We need wise sociotechnical systems

It's a matter of life (both quality and quantity) and death (this is pretty final...)

Upfront note: This text below is part of a 20,000 word essay I’m writing with Dr. Sam Schikowitz on the ‘universality of governance’, where governance is “the universal set of processes by which agents navigate complexity and influence their own evolution.” Therefore, some of it might be a little tricky to situate, given I’m sharing outside of it’s context. Still, it’s my hope that getting this little rough snippet out into the world might be overall good, in that it encourages useful reflection and helps us learn (so that we can better the final output for the benefit of those reading / using).

Let’s go!!!

“For humanity to have a future worth wanting, the growing power of technology must be matched by growth in human wisdom & responsibility; our efforts must be rebalanced to fuel the latter kind of growth that is presently in neglect.”

This quote comes directly from the Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics, and resonates with many that came before it. In fact, the gap between our “power” and “wisdom” is often said to be the “meta existential risk”.

Somewhat unfortunately, perhaps, there is no broadly agreed definition of wisdom. However, common descriptions often include two key features, as Dr. Gregg Henriques describes in his book ‘The Unified Theory of Knowledge’, “1) grounding in a set of aspirational goals such as prosocial behaviour, the pursuit of truth and an orientation towards shared humanity; and 2) metacognitive reflection that takes multiple perspectives on the conflict, problem or potential, and affords adaptive problem solving and decision making towards valued states in both the short and long-term.”

Taking a slightly different approach, albeit related and complimentary, we have come to define wisdom as, “The processual commitment to knowing, deeply caring for, and living in close relation to what truly matters.”

This definition recognises that wisdom is a way of being (attending to what already is, without the desire to change it), doing (working actively to bring about more goodness in the world) and becoming (deep work on yourself, such that you are more capable of being and doing). It is a life long process that’s never done. It recognises that this process helps us ground our being, doing and becoming in reality, or rather, the best stories of reality we can possibly tell based on the preponderance of evidence in a very broad sense (this accounts for modern naturalistic empirical scientific evidence, as well as myth, narrative, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, direct lived experience etc.). It recognises that what 'is' doesn’t necessarily describe what 'ought' to be, and holds space for the challenging, yet often productive tension that we must embrace in such a context (if we are to better know what is, while attempting to bring into reality what ought to be). It recognises that we need to engage in an ongoing process of self improvement–the cultivation of virtue or character–which, however contradictory this may sound to some, is an inherently relational process (individuation–the process of becoming who we are uniquely capable of being–is actually a collective endeavour; an ecological phenomenon). It also recognises that this entire process is bound up in a deep sense of what truly matters (our values, or that which we believe to be ‘good’ in this world). And it encourages us to deepen our relation to those values through daily practice that helps us do more of what we value, and less of what we don’t. This necessarily means applying thoughtful restraint by effectively enacting the ‘ought before can’ principle.

This definition–even though it feels deeply resonant with whatever the nature and function of wisdom happens to be–makes it somewhat challenging to clarify in the context of sociotechnical development and use.

Therefore, drawing inspiration from Henriques, we define “wise sociotechnical systems” as sociotechnical systems that:

1. Are grounded in a set of aspirational, collectively defined goals

2. Result from ongoing metacognitive reflection that considers multiple perspectives, affords adaptive problem solving and enables decision making aligned to values (which includes thoughtful restraint), and

3. Produce whole-of-system positive outcomes in both the short and long-term.

The processes involved in wise sociotechnical systems include, but are not limited to:

Wide boundary analysis (a systems view of life): Wise sociotechnical systems consider wide boundary effects, anticipate a broad spectrum of consequences, and as a result, are best positioned to design for the best possible outcomes for the whole.

An extensive circumference of care: Wise sociotechnical systems demonstrate real care for the people and living systems directly and / or indirectly impacted by the process of developing and using the sociotechnical system.

Highly diverse, equitable and inclusive collaboration practices: Wise sociotechnical systems consider multiple perspectives, hold them in productive tension, and collaboratively demonstrate progress in alignment to aspirational goals.

Rights enhancing design: Wise sociotechnical systems go beyond just protecting rights and freedoms (such as the universal right to privacy). They explicitly work to enhance rights and freedoms for all participants directly and indirectly impacted by the system itself.

Proactive, retroactive and retrospective deliberation and action: Wise sociotechnical systems result from the opposite of “move fast and break things”. They result from considered practices that encourage deep thinking, dialogical approaches to responsible innovation, radical self reflection and a commitment to owning the consequences of actions (genuine accountability). This sometimes means going slow. Sometimes it means restraining or stopping altogether. Other times, when there’s good reason, it means quickly, effectively and safely scaling what delivers the greatest value to the whole.

Ought before can (thoughtful restraint): Most technology is being developed because it can be developed (and because of deeper sociohistorical and ideological reasons). Wise sociotechnical systems result from thoughtful ethical deliberation that helps clarify what should be developed because it is ‘good’ and ‘right’ (recognising, of course, that there will be relevant context and culture dependency). This necessarily means exploring options in alignment to values and aspirational goals, considering different normative theories or ethical lenses, enabling diverse dialogical engagement with issues and opportunities, thoughtfully justifying decisions, experimenting with responses (or ‘solutions’), ensuring real world systems are monitored closely so that ongoing refinement and improvement is possible, and encouraging a ‘culture of learning’ for the entire process.

Net beneficial outcomes: Wise sociotechnical systems always work towards better, deeper and more nuanced whole-of-system outcomes.

You will hopefully note at this point that the other “universal practices”–the six that came before this and the one that follows–are all relevant to this practice. As we describe in the introduction, the practices are inter-dependent. They work best when they exist in dynamic relation to one another, ideally resulting in an overall, always evolving approach to governing in relevant human contexts. This is also true for the features of Wise Sociotechnical Development processes described above.

With that said, and as we alluded to in our caveat, this is a very specific practice that speaks to the uniqueness of our time, the nature and function of these systems, and our shared reliance on ICT broadly. As a result, and rather than attempting to contribute something entirely new, we want to direct you towards IEEE’s Ethically Aligned Design; a multi-year body of work designed by more than 700 leading practitioners, and reviewed by many more, that has now been guiding practice across jurisdictions for at least 5 years. We will also suggest you familiarize yourself with The Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics “Tech Ethics in Practice” resources.

Taken together (with the rest of this essay and its practical guidance for governance at various scales), these two excellent resources can support you in designing wise sociotechnical systems for your relevant governance context.

Here’s to exiting the cave together…

With love as always team. With love.