The primary problem with Chesterton’s Fence is that it doesn’t come with enough documentation! With the purpose written in big block letters right on the fence, we might be able to create enough of an entropy pump to cause a rare-use institution to remain “fit for purpose” when it becomes needed again.
All too often we see agencies and organizations built for the short term, funded by government will alone and with only vague (but, in the moment, entirely understandable) directives that lead to a situation of reduced usefulness when their monotask is perceived as “completed”. It seems to me that there could be much more value in being more explicit than we typically are when creating these institutions, and in creating them with the long-term in mind.
Many established institutions have some brief charter or briefer mission statement designed to inform their purposes. But that might not be enough to let the progeny eventually figure out what to do, or to refrain from eroding or repurposing those projects as their need becomes less acute. We might do better if, along with the standard purpose-declarations, we make a habit of including some additional components.
From the outset, there needs to be a comprehensive history explaining why the institution was founded. This should include records of relevant mass media, associated personal communications and other private documents, and a report explaining why each was chosen and how the founders were thinking about it at the time. This would provide for anybody who cared to look, a comprehensive record of the context of the creation of the institution.
Too, we know that institutions tend to degrade and change over time as the resources required to maintain their functioning become “needed” for “more important” things. With this in mind, we should be able to create systems that operate on the least resources possible, but are designed to serve a basic function during normal times and expand quickly in an emergency. For example: such an institution might be tasked for most of the time with stockpiling supplies, and with maintaining a distribution system for those supplies and a network of professionals who would be prepared to spring into action when needed (including such resources, education, and training as necessary). Perhaps it would serve in “normal” times as the primary provider of these resources in order to keep stock rotating appropriately, and as a think tank for emergency protocols. Maybe it would even oversee a certain amount of the education for the field it services. This would be done at market rates to provide capital, and would also help to maintain the ready network of professionals.
Also, we should pre-commit to deferring to our emergency plans when emergencies actually occur. What good is a well-researched carefully-planned protocol if half the population is thinking “well… that’s kind of inconvenient. What if I just don’t?” We need regulations “with teeth” in place before the emergency just like we need good contingency plans to follow in the first place.
This might not be enough in practice for everything. Talking to an actual person who lived through X, and why they made the decisions they did, might be necessary. (As someone who doesn’t appreciate everything turning into a podcast instead of being text, I’m not the biggest fan of this. That said, I think it’s getting cheaper to video record everything (though liability/stuff that operates via the same mechanisms might work against this). Condensing and summarizing lots of video takes work, but can sometimes lead to new insight. (As can asking experts.)
Also, we should pre-commit to deferring to our emergency plans when emergencies actually occur. What good is a well-researched carefully-planned protocol if half the population is thinking “well… that’s kind of inconvenient. What if I just don’t?” We need regulations “with teeth” in place before the emergency just like we need good contingency plans to follow in the first place.
An other approach is get people to come to an agreement. This may take time, but if the emergency doesn’t happen often, you may have time. (Those involved in resolving the agreement may wish there weren’t so much time.)
Also, this might be something already addressed but—disaster plans might have to change when another disaster occurs in the middle of that other one, if there aren’t already plans for that. For example, people might stop committing crimes during natural disasters, but viruses probably won’t go on vacation.
Talking to an actual person who lived through X, and why they made the decisions they did, might be necessary.
Sounds good! Add all the interviews to the report. The more original sources we can collect in the moment when we feel the need to create an institution, the more people will eventually have to go on when they’re making decisions about these institutions in the distant future.
An other approach is get people to come to an agreement.
Yes; and in the generational timescales we sometimes get to work with between certain emergencies I think this can be solved by education. At least the fundamentals need to be absorbed into the culture in some way.
disaster plans might have to change when another disaster occurs in the middle of that other one, if there aren’t already plans for that
I hope we have enough time between instances of the same kind of emergency to think of those contingencies too. Ideally, our emergency-preparedness institutions should all be able to talk to each other and coordinate their plans together.
Since we would be designing institutions to last at least a few generations before their full functionality is probably needed, I hope we would be able to use the meanwhile to work toward more correct approaches with more correct explanations to back them up. That said, if some procedure kicks in during an emergency, and it happens to save lives despite the reasoning behind it (or the explanation of that reasoning) turns out to be incorrect, it’s still a win vs doing nothing! Then we can learn from the new instance of that emergency and do even better next time.
Thoughts off the top of my head:
The primary problem with Chesterton’s Fence is that it doesn’t come with enough documentation! With the purpose written in big block letters right on the fence, we might be able to create enough of an entropy pump to cause a rare-use institution to remain “fit for purpose” when it becomes needed again.
All too often we see agencies and organizations built for the short term, funded by government will alone and with only vague (but, in the moment, entirely understandable) directives that lead to a situation of reduced usefulness when their monotask is perceived as “completed”. It seems to me that there could be much more value in being more explicit than we typically are when creating these institutions, and in creating them with the long-term in mind.
Many established institutions have some brief charter or briefer mission statement designed to inform their purposes. But that might not be enough to let the progeny eventually figure out what to do, or to refrain from eroding or repurposing those projects as their need becomes less acute. We might do better if, along with the standard purpose-declarations, we make a habit of including some additional components.
From the outset, there needs to be a comprehensive history explaining why the institution was founded. This should include records of relevant mass media, associated personal communications and other private documents, and a report explaining why each was chosen and how the founders were thinking about it at the time. This would provide for anybody who cared to look, a comprehensive record of the context of the creation of the institution.
Too, we know that institutions tend to degrade and change over time as the resources required to maintain their functioning become “needed” for “more important” things. With this in mind, we should be able to create systems that operate on the least resources possible, but are designed to serve a basic function during normal times and expand quickly in an emergency. For example: such an institution might be tasked for most of the time with stockpiling supplies, and with maintaining a distribution system for those supplies and a network of professionals who would be prepared to spring into action when needed (including such resources, education, and training as necessary). Perhaps it would serve in “normal” times as the primary provider of these resources in order to keep stock rotating appropriately, and as a think tank for emergency protocols. Maybe it would even oversee a certain amount of the education for the field it services. This would be done at market rates to provide capital, and would also help to maintain the ready network of professionals.
Also, we should pre-commit to deferring to our emergency plans when emergencies actually occur. What good is a well-researched carefully-planned protocol if half the population is thinking “well… that’s kind of inconvenient. What if I just don’t?” We need regulations “with teeth” in place before the emergency just like we need good contingency plans to follow in the first place.
This might not be enough in practice for everything. Talking to an actual person who lived through X, and why they made the decisions they did, might be necessary. (As someone who doesn’t appreciate everything turning into a podcast instead of being text, I’m not the biggest fan of this. That said, I think it’s getting cheaper to video record everything (though liability/stuff that operates via the same mechanisms might work against this). Condensing and summarizing lots of video takes work, but can sometimes lead to new insight. (As can asking experts.)
An other approach is get people to come to an agreement. This may take time, but if the emergency doesn’t happen often, you may have time. (Those involved in resolving the agreement may wish there weren’t so much time.)
Also, this might be something already addressed but—disaster plans might have to change when another disaster occurs in the middle of that other one, if there aren’t already plans for that. For example, people might stop committing crimes during natural disasters, but viruses probably won’t go on vacation.
Sounds good! Add all the interviews to the report. The more original sources we can collect in the moment when we feel the need to create an institution, the more people will eventually have to go on when they’re making decisions about these institutions in the distant future.
Yes; and in the generational timescales we sometimes get to work with between certain emergencies I think this can be solved by education. At least the fundamentals need to be absorbed into the culture in some way.
I hope we have enough time between instances of the same kind of emergency to think of those contingencies too. Ideally, our emergency-preparedness institutions should all be able to talk to each other and coordinate their plans together.
I don’t disagree about the importance of documentation. That said:
In order for an approach to work, does the explanation of the approach have to be correct?
Since we would be designing institutions to last at least a few generations before their full functionality is probably needed, I hope we would be able to use the meanwhile to work toward more correct approaches with more correct explanations to back them up. That said, if some procedure kicks in during an emergency, and it happens to save lives despite the reasoning behind it (or the explanation of that reasoning) turns out to be incorrect, it’s still a win vs doing nothing! Then we can learn from the new instance of that emergency and do even better next time.