A very interesting discussion. From the perspective of policy-making the instutional tendency towards thinking in silos is well understood, if not necessarily well tackled by governments. I guess in the UK cross-Whitehall arrangements like the NSC might suffice.
What I would value an opinion on is how to solve cross-national problems (e.g. climate, pandemics, mass migration, etc.) in a world where the agendas of different actors (states, agencies, populations) may be shaped by very different philosophical, cultural, or religious priorities. Frank refers to cooperation between the USA and Soviet Union despite ideological beliefs, but arguably both had a common genus in classical western philosophy. How does this work when one actors' beliefs are rooted in the judgement of the hereafter? Similarly, Frank and Lawrence seem to agree on the economic necessity of migration, but how can this be reconciled with the recipient populations' fear of cultural change?
In the first part of your discussion, Frank talks about the problem of policy makers not thinking laterally about how their area relates to others. When you get on to discussing scarcity, you seem to treat it as a stand alone subject, as if it’s black and white and that it’s always man made as we live in a time of plenty. It would seem to me that scarcity as a topic is much broader than that. As society moves forward individuals always seem to want more. For example, Solar panels are expensive because of a global shortage of some key components. You might argue the scarcity of component minerals is a million miles from a scarcity of food and water, and I would agree. But I would be interested in learning a little more about how scarcity as described by Frank, fits in to the wider picture of scarcity in a broadly capitalist global economy.
A very interesting discussion. From the perspective of policy-making the instutional tendency towards thinking in silos is well understood, if not necessarily well tackled by governments. I guess in the UK cross-Whitehall arrangements like the NSC might suffice.
What I would value an opinion on is how to solve cross-national problems (e.g. climate, pandemics, mass migration, etc.) in a world where the agendas of different actors (states, agencies, populations) may be shaped by very different philosophical, cultural, or religious priorities. Frank refers to cooperation between the USA and Soviet Union despite ideological beliefs, but arguably both had a common genus in classical western philosophy. How does this work when one actors' beliefs are rooted in the judgement of the hereafter? Similarly, Frank and Lawrence seem to agree on the economic necessity of migration, but how can this be reconciled with the recipient populations' fear of cultural change?
In the first part of your discussion, Frank talks about the problem of policy makers not thinking laterally about how their area relates to others. When you get on to discussing scarcity, you seem to treat it as a stand alone subject, as if it’s black and white and that it’s always man made as we live in a time of plenty. It would seem to me that scarcity as a topic is much broader than that. As society moves forward individuals always seem to want more. For example, Solar panels are expensive because of a global shortage of some key components. You might argue the scarcity of component minerals is a million miles from a scarcity of food and water, and I would agree. But I would be interested in learning a little more about how scarcity as described by Frank, fits in to the wider picture of scarcity in a broadly capitalist global economy.