All ‘Human Systems’ Are Perfectly Designed… to Get the Results They Get

“”Our traditional hierarchical bureaucratic organizations in ALL sectors are simply not designed to ‘create a sustainable future for all humanity.’ They are ‘designed’ with narrow and myopic definitions of success. They are not designed to become conscious of, much less care for, the sustainable future for all humanity.

It is possible to design our human systems (organizations, governments, cities, regions, etc.) in ways that further the well-being of ALL life affected by those systems. It is in the best interests of all of an organization’s stakeholders (customers, co-creators, Earth, community and investors) to evolve their human systems to transcend the limitations of today’s traditional designs.

The ‘DNA’ for our traditional ‘pyramid paradigm’ organizations has around for about 5000 years. It is a seriously flawed DNA. We can evolve an organizational DNA that can grow within existing traditional systems where there is leadership commitment to better serve ALL their stakeholders — a conscious caring living systems DNA that will enable those committed systems to evolve the conditions that enable them to maximize their contribution to creating a sustainable future for all humanity.

Those organizations, cities, regions, etc., that pioneer the metamorphosis form the ‘pyramid paradigm DNA’ to a ‘consciously self-evolving DNA’ can lead the way to the future we all want.””

Larry/nuet comments:  Oct. 8, 2015

Bill, via our more extended dialog I comprehend your intended meaning. Yet, I wonder about using the DNA metaphor. Many persons see DNA as what is fixed and can’t easily be changed. DNA also implies that happenings flow rather deterministically from DNA, and not that DNA only establishes a scaffolding for environmental influences. Further, most believe the only way to change DNA is by random mutation. Recombinant DNA is too rare a concept to be useful for popular metaphor.

The recent SCIENCE Journal, 18SEPT2015 pp 1292 has an excellent review article of two books on the historical development of Recombinant DNA. The Recombinant University by Doogab Yi, and A Biography of Paul Berg, by Errol C. Friedberg. This is a knowledge domain I never explored beyond what I read in the mass media and SCIENCE. Recent research is showing significant mutation in our somatic genome during life, and specifically with neurons. The mature organism doesn’t share a common genome for each cell. There may be some useful metaphors here.

The most awesome aspect of molecular biology is not the DNA code itself, but the 4-letter to 24-letter word translation between DNA and Protein chain molecules., and the 3D folded sculptures of proteins, and how these complex structures interact. The folding of both chromosomes and proteins and the magic of 3D puzzle piece matching challenges our concepts of evolution. The folding of 2D chain molecules into 3D fabric molecules shifts the primary dimensionality from 2 to 3, from linear to networked.  Two points quite distant from each other in the chain can relate interactivity if they are near each other in the folding. There are hypotheses that these 3D molecular networks can function as information processing systems (computers).

We do desperately need major, fundamental change in humankind. What are the best metaphors to use for our proposals? Will one metaphor be sufficient? What is the science of the use of metaphors in communication and comprehension? Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by Doug Hofstadter & Emmanuel Sander is – for me – the seminal book in the shifting of thinking about metaphors, analogies, categories, and meaning. To make their case (against established dogma) the authors overload you with a great many examples – which makes reading their book take time – but well worth it. This is also a totally unique multi-lingual production. The English and French versions are NOT translations. They were co-created based on the principles they were attempting to share. This book is a phenomenon calling for research.

The architecture of change is changing. Kuhn’s useful “paradigm” (initially defined as “habitual practice”) has been generalized to non-utility by including “perspective” or “idea” (related to “awakening”). When humans encounter a cognitive dissonance between a practice and a perspective (a doing and a belief), restitution is usually adapting belief/perspective to match practice.  To reverse this direction of change (which is the goal of most change agents) requires additional influences. This is why “informing to awaken” is grossly inefficient and usually ineffective.


We are “perfectly designed”, IMA, in only a crude and misleading sense. in moment-to-moment interaction with our environments, humans are almost perfect Stimulus/Response mechanisms.  Our momentary (neural-molecular) state impacted by stimulus input is continually changing. via its own dynamics and not only in response to input. BUT, the momentary response to input is highly determined by the momentary state at impact. Our agency lies in our ability to create behaviors/thoughts that are NOT DIRECT RESPONSES to inputs; but even these are in context with processed prior encounters with our environments AND our self-organizing processes within our mind/brains..

Bill, what I think you are trying to say is that human groups get pretty much what their design/production efforts can make manifest. If the goals and objectives were not well thought out, we can’t expect the product to do much more than what was intended – if even that. I wouldn’t use the term “perfection” for this. But, that they can succeed in creating systems that somewhat meet their narrow, self-serving intentions is a fact to attend to. Such successes over the past few centuries have accumulated in the real threat of extinction.

Is there a corollary that we must be suspect of social/societal sub-systems that appear to be working too well, too smoothly – too “perfectly”?”