Optimisation

Description

Uncertainty.

Issues Addressed

This section lists problem-factors and thinking-traps that this process can address. In general, addressing the issue requires the issue to be filtered through the processes of self-awareness qv and open-mindedness qv.

no-good-options

Don't do nothing by default just because all of the actions have unwanted consequences.

Relationship with Other Components

Input

system model, action options, priorities

Output

best set of actions

Similarities

Relationship with Other Components.

To Do

Optimisation (and maybe systems-thinking qv) is sometimes considered to be one method included in 'operations research'.

Optimisation should consider the timing of action implementation (as per my PhD). Leaving this decision to project-management qv may be too late and now result in optimality.

Action implementation timing could be represented in systems-thinking qv model as input variables. This would allow optimisation qv to determine best schedule. Or this could be deferred to project-management qv.

Temptation to do-nothing qv(?) given probability and uncertainty of dire consequences, esp if adaptation qv couldn't fix them.

Compared to simple RM, my extension to risk management takes the effectiveness of treatment, and cost of actions, into account. Those considerations may be better deferred to later processes (eg, optimisation qv).

Utilitarianism

Compensate for natural tendency to focus narrowly (limiting scope of system).

Like components/probability qv, this may be a concept rather than a process.

eg, 'Trolley Problem'; ‘Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.’ But the real aim of the trolley problem is to assess whether people would take one unpleasant action for the greater good.

relate to priorities qv. Utilitarianism may be just a consequence of priorities.

relate to optimisation qv ‘Utility Function’. Utility function is a particular type of objective function that emphasises human satisfaction.

Should all human lives be considered to have equal value? Rapists? Elderly? Those with poor quality of life? Those who provide little benefit to society? Those who detract from society? [irrelevant? a question for priorities qv?]

How do we balance value of a human life cf. non-human or inanimate? Is there any fundamental benefit to diversity (instinct qv, optimisation qv)?

Potentially mathematical, but for a simple problem (ie, most of them), quantitative analysis isn’t required. However, the basic form of the objective function remains the same: maximise priority-weighted utility considering all effects (needs) and all instances and all time.
“Utility function” (special case of "objective function"?)
SVG: see Barb\Peter's\Objective Function; or UTF: Z = ∫_t ∑_i ∑_e u_ew_e. where u=f(a,g).
Use Z for utility function: the value to be maximised.
Utility u is a function of effect e: u₁=f(e₁), where e comes from SD systems-thinking qv.
Will typically involve probability qv (risk management).
cf philosophy of utilitarianism qv
It's not for me to lecture others on the goal they should adopt, but to point out that they have one and that it's probably based on their priorities.
Put all GW stuff in read-less components.
Possible goal: Minimise overall discrepancy between achievement and goal IAW priorities qv for all needs. Make human impact on the planet is as sustainable as possible. Maximise aggregate human happiness over time. Balance planet's resources between humans, other life, and other natural features. Balance rational necessity with ethical concerns'[BW]. Balance between priorities in general[BW], possibly including granite.
Optimisation involves compromise: a willingness to trade off one priority qv for another. Sometimes this happens automatically; eg, a homeless person won't notice the absence of beautiful works of art around the doorway in which they sleep. However, some of us need to consciously decide between quality of life (steak) and GW.
Should the balance between priorities qv change over time, as life and/or environment circumstances change?
Why is life (esp human) so important? Nature created life and will destroy it. Why should we prolong the status quo? priorities qv. Is this a consequence of instinct? If so, should we trust it without conscious scrutiny?
Should diversity be rewarded in the objective function? Should we aim for 100% humans and 0% other life forms, or not? If not, why not? This should arise from priorities qv.
Examples of variables within objective function (what is the relationship between this and option-generation qv?):
- Number of people.
- Number of people moved off earth.
- Extent of impact that each human has (which may be reduced by technology).
- Quality of life.
- Level of dependence on consumption as a contributor to quality of life.
- Earth's ability to absorb human impact (resource consumption, pollution, GW, extinctions, etc).
optimum is not nec ideal (perfect) because of constraints.
Possible constraints (non-solutions): 'thou shalt not kill more than one billion people'; 'it can't cost more than $10 trillion'.
Constraints: finite planetary resources (including the environment’s ability to absorb pollution) are relatively new constraints. Even if the objective function remains the same, the optimum solution may now be different (and have a lower value).
The objective function should no longer be max(humans.count), despite what instinct qv keeps telling us.
Sub-optimisation: We won't achieve global optimality by encouraging every individual to pursue their own happiness (emotion qv). Anything that limits scope(s) can cause sub-optimisation; eg, emotion qv, reductionism qv, busy qv, etc.
non-solution; eg, killing 2 billion people: fails to meet a constraint (values) and/or couldn't possibly be implemented. cf no-good-options qv.

Why do some people use alcohol, drugs, binge eating, distraction, etc, to mask negative emotions caused by dissatisfaction?[BW] It indicates a decision to make the emotion go away by chemical means rather than by solving the problem to the extent possible, which shows the influence of emotion on priorities. Maybe the priority, or objective function, is to make the unpleasant emotion go away rather than to solve the problem that causes the emotion. It may also relate to a ring-of-responsibility (problem-assessment qv) issue: feeling bad about something that the individual can't change to the extent desired. Looking at the issue backwards: if the decision is alcohol, then the problem being tackled is that of feeling bad (ie, emotion).

"...instead of trying to make our responses just right for the climate of the future we should seek out resilient and flexible solutions, remedies that will be robust in a wide range of possible climate outcomes."