This is just "long term thinking". I would say the article isn't worth reading. But at least, it's a good reminder to focus on thinking about the long term consequences of actions/decisions.
Just because we will not discover those failures until after the implementation in a couple of weeks does not make my better solutions "long term thinking".
Long term thinking is "will this solution that will work perfectly fine right now, still be the right solution in 2023"
> how is that not long term thinking?
What does "long term" mean to you ... 5s (i.e. 5 seconds) is pretty short term to me.
I'd argue that because happens in 5min that's an immediate effect regardless of if it happens after something or not. How is there any higher order evolution to that?
Are you trying to argue that people can't cope with time in a plan therefore it must be a higher order thinking to understand the rapid evolution of something?
If someone says ban ICE vehicles so that we might have better air quality and reduced rate of climate change, have they taken into account what the economic, cultural and political ramifications of such legislation would be? They might have, someone might have, but definitely not everyone has. Who had "Texas secedes from the USA" on their list of possible outcomes of their long term plan for addressing climate change?
This comment in it's blind ignorance is a godsent gift to people of a leftwing political bias...
edit: oh you mean you don't understand how something can be a superset of something else without being the same set. So I'm saying there's long term thinking with 2nd order thinking, and there's long term thinking without 2nd order thinking.
Long term thinking is termporally based, what will X look like in Y amounts of time
Second (or third) order thinking, is based on response to consequences or changes. Could be over a long term, or over a short term.
This seems pretty straightforward but you seem to take issue with it. I'm curious what you think is being messed up by people using these definitions?