Kalle reflects on Shoal of Opinion Molder Fish destroying for all
Takeaway for leaders at all levels everywhere
The Swedish Parties of Parliament, thinktanks, media and other molders of opinion are now discussing whether it is OK to let “climate” steel attention from “money” in the political discourse. Or if it is the other way around. Some bet on the first option , others on the second. Both alternatives are responses to a mentally locked-in question that makes the whole debate meaningless. Still, the shoal of Opinion Molder fish makes certain that this question, flawed from upfront, is asked over and over again, decade after decade. A bit like asking an abstainer if he or she has stopped boozing.
More in detail: The whole societal discourse on this matter has crossed three defence lines against stupidity, each with the potential – alone – to get it all right. But after soon to be 30 years of science, clearly outlining the three lines, stupidity still prevails. So, don’t hold your breath. It is my experience, that the public generally is intuitively closer to understand the three lines of “defence against the stupidity” than the molders of opinion on our tight opinion corridors. The defence lines are:
1. If, I say IF we would have to face lower affluence and bottom lines in order to sustain civilization at large, that is survive, we would of course do it. To most people this appears to be a reasonable deal. “Well but…” – I can feel this question coming, so please hear me out:
2. Climate change is but one inseparable symptom from un-sustainability (you cannot cure climate change if you don’t cure un-sustainability). So most people understand that if un-sustainable development prevails we will loose it all, including money. Or in other words, un-sustainability with its climate change means that civilization will go under also regarding affluence and bottom lines. “Well but…” – I can feel also the next question coming, so please hear me out:
3. Defence lines 1. and 2 apply already in the short term if the two lines are managed cleverly in a systemic (taking the whole world into account), systematic (step-wise processes) and strategic (letting each step lay the ground for the next) way. Which FSSD Global is all about. A recipy by which individual organizations will benefit from day one and all the way through, regardless of what others are doing.
Conclusion: So, what is it that continuously locks our minds into believing that the questions “have you stopped boozing”, or “do you prefer money before survival” are relevant to ask? It is neoliberal economics! On our platform FSSD Global you can find indisputable arguments about this. See my previous reflections for instance the Four Headed Elephant in the Economic room. Or the more recent one where I address Catch 22 and the Prisoner’s dilemma as other examples of mental “lock-ins. Or look at Ray Anderson’s snappy testimony on the FSSD Global Homepage. They are all written with the same code or recipy in mind, the ‘ABCD-in-Funnel’ Operative system of the FSSD.
All hot topic Reflections are direct consequences of our Operative System.
For a deeper dive into the science behind the Operative System that informs all Reflections, see the peer-reviewed Open-Source paper with all its references: doi.org/10.1002/sd.3357. For the full title, see footnote below.
Or, for concluding reflections, practical insights and training, click on “Kalle Reflects” to see all reflections.
If you need any further advice, perhaps getting some further references, please send a question to us from the homepage.
Footnote: Broman, G. I., & Robèrt, K.-H. (2025). Operative System for Strategic Sustainable Development―Coordinating Analysis, Planning, Action, and Use of Supports Such as the Sustainable Development Goals, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, and ScienceBased Targets. Sustainable Development, 1C16.
