REPLY Limits to Growth Plan B (SD7062)

[SDMAIL Mike Fletcher]

Posted by  "Mike Fletcher" <mefletcher at gmail.com>

If we look for the root problem of how population, technology and
capital interact, perhaps anthropologists might be able to help. That
is not my field, however, to my knowledge, most anthropologists don't
concern themselves too much with estimating when loop dominance
shifts. It's probably that some of this has been studied
statistically, but I'm not aware of any System Dynamics perspectives
on these type questions. But then again what I don't know far exceeds
what I do know, so I could well be wrong there (as well as elsewhere
for that matter.)

We do know that have been periods of relative population equilibrium,
but there were also periods before industrialization when population
growth was relatively rapid for short periods.  We also know that
there are several cultures today where population growth is flat or
even negative. The good news is that anything that exists is possible.
The bad news is that the signals in cultures which naturally stabilize
and control population growth do exist, but the signals may be weak,
inconsistent or delayed - the point of being 180 degrees out of phase
at times.

If we look for the place in human history where the loop dominance
shifted towards population growth, Jared Diamond, generally a pretty
insightful gentleman, suggested  (if I interpreting him correctly),
that the tipping point was simply the development of organized
agriculture.   This conjecture is not particularly radical; however,
if true, the implications for long term stability of human populations
might be somewhat ominous. In short - human populations might be
inherently unstable - or at least have strong tendencies to move into
regimes of behavior which are not stable when "natural" decision rules
are allowed to run the show.

It is not too much of a stretch to state that organized agriculture,
for the first time, allowed for sufficient accumulation of capital,
population density and food production capacity to allow for the long
term dominance reinforcing loops in population. Unlike humans, most
species exist in relative long-term equilibrium. Successful species
populations, as others have commented on, tend to have modes of
dampened oscillation.  Human populations, to date at least, have not
shown any sign of smooth population transition of any kind. Perhaps
that because of the big Archimedes Lever of technology - which allows
for, among other things, the manipulation and use of energy beyond
that which we naturally possess. We have it - other species do not.
There are those who still believe the human population will transition
to equilibrium in a smooth S-Curve, but that position seems difficult
to support with the signs of overshoot now becoming painfully obvious.

Oscillation has been observed in human populations, but I'm not sure
if anyone has defined that in our terms. We can, for now at least,
rule out dampened oscillation as the underlying mode.  Again, I'm not
aware of everything that has been done in this area, but if we look at
the balancing loops right now, they appear to be very weak until the
limits are very close - that could imply some kind of limit cycle
perhaps? Even a regime of exploding oscillation is not inconceivable
in conditions where technology loop stays strong even after a
population crash - assuming that the policies that manage population
do not change appreciably.

Additionally, we simply have the fact that human decision making has a
rather poor grasp of the implications of accumulations. Generally
human decision rules in population management are largely rather naive
reactions which manage the short-term adjustment of the inflow
(births).  This is typical intuitive human short term decision making
of course.  We know that people have difficulty conceptualizing the
long-term impact of the accumulation, or effectively consider how
inflows and outflows interact.  Simply put, it was these informal
population control heuristics which placed us in our present position,
so relying on these weak signals (even if we artificially strengthen
them) to manage population is probably not a good strategy.

Humans are a interesting species, sometimes quite brilliant, but not
nearly as brilliant as we would like to think. We can combine
unbounded technology use with decision heuristics which are totally
dominated by local short-term optimization within an often
deliberately limited information space. That is a very dangerous
combination of characteristics. Essentially, we are blind in one eye.
We lack the "dept perception" to plan effectively in the time horizons
required to reach an equilibrium with the earth - in fact we are still
struggling to even conceptualize what such an equilibrium could look
like. But we must do so. We have developed some tools to address this
issue and I would count SD among them.

The accumulation of population itself present the most urgent dilemma.
The paradox is that the only lever that we have is the inflows, and as
shown in LTG and elsewhere, even relatively radical policy changes to
address the inflow do not influence the stock sufficiently within time
frames that appreciably change outcomes.

The immense inertia of the stocks make that task appear nearly
impossible on the surface. Unfortunately, the dire alternatives mean
we cannot abandon that task simply because we believe it to be nearly
impossible. After that herculean task is solved we might have the time
to devise policies to maintain equilibrium, but before we do that we
have to put our hand on the flywheel.

Unfortunately, we need to go beyond even that level of thinking to
what I would call the "Real Plan B."  If we look at the huge stock
accumulations, and the time-constants involved (and the current slow
rate of policy implementation) we should admit realistically that
overshoot and collapse is not just likely - it is the most probable
scenario at this point. Let me say that again, it is the most probable
scenario at this point.

To put it crudely, rationally, we have to consider not sustainability,
but survivability. To do otherwise is simple psychological denial. We
have to consider that our well intentioned efforts to design "soft
landing" policies, while not abandoned - have a low probability of
success. They could be efforts that amount to rearranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic. Rationally, we must provide for plans that
start building sea-worthy life boats. The modes that result from
overshoot are pretty well understood. Since the exact future is not
known, rationally we must must make plans for all eventualities. We
must even go so far as to understand the scenarios involving
extinction and near extinction - so that these possibilities can be
avoided.  The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

More optimistically I would recommend the  "The Real Plan B." That is,
start designing AND BUILDING, small robust, self-sustaining
low-energy, high-tech regional communities which can sustain
themselves in a world which is 3 degrees hotter than today and with
enough "slack" engineered in to stay clear of their environments'
carrying capacity, and sufficient culturally supported long-term
planning to make it happen.

Real change happens by doing things differently -not talking or
writing about it. Instantiating such communities and showing they work
might mean that the idea starts to catch on.

We return again to changing ways of thinking.  If it can clearly be
shown that people can live very differently than today, perhaps with
different fundamental social goals and still enjoy a quality of life
equal or better to today, it could provide a workable model. Again,
once it exists, it becomes possible.

Clearly some different mode, much different  than today, will emerge
in any case, but if it is allowed to develop "naturally" it is very
like to be a highly undesirable one. The good news is that there is
still time - perhaps 20-40 years to design and build the future  -
plenty of time for a world which is just about out of time.


------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Fletcher
Posted by  "Mike Fletcher" <mefletcher at gmail.com>
posting date  Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:06:52 -0400