Blog #8

So I like this idea of consensus - I like the way Estes frames the idea and its potential.

I'm not convinced, however, that it is applicable to all situations in its traditional form. Mainly I am thinking here about the current &^$%& that the US congress in in, and the climate change debate.

Currently, congress actually looks a lot like a consensus based situation - as majorities and minorities seem not to matter. The president would seem like a sort of ultimate facilitator, if he did not have an agenda. The speaker of the house and the Senate majority leader would also seem like facilitators - and kind of paint themselves that way - if they did not have enormous interest in one opinion or another. Or...maybe the supreme court is the facilitator, except that - while they are not supposed to - they have interests in the outcomes of legislation as well. So maybe congress really isn't in a ^%$&%, but is experiencing growing pains related to a transition to forced consensus.

As for climate change - there seems to be a lack of facilitation here as well. Really, it seems that all nations know that climate change is the 3,000 lbs gorilla in the room, but a formal consensus process has yet to form. All the summits and protocols have had little effect on the issue at hand - radically and immediately reducing carbon emissions - mainly because the international community cannot agree on a consensus framework. In this situation, consensus really must be had, otherwise many members of the international community will not "comply" with the targets agreed upon............messy.

Maybe the answer lies in a more standardized social media that can allow for massive consensus decision making - where it would be impossible to do so in person at a conference.