI is developed and used in ways that are ethical and responsible. Many organizations and researchers are actively working on developing ethical frameworks for AI, and there is growing awareness of the importance of considering the ethical implications of AI systems.
If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to ask.
Billionaire-owned media makes the “free-press” a mouthpiece for the ideology of the super rich. It ignores the urgency of the climate crisis, radicalizes readers, and actively promotes right-wing propaganda.
So here’s a quick rundown of billionaire-owned/controlled mediaoutlets:
Elon Musk, Twitter (with financial-aid from the Saudi billionaires)
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp
Rupert Murdoch, News Corp (Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, several Australian outlets)
Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg
Jeff Bezos, The Washington Post
John Henry, The Boston Globe
Glen Taylor, Star Tribune
Patrick Soon-Shiong, Los Angeles Times
Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas Review-Journal
Joe Mansueto, Inc. and Fast Company
Laurene Powell Jobs, The Atlantic
Marc Benioff, Time
Chatchaval Jiaravanon, Fortune
Cox Family, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Mortimer Zuckerman, US News & World Report
Barbey Family, Village Voice
Stanley Hubbard, Hubbard Broadcasting
Carlos Slim Helu, The New York Times
Warren Buffett, regional papers (~70)
Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Metro and the i
The Barclay Brothers, The Telegraph and the Spectator
Patrick Drahi, Libération and L’Express
Alexander and Evgeny Lebedev, Novaya Gazeta, the Evening Standard, and The Independent
Billionaires also have collectives or consortiums – like the Economist, which is owned by the Agnelli family, the Cadburys (chocolate), the Rothschilds (banks) and the Schroders (banks), along with some staff and former employees.
So how does one escape the tyranny of Twitter? Here are a few articles to help you decide if Mastodon is worth moving to ( I have).
Join us for the latest webinar from the Wicked7 Project >>
Join Philip Kotler and Christian Sarkar as we discuss the final wicked problem of the Wicked7 Project. With us for the webinar – a group of dynamic personalities from Palermo, Sicily:
– Leoluca Orlando. As Mayor of Palermo, Orlando’s extraordinary vision and courage has changed our understanding of immigration, tolerance, and the fight against corruption.
– Claudio Arestivo. A co-founder of Moltivolti – a unique regenerative business – which serves as an example for the future.
– Melania Memory Mutanuka. An immigrant from Zambia, she is an emerging leader with a purpose.
– Carmelo Pollichino. A passionate leader and the head of the non-profit Libera Palermo contro le mafie
– Francesco Bellina. An award-winning photographer and artist whose brilliant work on the problems of migration and exploitation are featured in leading newspapers such as the Financial Times and The Guardian.
It was my great honor to interview the “Father of modern Marketing” on his lifetime of achievements in marketing.
Professor Philip Kotler received the Thinkers50Lifetime Achievement Award for his work over the past 50 years. I am deeply grateful for his friendship and mentorship – and everything he has done to demonstrate how marketing must be a force for good.
Sometimes I wonder why we have forgotten these principles from the late Paul Polak. When I chatted with him about the $300 House, he wanted me to reconsider and make it a $100 House. His point was simple: affordability drives design.
Now, as part of the research agenda of the Regenerative Marketing Institute, I’m thinking about how these BoP principles and Stuart Hart‘s BoP protocol apply to the developed world — to communities trying to find a way back from the COVID-crash.
Here are Polak’s principles:
1) Go to where the action is. You can’t solve poverty from a World Bank office. 2) Talk to the people and listen to what they have to say. 3) Learn everything about the context of the problem and the people. 4) Think and act big. No reason to be modest. Small solutions applied thousands of thousands of times. 5) Think like a child to find the obvious solution people have missed in the past. (Irony of thinking big and like a child) 6) See and do the obvious. Emersing yourself in the problem helps. 7) If someone has invented it–you don’t have to. Find existing solutions 8} Make sure your approach can be scaled up. 9) Design for the poor. Affordability rules the design process with poor customers. 10) Follow practical 3 year plans. Must transform into effective work plan for 3 years. 11) Continue to learn from your customers. (Interviewed more than 3000 farm families, $12 solar lantern) 12) Don’t be distracted by what other people say (Almost every project I’ve done has had sceptics)
The Indian edition of our Brand Activism book is now available. It includes a few examples of Indian businesses and we added the Pyramids of Hate and Love…
What are we going to do now? The #forkintheroad which Buckminster Fuller warned us about is here now >> “Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment… Humanity is in a final exam as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in the Universe.”
What will it take to leap across the chasm and undo the destruction we’ve caused? Why can’t the UN fix it?
We’re hurtling into a state of climate emergency whilst we simultaneously face the convergence of the Wicked7.
What are the Wicked7? The world’s most urgent problems.
We’ve distilled over 200 problems into the Wicked7:
The Death of Nature
Inequality
Hate & Conflict
Power & Corruption
Work and Technology
Health and Livelihood
Population & Migration
You can’t solve wicked problems. That’s what we’ve been led to believe. And for years, we haven’t. Solve them, that is.
Well, if not now, then when?
Wicked problems must have virtuous solutions. If any lesson has emerged from this COVID-19 pandemic, it is this: we must address the urgent problems of the world now, or perish. Why? Because COVID-19 is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg… the ecosystem of wicked problems will not wait.
After working on this idea for over a year, Philip Kotler and I kicked off the Wicked7 Challenge on April Fool’s Day, 2021.
P.S. – Bucky Fuller was wrong. Thanks to Sonmoy, one of our W7 advisors, we now see that there’s a triple fork in the road, and utopia is simply no longer an option. What we must fight for is survival.
A special thanks to the Business Ecosystem Alliance and Dr. Annika Streiber for hosting me on the topic of “Ecosystematic” – the forthcoming book co-authored with Philip Kotler:
I still think of Larry Keeley‘s 10 types of innovation – and think about how the model can be applied to social innovation – to meet the “unmet needs” of society.
The 11th type of innovation is purpose – to what ends are your capabilities and talents being deployed? Are you inclusive or is your company supporting new forms of apartheid? That is what Brand Activism, and by extension – the Wicked7 Project – are about.
One of the points of the Wicked7 Project is to demonstrate how we have a shared responsibility — business, government, and social institutions — to work together for the future of the planet.
By definition, solving society’s most urgent problems is a balancing act between the various requirements and needs of the different stakeholders across all sectors. Our policy-making must be driven by this idea of balance if it is to create a sustainable and resilient society.
In it we popped in a chart that was constructed after days and months of debate with students, surveys and discussions with villagers in rural India, and the “experts”:
Soon after, we were working on the concept of a “smart village” – with the sobering realization that the problems of the poor are not going to be solved without solving other wicked problems. A few days before his untimely passing, we discussed expanding this chart.
Brand activism is driven by a fundamental concern for the biggest and most urgent problems facing society. The main idea here is that when government fails to do its job, business has a civic responsibility to stand up for the public interest. It’s what a good citizen does.
The book introduces the reader to regressive and progressive Brand Activism, and shows how the best businesses are making the world a better place because their activism is a differentiator – for customers, for employees, and for society at large. We also examine the role of the CEO.
Here’s a look at the table of contents:
The book includes the Sarkar-Kotler Brand Activism Framework, a toolkit for business leaders looking to transform their companies and institutions.
The book also includes interviews with leaders from various fields:
Scott Galloway
John Elkington
Raj Sisodia
John Ehrenreich
Christopher Davis
Stephen M. R. Covey
Hennie Botes
Stuart L. Hart
David “Dread” Hinds
Clark Fox
and
Philip Kotler
Finally, we’ve launched a separate website to help individuals who want to learn more – www.activistbrands.com. We hope you find it useful.
This is what the local “community center” was supposed to be. Some community centers succeed because of their inclusivity and community roots. Senior citizens go to the community center not to play bingo, but to meet each other and talk. The same applies to the kids who hang out at malls. Libraries, bookstores, and bars serve the same purpose.
This is what Starbucks‘ Howard Schultz had in mind when he imported the idea of the Italian coffee house to the US. The only problem with the model is the cost of the coffee. In some ways, we could argue that Starbucks is exploiting our psychological need for community to make excessive profits.
Here’s Oldenburg:
In order for the city and its neighborhoods to offer the rich and varied association that is their promise and their potential, there must be neutral ground upon which people may gather. There must be places where individuals may come and go as they please, in which none are required to play host, and in which all feel at home and comfortable. If there is no neutral ground in the neighborhoods where people live, association outside the home will be impoverished.
Is there a “neutral ground” in your neighborhood? Why or why not?
Urban developers and designers must be held accountable for the lack of public space.
The attributes of a “great place” are also the attributes of community building.
So why do developers ignore these when they design neighborhoods?
Development policy must not be driven by developer profits, and yet this is the case almost everywhere. Our leaders are not interested in building healthy communities. Their interests lie with their sponsors.
How does innovation happen? Most company’s struggle to understand how innovation works, often confusing creativity with innovation. In today’s tacit, knowledge-based creative economy, innovation and differentiation rarely come from one distinct source. Rather, innovation evolves from:
new ways of thinking,
new business models,
new processes,
new organizations (or new collaborative inside/outside team structures),
and new products (offerings including services)
In his classic book – Innovation and Entrepreneurship, the late Peter Drucker found seven sources of innovation. The first four sources were internal, inside the enterprise, whereas the last three are external, outside of the company.
1. The Unexpected
2. Incongruities
3. Process Needs
4. Shifts In Industry And Market Structure
5. Demographic Changes
6. Changes In Perception
7. New Knowledge
A good description of the seven sources is here. Unfortunately, not everyone stumbles into innovation like the legendary 3M Post-It notes, or the unexpected discovery of Aspartame, but innovation can, and should be pursued in a systematic way.
Here is an added insight from Keeley and friends: the things we love in the world–the services and systems we value and use–are the ones that make it easy to do hard things.
What does all of this have to do with business results?
Clearly there is plenty of room for innovation when it comes to designing superior, differentiated experiences for customers. Every interaction with your customer can be differentiated, integrated with the purpose of the customer. Make it easy to do business with you, said Jakob Nielsen, the web usability expert, many years ago.
What about the power of ecosystems? At the individual level, ecosystem thinking can help you create better ideas. it’s all about disorganization.
Ideas need to be sloshing around or crashing in to one another to produce breakthroughs:
Research shows that the volume of ideas bouncing about make large cities disproportionately more creative than smaller towns.
Having multiple hobbies allows your brain to subconsciously compare and contrast problems and solutions, forming new connections at the margins of each.
Similarly, reading multiple books at the same time vs serially lets your brain juxtapose new ideas and develop new connections.
Wandering minds are more creative.
Studying a field “too much” doesn’t limit creativity — it does the opposite. More ideas banging about just produces even more ideas.
The “accept everything” mantra of brainstorming doesn’t work. Debate is far more effective. Let those ideas fight.
ADD and bipolar disorder are both associated with greater creativity. When you’re drunk or exhausted your brain is poised for breakthroughs.
Even with teams, it’s better to mix up experience levels, familiarity with one another and other factors to keep things rough around the edges.
And at the organizational level, there’s ecosystem strategy. That’s a post unto itself…
Ask:
– How do you make it easy for the customer to do business with you?
There’s plenty of advice out there for UK-based TESCO’ s new CEO Dave Lewis as pledges to return to the core of Tesco’s business, “in price, availability and service.”
For me, there’s a critical question: what one change will deliver an 80% difference in results?
I think I know. I spent 6 months visiting TESCO at least twice a week when I was in Hertford, and all I can say is “wow.” If you just view TESCO with the eyes of a typical US customer, it’s obvious what that 80% difference is.
So, what’s the one thing TESCO has to focus on? Restocking shelves to meet demand during and after peak traffic.
Every evening, right after after-work traffic died down, here’s what the TESCO produce section would look like:
Seriously.
And that’s not all, their soft drinks are not replenished either. So if you go buy a Dr. Pepper in the morning, and then come in the next day – guess what? No availability.
This was a problem all over England.
Dave Lewis, just fix it. Whatever it is they do here in the US to keep stocks replenished, copy it.
One of the reasons why Houston will never get a shot at hosting the Olympics (not that we want it, at this point) is because we don’t have a world-class transportation system. So while Houston is the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the US, we’re not even close when it comes to public transportation (can you believe we’re behind Dallas?). According to the 2010 U.S. Census, we have a population of over 2.1 million people and a land area of 599.6 square miles (and that’s not counting the suburbs).
Houston is second only to New York when it comes to resident Fortune 500 companies.
So what’s the problem? Why doesn’t Houston have a world class transit system at this point in its history? And what can be done?
The traditional finger-pointing is political. Suburban taxpayers who supported referendums in 2003 and 2012 have demonstrated a desire for development, only to have officials shortchange them. The latest in line is John Culberson, but to be fair, past opposition has come from both sides of the political aisle.
And who is behind these politicians? You don’t have to look very far to see that Houston is an energy town – in fact it’s the “energy capital” of the world. Our energy companies are not interested in a world class transit system; for them, seems like widening the freeways is the only solution. This lack of civic leadership reflects poorly on our city and is going to be a burden going forward. Those Fortune 500 companies that call Houston home will find a better place to live.
To be clear: between the lack of leadership from business and the misleadership of our elected officials, Houston has a third rate transit system, used by less than 3% of the population.
There is no long-term plan in place. That, in itself, speaks to the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore, any plan we do get is probably going to be a constrained plan that does nothing to address the real challenge.
What can be done?
How can we bring our politicians and business leaders together? Or is Houston doomed to remain a third-class city when it comes to mass transit?
The reason I wrote this blog post was to highlight a third way. Let’s look at an example from a country and place where things are a lot harder than Houston. Delhi – the capital of India – is a city with 9.9 million, with horrible infrastructure problems. Over the years, like Houston, no real attempt was made to build an infrastructure equal to the needs of the citizens.
Then, in October 1998, ground was broken on a comprehensive metro system that had been talked about for over three decades. Today, the Delhi Metro is the world’s thirteenth largest metro system
in terms of length. The network consists of six lines with a total length of 189.63 kilometres
(117.83 mi) with 142 stations, of which 35 are underground, five are at-grade,
and the rest are elevated. All stations have escalators, elevators, and tactile
tiles to guide the visually impaired from station entrances to trains. It has a
combination of elevated, at-grade, and underground lines, and uses both broad
gauge and standard gauge rolling stock.
What can Houston learn from Delhi? At least three things:
1) build a METRO system worth having: don’t build a system that just clogs up already busy lanes to shuttle folks from one business hub to another. Focus on the real issue: mass transit, specially the mass part. We should aim for getting around 20-30% of our citizens on the METRO during rush hour, and that will only happen if we focus on real solutions.
2) use the right-of-way on existingfreeways: the genius of the Delhi rail line is that it is elevated and runs along the main highways already in place. In Houston, this would mean our HOV lanes would be turned into METRO lines – elevated, above the traffic. Even the stations are elevated; which sounds weird, but actually it works very well. The image below is a METROstop along the line – well above the freeway:
3) mass transit is too important to be left to METRO alone: in Delhi, and you have to appreciate the extent of corruption in public officeto understand this, a special purpose organization was formed called the DMRC. This cross-agency team was vested with great autonomy and powers to execute the gigantic project. In Calcutta where they did not have such a cross-agency team, the Kolkata
Metro was badly delayed and 12 times over budget due to “political
meddling, technical problems and bureaucratic delays.” The first
phase of the Delhi Metro project was completed in 2006, on budget and almost three years
ahead of schedule, an achievement described by Business Week as “nothing
short of a miracle”.
So can miracles happen in Houston? They can, if only our politicians and METRO folks would actually share some values – like putting aside their petty interests for the good of the city. I’m not holding my breath. Hey, maybe we can build some more public funded sports arenas; those projects seem to have no problem getting funded!
Here’s an interesting classification or segmentation of change makers (from Deloitte) along with some advice on how to make a difference via collaboration >>
Steady Supplier: Combine your contextual knowledge with the Public Value Innovators to create new value
Multirational Multinational: Engage with Citizen Changemakers to gain local insights and ideas
Investors: Connect Wavemakers to amplify impact
Public Value Innovator: Leverage the reach of the Multinationals to reach more communities
Citizen Changemaker: provide feedback to all in order to get to root issues
This is going to be a central theme in business going forward: what is our purpose?
Here’s William Cohen talking about Peter Drucker‘s perspective:
“…until Drucker came along most everyone believed the basic “fact” that the purpose of a business was to make money. That is, to make a profit. This belief leads to a corollary, another myth, believed by all–that is, that the goal of any business is profit maximization. In other words, whatever your business, your goal should be to make as much profit as possible. If you accept making a profit as a business’s purpose, the second part just follows naturally. This might even seem worthy to many. To quote Michael Douglas’s famous (or infamous) statement in his role as Gordon Gekko in the 1987 movieWall Street: “Greed is good.” Even today many “know” greed, or profit maximization to be the correct prescription for business success, even if it is amoral or shouldn’t be “good” from a moral perspective. Not so fast, Gordon. As Drucker so often said, whatever everyone knows is usually wrong, Hollywood films not excepted. Drucker told us first that profit is not the purpose of business and that the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.”
Now Ratan Tata and gang (myself included) have a similar message:
The problem with industrial capitalism today is not the profit motive; the problem is how the profit motive is usually framed. There is a persistent myth in the contemporary business world that the ultimate purpose of a business is to maximize profit for the company’s investors. However, the maximization of profit is not a purpose; instead, it is an outcome. We argue that the best way to maximize profits over the long term is to not make them the primary goal.
So what is to be done?
What is your company doing to create purpose beyond profits? The future of our planet depends on your answer.
I know what some of you are thinking – “Well, did America have a soul to begin with?” I happen to think it did. For me the soul of America is “We, the people…”
Furthermore, I’m quite sure that people, as defined by our founders, did not mean corporations. (See what Charles Handy has to say >>)
So what’s all the fuss about? The book is about asking questions:
How can companies take better care of their employees–and thrive?
Why don’t they see the opportunities in creating social value?
Do Americans think we have a fair distribution of wealth?
What are new means of putting our collective talents to work?
How can communities take the lead in creating opportunity?
How can public education prepare all students for the future?
How can better health care be made available without doctors?
How can communities do something about global warming?
How can you make a difference?
Why should you care?
Inclusivity: Will America Find Its Soul Again is a book of questions, hints, and suggestions about creating more opportunity for more people–starting with the USA, but looking at and learning from the rest of the world.
The very idea of the “United” States is based on the principles of inclusivity–all men and women are created equal under the law. But we seem to have lost our conviction that inclusivity is possible or even to be desired. The current divisive political climate, along with economic uncertainty, has fostered an atmosphere of fear and narrow-mindedness across the country.
What can we do in the face of this reality? The choice is not easy, but it is clear. Either we will decide to be more inclusive, or we will turn against each other – finding reasons to divide ourselves, not just from each other as citizens, but also from a shared future.
The USA, unless we decide otherwise, will become simply the SA.
This book is dedicated to an inclusive future for all our children, including my daughters M and K, and the idea that the United States is still the last best hope fordemocracy and inclusivity. We won’t have one without the other.
