THE SYSTEMS THINKER AS REVOLUTIONARY

The epoch of concern in this paper extends from about 1975 to about 20 05: the phases of recession and depression of Kondratiev Cycle/Structu re Number Four and the beginning of the phase of recovery of a possibl e fifth Kondratiev. During the past decade or so a number of meetings of international societies and a number of special issues of scientifi c and engineering journals have had themes like 'science in the servic e of mankind' and 'engineering for peace'. Close examination of these themes suggests a high level of confirmation of the political, economi c, and military status quo, and even the scientific and engineering st atus quo, coupled with a low level of novelty. This paper critically e xamines the traditional relationship between science and engineering o n the one hand and policymaking and decision-making on the other. Syst ems theories like dissipative-structure theory, chaos theory, and the author's field and Kondratiev theories now provide a better understand ing of the evolution, instability, and structural change of human soci eties and of natural environments than was the case in the recent past . These theories suggest a present window of opportunity that may not recur for a long time, if ever, for the implementation of bold, even r adical and revolutionary ideas. History indicates a high level of inco mpetence during 'normal', stable times that contrasts with the emergen ce of highly capable leaders during times of crisis like the French Re volution and the US Civil War. There is a good match between these fac ts and the theory of the action of fluctuations in unstable systems fa r from equilibrium. In the past great political and politico-economic movements were shaped by the philosophical thinking of people like Vol taire and Hegel that preceded them. Now the questions must be forceful ly addressed: can and should systems thinking best discharge its respo nsibilities through passive support and reconfirmation of a paradigm t hat provides major evidence for exhaustion? Or can and should systems thinking be directed actively and aggressively toward the implementati on of a new paradigm? The author argues for the latter course. The Sch umpeterian concept of creative destruction is extended. Means of accom plishing the newly defined goal are clarified.