REPLY Limits to Growth Plan B (SD7022)

[SDMAIL Mike Fletcher]

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

Jack:

That is a legitimate question, although a pretty hefty one to address
fully in one forum post. I  don't claim to have all the answers. I
freely admit my "model" is far from complete!  Perhaps I can
contribute a bit by asking a few key questions.

Firstly, 100 million dollars seems to be a rather severe case of
underfunding if your goal is to change fundamental ways of thinking on
a global scale.  Without being in the least facetious, a viral
marketing campaign is about the only hope with funding like that.

If we are looking for the most fruitful way to spend our time and
money we need to start somewhat cautiously.  As I warned in my
original post,  before we jump into the solution phase we have to do a
better job of problem definition - and frankly I think that "the
problem" has largely been framed in a solution-driven way, and most of
the solutions have been focused on the symptoms and not the illness.
But we don't have the luxury of admiring the problem for another 30
years either.

So, what are the solutions to the limits to growth problem?  Hopefully
there aren't too many people left who would dispute that oil
depletion, global warming,  water crises,  population, pollution etc.
are all linked issues and really not separate problems. Hopefully the
size of the group that still thinks these issues can be solved
independently is also shrinking.

I don't think that anyone would dispute that these linked issues
definitely fits into the category of problems described as "wicked
problems."  Before we start proposing solutions we should probably ask
one of Polya's questions, "Under what conditions can I solve the
problem?"  What little we know about such problems in general is that
"solving forwards" (classic waterfall approaches) show poor results.
Essentially,  "solar power solutions," "hydrogen solutions" etc. are
clear example of "solving forwards" approaches.  It is not clear (to
me at least) that they even address the real problem, let alone are
effective solutions. While models could be used to test such
approaches to some extent, there is a real risk that such models would
fall prey to what amounts to the logical fallacy of affirming the
consequent.  The stakes are too high; we should avoid such plans to
solve the problem as a matter of course, simply because the they are
unlikely to lead to optimal results.  Grabbing the first available
apparent technology solution (or hodgepodge of available technology
solutions) and running with them is an easy but perilous course, and
certainly not a strategy I would like to stake the future of the
planet on.  Clearly there are many people who have moved beyond that
kind of thinking, but many remain who think we can simply "technology"
our way out of the problem.  The technology as deus ex machina
assumption is a huge issue in how the world is currently addressing
the problem. This is covered in Chapter 6 of Limits to Growth, so I
won't dwell on that aspect of the problem overly long, except to say
that solutions driven by that set of assumptions about the utility of
technology alone to solve the problem could lead to "false spring"
outcomes or worse.

Due to the perils of the above I think that  "solving backwards" is
really the only realistic plan, and in that modeling could help quite
a bit.  Let us propose a model of the future that could work and work
backwards. Lets ask a series of questions, some of which  that can be
addressed by M&S.  Clearly M&S is really the only way such complex
proposals can be evaluated.  We really need to "clear the decks"  in
regards to initial assumptions.  Nothing would be off the table,
initially at least.  As someone once said, most ideas progress from
"that's crazy!" to "everyone knows that!" in mysterious ways.  It's
not much of a stretch to say that because of the tremendous depth of
assumptions surrounding this issue, that the most "obvious" solutions
to the problem are probably the least likely to survive objective
scrutiny.

For example, my current working hypothesis about what definitely won't
work and what might work looks something like this: What can't work:
There is NO sustainable high-energy consumption future. Such societies
are inherently unstable. Simply stated, we move to fast for the planet
to adapt to us; too much commotion, we need to slow down.  What might
work: A low-energy, high-tech society that survives in relatively
small largely self-contained economies where people and goods move
minimally (too much energy cost otherwise) but information moves
freely.  Globalization? Gone - The only thing global is information.
Globalization as we know it would no longer exist. It was a temporary
behavior mode which rested almost completely on the assumption of
virtually free energy for transporting goods.  Air-Travel? Gone - No
known mode that does not have a monstrous carbon foot-print. My
"glittering future" is where People wear sweaters, live where they
work, grow food locally, plan in 1000 year cycles where completing
plans are modeled, examined, discussed and then voted on.  People ride
bikes to work, walk or work virtually. People measure success by the
roads in and between cities that are removed and not the ones that are
built. All of that is probably achievable with current technology and
absolutely no assumptions about technology solutions that might
happen.

Crazy you say? Well probably it is. Its my untested mental model about
solutions to a complex problem after all. Modeling might show it to be
impossible. Given enough crazy ideas and enough testing we might even
chance on a solution that can work.  Additionally, if enough people
are involved in the discussions of there might be some slim hope that
society can build a sufficient consensus to actually see through
implementation.


The questions - in approximate order of the asking are:
Is there any structure and associated decision rules which can lead to
eventual acceptable equilibrium under any conceivable conditions?
Sub-question, can we even obtain a measure of equilibrium?
Is there any structure and associated decision rules which can lead to
eventual acceptable equilibrium given reasonable assumptions?
Is are multiple structures (perhaps quite different) which lead to
such equilibrium?
What do these different structures have in common? How do they differ?
How robust are they under a variety of assumptions?

We need to spend quite a bit of time evaluating alternatives
objectively. Despite the time spent, we cannot risk focusing too
quickly on the implementing the "obvious" solutions. To a large degree
I think that has been the general focus of most problems solving
attempts in this arena, but that is generally a rather poor approach
to getting optimal solutions to complex problems.

We must also consider what decision-rules and underlying
ways-of-thinking that must be adopted in order for these "models" to
work. (That is, not fail due to policy resistance or inability to
implement)  Under what conditions could the needed changes in thinking
happen? Are they realistic?
What changes in physical structure are required? Which would require
the most restructuring and which would require the least?

Plan B and other proposals very generally fit into these type
categories of possible plans. They are however for the most part
untested hypotheses; that is, could the structure they propose even
lead to the results suggested? M&S could attempt to answer those type
questions.  Problems like this simply have to be tested through
simulations.  Testing of such models would at least allow for
discussions about solutions to take place in a way where solutions can
be challenged and tested and thus improved.

Generally speaking any solution will flow from and be created by
changing the fundamental goals of society, and as I stated. the
biggest leverage point by far is changing ways of thinking. Perhaps
the biggest single win in this regard is to change the time-horizons
of our thinking dramatically. This is happening but perhaps too
slowly. Societies are starting to think along the lines that their
time horizons need to add a zero - that is go from 3-5 years to 30-50
years.  If we think about the relevant time constants involved even
that appears too conservative. Time Horizons for planning how humans
interact with the earth probably need to add at least two zeros and
perhaps three.  The time-constants of the earth and the time-constants
how human plan their interaction with the earth are off by at least
two orders of magnitude. This because the "hidden hand," while it
works well for short-term optimization, it is essentially blind to
long time-horizons. The "hidden hand" is also largely blind to any
concept of a shared responsibility for the commons.  There is a
possibly apocryphal story of a Minnesota Native American Tribe who
identified their land-use time horizon as the life-span of the major
pine tree on their land - 300 years, if I recall correctly.  A great
story - which might even be true!   In my mind, people who adopt that
way of thinking are closer to success than those who spend their days
deciding whether to fund a billion to Fusion Research or a billion to
Hydrogen Fuel Cell research.  Again, as I stated, it is extremely
tempting, but very perilous course to attempt to "technology" our way
out of the problem.  Recall that the problem was largely caused by the
unconsidered use of technology!  The rough outline of a framework
which has better potential answers is pretty obvious - consider more
and technology less.

At any rate, there is partial attempt to answer your question. I'll
end here because I think I've tested the reading patience of the lists
members sufficiently for one day!

Regards,


------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Fletcher
Posted by  "Mike Fletcher" <mefletcher at gmail.com>
posting date  Fri, 9 May 2008 19:38:09 -0400