REPLY Limits to Growth Plan B (SD7012)

[SDMAIL Jack Harich]

Posted by  Jack Harich <register at thwink.org>


Stephen Wehrenberg wrote:
> Jack, Jay,
>
> I submit that there are subtle differences in the way you are 
> referring to causes.  
Yes, and I'm glad you picked up on this.
>
> Jay implies in his statement that population and industrial growth are 
> the causes of the environmental pickle we find ourselves in.  I'd just 
> say consumption, since demand from consumption fuels industrial 
> growth, but no reason to quibble about that. Infinite growth in a 
> finite world seems problematic.  I am inclined to agree with this 
> proposition, as mentioned earlier.  I throw my lot in with Jared 
> Diamond in that population and consumption are both important causes, 
> /sine qua non/, and it's too late to merely solve one or the other.  
> Current populations, consuming at the rate that we in America do, 
> would bankrupt the world in a decade. 
> Jack, you ask what causes population and industrial growth?  And you 
> posit resistance to change as the culprit.  I would say that R-C isn't 
> the cause of population or consumption, but that it may indeed be the 
> cause (reason) we have not solved the problem, the root cause of which 
> is too many people using too much stuff.  
I agree with you, that change resistance may be the cause we have not 
solved the problem. I'm wrong. I should have used better wording, and 
said that the root cause of population and industrial growth being too 
high is systemic change resistance. If it was low, the world could have 
changed course easily long ago, soon after World2 and World3 brought the 
problem to the world's attention.

In fact, without using the term, there is the widespread key assumption 
change resistance is low. For example, here's a quote from the third 
edition of Limits to Growth, page xiii:

"[The second edition of /Limits to Growth/] //was published in 1992, the 
year of the global summit on environment and development in Rio de 
Janeiro. The advent of the summit seemed to prove that global society 
had decided to deal seriously with the important environmental problems. 
But we now know that humanity failed to achieve the goals of Rio. The 
Rio plus 10 conference in Johannesburg in 2002 produced even less; it 
was almost paralyzed by a variety of ideological and economic disputes, 
[and] by the efforts of those pursuing their narrow national, corporate, 
or individual self-interests.”

The folks at Rio implicitly assumed change resistance was low, and that 
merely by pointing out the problem, its serious nature, and the need to 
act soon and decisively, that the problem would soon be solved. But as 
the quote relates, those hopes were dashed. Why? Well, I don't want to 
repeat myself....

When I see words like "almost paralyzed by a variety of ideological and 
economic disputes, [and] by the efforts of those pursuing their narrow 
national, corporate, or individual self-interests” I see the telltale 
signs of high change resistance. But most live in another paradigm. All 
they see is somehow we have failed to move forward, so we have to try 
harder or better or something....

There is a missing abstraction here. If problem solvers instead thought 
in terms of change resistance as a phenomenon in itself, then they would 
have something tangible to wrap their arms around and solve. They would 
no longer be punching at shadows, at invisible forces that are blocking 
adoption of workable solutions.

To me, change resistance is as real as gravity. In fact, in this problem 
it's just as pervasive and strong.

Gravity is what makes apples drop. Change resistance is what cause 
workable solutions to not drop, ie, to not drop where solution creators 
expect they should.

The stronger the force of gravity, the faster the apple drops. The 
stronger the force of change resistance, the less likely solutions are 
to drop where they should, and when they should.

I should say that I'm in the middle of a second iteration of an analysis 
of the proper coupling subproblem of the sustainability problem. That 
subproblem appears to have four closely related root causes, which are 
too complex to describe briefly here. But actually we don't have to. The 
real issue is that if we split the sustainability problem into these 
three subproblems:

A. How to overcome change resistance (to adopting a proper coupling 
solution)
B. How to achieve proper coupling (of the human system to the environment)
C. How to avoid excessive model drift (so the problem doesn't recur, due 
to solution obsolescence)

then the problem is an order of magnitude easier to solve. The 
subproblems must be solved in this order, although it may be possible to 
speed up C in some cases. But A must always come before B, whether 
change resistance is low or high.

Most people see only subproblem B. To them, this IS the sustainability 
problem. This in turn leads to the conventional notion that the root 
cause of unsustainability is overly high population, consumption per 
person, and impact per unit of consumption. Let's call these the PAT 
factors of the IPAT equation. Since:

root cause ---> symptoms

and

high PAT factors ---> unsustainability

Therefore the high PAT factors must be the root cause, or more commonly, 
the cause.

But when we think at a higher level of abstraction, one that considers 
subproblems A and B, we can look much deeper into the structure of the 
system. We see:

high change resistance ---> no proper coupling solution ---> high PAT 
factors ---> unsustainability

This simple four node diagram shows how high PAT factors, ones over the 
limits, are merely an intermediate cause.

This is what I was trying to say when I ventured the hypothesis that 
high systemic change resistance is the root cause of (excessively) high 
population and industrial growth.
>
> Thus we get to some subtle differences.  In one case cause is taken as 
> that which comes before and results in A, and without which A would 
> not occur.  One event is the stimulus for the next.  Newtonian physics. 
> In the other case it is more like the cause as the reason that a 
> condition exists.  A condition can exist as the result of a cause and 
> be sustained for a reason.  Perhaps that framework would help us 
> recast the statement in a way that would address both Jay's and Jack's 
> positions. 
> "Population and consumption (growth) are the causes of our 
> environmental calamity, and resistance to change has prevented us from 
> solving either."
Beautiful, and correct, since you have not used the phrase "root causes."

Perhaps the above four node diagram expresses your statement in another 
way.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Steve
>
> P.S.  This entire thread is so good that I am going to want to share 
> it with my energy/environment colleagues.  I will, soon, be begging 
> the indulgence of the contributors and Bob to either copy the thread 
> or send them a link to it!
Probably the best link would be to:
http://ventanasystems.co.uk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3521

However, the above copy of the list is a few days behind now. But it's 
more professional looking than the one at:
http://www.systemdynamics.org/pipermail/sdmail/2008-May/date.html

You are more than welcome to share whatever I say with anyone, and I 
hope others feel the same. I think some of the ideas (especially the 
core ideas) on this list are some of the most advanced (and potentially 
productive) in all of progressivism, for lack of a better word. Thus 
they SHOULD see the light of day.

BTW, my definition of a progressive is someone who seeks to improve (or 
better yet, optimize) the common good.


Thanks Steve, for taking the time to see a little deeper and to help us 
see what you've seen,



Whoops, I left out a node. The four node diagram should be:

dominant race to the bottom ---> high change resistance ---> no proper 
coupling solution ---> high PAT factors ---> unsustainability

which is five nodes. High change resistance is not the root cause after 
all. It's a dominant race to the bottom, as described in The Dueling 
Loops of the Political Powerplace paper. I don't know why I was 
consistently forgetting this. Writer's block? :-) Or more likely 
writer's exhaustion.... ;-)

All this is summarized in the process grid in color at:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/SystemImprovementProcess.htm

Please note that the findings in column B are the first iteration 
analysis. A second is underway.


Mike Fletcher,

You say "Those kind of 'solutions' aren't going to solve anything, and 
could even lead to worse outcomes."

So, how would you go about solving the problem?

Assume you had 105 million dollars per year, which is the United Nations 
Environmental Programme's annual budget.

Recall that the "UNEP is the designated authority of the United Nations 
system in environmental issues at the global and regional level. Its 
mandate is to coordinate the development of environmental policy 
consensus by keeping the global environment under review and bringing 
emerging issues to the attention of governments and the international 
community for action."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Environment_Programme

Jack Harich
Posted by  Jack Harich <register at thwink.org>
posting date  Thu, 08 May 2008 09:20:01 -0400