I've
seen it so often now that I can put numbers to it, and it applies to
both individuals and organizations. A goal is set based on an
optimistic judgement of what's involved, and one of the following
results: (1) the goal isn't met; (2) the quality of what's done ends
up being a fraction of what was intended; or (3) the goal is met, but
someone else pays a large part of the price for it. Typically, the
effort and resources required to accomplish any given task is two to
three times these optimistic estimates, a factor that determines
either the diminishing of quality or the "externalized cost"
incurred.
For
those who are successful at externalizing costs, it can appear that
they are up to three times more efficient than others who incur more
of the costs. Where competition for resources depends on achievement
of more aggressive goals and on low internalized costs, such as in
the world economy, everyone involved eventually must externalize as
much as possible just to survive, and waste grows exponentially.
The
poorest people are often those who have been forced to bear the costs
pushed off by more "successful" people. As the waste
grows, it overwhelms the ability of people to deal with it, and the
number of poor and dying people grows with it. The world's combined
waste is now nearly 60% of what the rest of nature can annually
recycle, and still growing. The consequences are becoming
catastrophic; like a Ponzi scheme, if it keeps going then everyone
loses (I estimate this to be when the waste nears 75%).
Obviously,
the simplest solution is to try to make more realistic assessments of
the resources involved in meeting our goals, and to put as at least
as much effort in assessing the impacts of our actions on everyone
and everything potentially affected by them. In the simplest case,
we would triple our estimates of required resources. The extreme
case would involve full accountability: all of us honestly studying
and publicizing the full effects of what we do and plan to do. This
would no doubt slow down "progress," but it would also make
it less destructive. Any error would be in large part due to lack of
knowledge and understanding, which could be reduced by targeted
efforts to increase both (as science is dedicated to doing).
Such
solutions are, on their face, extremely unrealistic. It is human
nature to compete, and deception is easier (and cheaper) than
improving performance as long as the other competitors can be kept
ignorant until the prize is won. Even a single competitor willing to
deceive will decrease any value to performance for everyone else. A
compromise is to have judges, which in society may consist of
unbiased entities such as governments and journalists. The success
of many of today's societies is often determined by how successful
these entities are in maintaining their objectivity and power to
limit deception.
Governments
have the larger role of ensuring that their citizens can meet their
basic needs, which includes keeping waste below an amount that
overwhelms people's ability to survive. Not all governments
acknowledge this role, and factions within every country actively
debate its validity, but it remains a role that must be assumed by
someone (if not everyone) within a society for the society to
function.
Ideally
– and I would argue, no matter what – plans for every goal, by
every individual and group, should provide for preserving this basic
right for the people impacted by the actions taken to meet the goal.
Those who believe in limited government should take this into account
before they act on their belief, or they should accept responsibility
for the harm caused by not meeting this fundamental responsibility of
society. We can't enjoy the benefits of society without providing
for its survival, and that means avoiding dangerously optimistic
planning that increases the waste that society has to deal with.
