Approaching Social Issues: Trade-off Boundaries and Value Axes
In this article, we aim to explore how we approach social issues. This won’t be a discussion about specifics but rather about the underlying philosophy.
Modern societal issues can’t be simply resolved. Addressing them might require new innovations or adjustments based on stakeholder interests. However, before such solutions can be found, a comprehensive understanding of the problem is essential.
Understanding a problem not only means clarifying its structure and mechanism but also recognizing the values of those involved. Trying to solve or adjust issues without this perspective might lead to newer problems. Moreover, truly understanding the values underlying an issue or discovering new values can sometimes provide solutions even without technological innovation.
Furthermore, as societies grow complex and their problems multiply, a multifaceted approach becomes essential. This requires collating wisdom from various fields and stresses the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration.
Let’s delve deeper into the article’s main content.
Society on the Boundary of Trade-offs
Modern society has resolved various issues, and most things already exist on the boundary of trade-offs after much deliberation and adjustment.
Trade-offs refer to situations where multiple values compete, making it impossible to fully satisfy all. For instance, there’s only so much leisure time one can have, making it challenging to balance time between friends and family.
If one’s leisure time is already maximized with friends and family, they are at the boundary of this trade-off. But if there’s idle time spent doing nothing, then they haven’t reached that boundary.
If one hasn’t reached the trade-off boundary, there’s still room for simple solutions, like utilizing the available excess. However, in modern societies where most things already lie on the trade-off boundary, simple solutions aren’t possible. Either we expand the boundary or move along it to address problems.
Problem-solving Approach
Scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and investors are solution-oriented.
Their perspective on solving problems involves technological and engineering advancements, like adding features, increasing efficiency, or enhancing performance. Societal problems are viewed as challenges to overcome, and these advancements can break existing trade-offs to create better conditions.
Hence, scientists and engineers often prefer using technology and engineering to address social issues. Entrepreneurs and investors typically share this preference.
Problem-adjusting Approach
Conversely, social sciences and politics focus on monitoring societal issues and attempt to improve them by adjusting trade-offs.
To enhance something on the trade-off boundary, something else might need to be compromised. This involves shifting the burden somewhere else to mitigate a particular problem.
For instance, if healthcare costs due to social welfare are lacking, the solution might be to increase taxes or cut funds for cultural promotions, thereby compromising on cultural preservation. This isn’t so much solving the problem as it is adjusting it.
The Case of 10 Apples
Let’s consider an analogy:
Suppose there are 10 apples and three children. If each child eats three apples, one remains. How should this be addressed?
A simple method could be a game of rock-paper-scissors, with the winner getting the remaining apple. Alternatively, the apple could be divided into three or turned into juice shared equally. Another option might be to let one child have it now and give the others priority next time. This represents political or sociological trade-off adjustments.
On the other hand, planting the apple seeds or starting a business with the apple could produce more apples in the long run. This represents problem-solving through science, technology, or business.
Approach to Understanding the Problem
In addition to approaches for problem-solving and problem adjustment, the approach of understanding the problem itself also becomes important.
When thinking about problem-solving or problem adjustment, we sometimes assume that we already understand the full picture of the problem. I’m guilty of this too. When looking at things from a business or societal perspective, there’s a tendency to focus on resolving or adjusting issues.
Consider the apple example from earlier.
If there are 10 apples in front of you, someone directly involved will likely think about how to enjoy eating these apples. While it’s good to simply bite into 3 of them, it’s also good to purely enjoy turning one into juice, or using another as an ingredient for a delicious apple pie.
Especially if the people involved are not mere acquaintances, but close friends, the focus might shift from dividing the apples equally to creating an enjoyable time together.
Rock-paper-scissors isn’t just about having a universally agreeable rule, it’s also about the fun of the game itself. Baking an apple pie together sounds fun too. Growing apples or thinking about business isn’t just about maximizing profit; working together can be enjoyable, strengthening the relationship among the three people.
Viewing the 10 apples from the perspective of those involved, new axes such as taste, fun, and depth of relationships emerged. This expanded our thought process compared to when we only considered aspects like the utility of the apple or equality and consent.
While we haven’t necessarily invented a new scientific technology or business, with the addition of these new axes, it’s clear that what the three people can gain from these 10 apples has increased. With these new perspectives in mind, how to split the last apple becomes a minor issue.
Thus, adding the approach of understanding the problem challenges us with fundamental questions: What should we genuinely consider? What truly matters to us?
Discovering New Value Axes
If a new value axe is discovered, what meaning does fulfilling that value hold?
By fulfilling one value axe, its impact can ripple out, positively affecting another value axe. Eating a delicious apple pie might make you love apples even more, and sharing that joy with someone else could deepen human relationships.
Thus, fulfilling a value axe not only holds meaning within that particular axe but can also have cascading effects. Of course, negative impacts can arise, but there are also various positive ripple effects. Value axes that spread positivity widely are respected and often emulated, leading to choices that further fulfill that value.
Evolution of Organisms as an Example
This is also true in the evolution of organisms. Evolution isn’t just about adding features, efficiency, or enhancing performance within existing value axes. Sometimes, through DNA mutations, seemingly irrelevant or playful traits can emerge.
Even if a new trait seems unrelated to existing value axes, its indirect effects might eventually enhance the individual’s survival rate or reproductive capacity.
For example, a giraffe’s inefficiently long neck might have enabled it to use its neck as a weapon, potentially increasing its survival rate. Flowers that can only be pollinated by a specific butterfly might ensure successful pollination in a competitive environment, where many other types of flowers exist, by utilizing the butterfly’s exclusive feeding habits.
Thus, during their evolution, organisms might acquire characteristics in entirely different value axes, which can ripple out in unexpected ways, positively feeding back into existing value axes. This could be the essence of evolution.
In Conclusion: Opening the Window to Let the Wind Through
Similarly, in society, a new axis of value can be considered to have significant meaning. Therefore, the approach to understanding problems is crucial.
Whether in living organisms or societies, new axes of value are being discovered, from which useful ones remain and are further reinforced. Within the complex web of these evolved values, we survive and live our lives. Both evolution and development increase the axes of value.
If we try to view society only through a simple lens for problem-solving or problem-adjustment, or if we pare down various values to only what we can easily understand, it would be putting the cart before the horse.
Taken to the extreme, discussions centered solely on efficiency and problem-solving that disregard the multifaceted nature of values may lead to arguments that negate human society, or suggest the robotization of all humans. Indeed, among those discussing intractable environmental issues or the impacts of rapidly evolving technologies, there are those who genuinely, or perhaps naively, advocate such views.
Such extreme conclusions shouldn’t be seen as a consensus in our society.
Society has promoted specialization, encouraging individuals to hone their expertise and dedicate themselves intensively to their respective fields. While this is highly effective from the perspectives of sophistication and efficiency, it has also resulted in a society that is so complex it’s hard to grasp in its entirety. Moreover, there’s a shortage of individuals who play the role of deeply considering the whole from multiple perspectives.
This has given rise to what can be termed a “problem-solving mindset trap.” This mindset often leads to the belief that extreme measures are the solution to problems or that problems can be solved by simply identifying and either reforming or punishing a “villain.” Such fictional narratives seem to be taken seriously in conversations.
To avoid falling into such a problem-solving mindset trap, we need the ability to understand the various values of society. This understanding isn’t covered by the capabilities traditionally valued in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) fields. Instead, disciplines like the humanities and arts are more likely to address this need. At the very least, these are areas often overlooked or undervalued in the realms of science and business.
We need to move away from the illusion that all societal issues can be evaluated through a simple value system, understanding the multifaceted values in our current society, and also looking to new value axes. With this understanding, we must confront the side effects new technologies impose on existing values, always assuming a society in which humans live as humans.
This requires the ability to perceive things from multiple perspectives. For this, it’s crucial for various fields to break out of their silos, collaborating in interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary manners.
What our complex modern society, filled with intricate trade-offs, demands isn’t just radical, shortsighted disruption through science and technology. We, as humans, must think for the sake of humanity itself. To let in this fresh air, we need to open windows that have long been closed. I believe this is what is being asked of us now.
