Simplifying extremely complex systems

--
This is in response to the article,

Heavy footprint weighs down U.S. empire

by Paul Hanley, The StarPhoenix spnews@sp.canwest.com
Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

His premise is stated in the first paragraph of the article. "Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint? A strong argument can be made that the fading of the American empire is fundamentally an environmental issue." To his comments about "the fading of the American empire" That remined me of a quote from Mark Twain, "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

Mr. Hanley's copyrighted article can be read at

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/arts/story.html?id=82235c7e-e146-4c12-af09-f6c3458cd676

This BLOG is in response to Paul Hanley’s article.

The article has an interesting concept and conclusion that is a typically simplistic identification of a narrow range cause of an extremely complex system. Mostly these types of conclusions tend to promote the opinion and/or agenda of the creator. This is not intended as a condemnation, but is merely an observation by one who tends to look for the complexities in systems like the Roman Empire, the United States or even global climate. One could see the similarities of destructive effects in such factors as: the growth of government of Rome and the US and the associated increasing cost, the use of human energy, and the consumption of effort that growth requires.

Another example from another source comes from far back in history. When the 13 colonies were still part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler, a Scottish historian, wrote about the fall of the Athenian democracy over 2000 years earlier.

“A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates promising them the most money from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”

This does not apply as closely to a representative republic, but our republic is rapidly being eroded by those who see a democracy as being more in their own best interests than a republic. This too could be an equally accurate explanation for the fall of Rome and the future of America. There are doubtless many other applicable reasons with possible equal or greater effects. Jared Diamond covers many, natural and man made in his books, Collapse and Guns, Germs and Steel.

I shall try to explain the type of problems complex systems pose for those who would try to understand them by describing one such system I have been studying. For more than ten years I have been working on answers to a very complex system or more accurately group of systems related to our use of energy. These include: energy systems we have in place, where they are headed and practical solutions to the constantly changing energy requirements and uses in the world. My book, A Convenient Solution, does not provide a single solution but it does describe many of the systems now in use, possible future systems, their practicality and how they can be implemented. I think most people would be surprised at the number and variety of energy systems in use, soon to be in use and those that could be in use in the near future. All of these systems from power plants and distribution systems to vehicles and power tools are available with existing technology. Many new concepts are already available and more are coming in the very near future. Most are being developed by independent entrepreneurs, not government. The positive effects on our economy, our environment and the well being of planet earth could be enormous.

I state in the title that freedom from fossil fuels could be accomplished in ten years. All we have to do to achieve that goal is quit spending our efforts on blaming everyone and everything we disagree with, while condemning things as they are. Then spend our energies on developing and promoting these new concepts and products. I think we have far to much use of problems as political battering rams against opponents and far too little effort at finding and implementing viable solutions. Most everyone wants a single simple answer, and by the same token many blame one or a few situations or efforts as the sole or certainly the overwhelming villain in the case. I’d like to use the current media hot button “global warming” to illustrate.

Global warming has become such a popular catch phrase it is being used as a verbal club in condemnation of many things. It has become the subject of much TV humor. Late night talk shows on TV seldom miss a chance to tell a global warming joke. Passions run high on the subject. So high that global warming has taken on almost the trappings of a religion. Certainly it rouses almost religious fervor in its believers. The truth, degree, causative factors, and ultimate results of global warming if indeed it is real, are completely lost in the passionate rhetoric from adherents and nay sayers alike.

The truth is that climate and climate change are very complex, far more complex than our best computer simulations can handle. As a result, we have great difficulty in predicting the path of a single hurricane with much accuracy. While we are getting better at it each year as more sophisticated simulations are developed we still have a long way to go before we can have as much as 80% accuracy five days ahead. A single hurricane is a far less complex system with far fewer variables than is the climate of the entire world. Change a few variables a very small amount and simulation results can be vastly different.

This is virtually axiomatic in all types of complex systems we could talk about. It is true of global climate, economics, energy, civilizations, nations, you name it—there are many extremely complex systems with almost infinite numbers of variables that are extremely difficult to understand. The question was posed and then somewhat answered in Paul Hanley’s article, “Is the decline of the status of the United States a result of its heavy ecological footprint?” This is a classic example of applying a single causative system as the sole or primary reason for the behavior of an extremely complex system and then applying the same factor to another very different and also complex system. I am not saying it is not a factor, but that to explain it as the primary one is to presume a great deal. It is even possible that this factor is the effect of other factors and not a cause at all. Cause and effect often are confused in this type of situation.

To illustrate my meaning I will use climate again. It is often assumed that rising average air temperatures indicate the planet is warming. Actually, that may not be the case. The entire atmosphere holds only a fraction of the heat that the earth’s liquid and frozen water holds. All of that heat is held in the planet’s very thin surface skin comparable in thickness to paint on the surface of a croquet ball. Movements of ocean currents distribute far more heat energy around the planet than do air currents and thus should be a bigger contributor to climate. Indeed, it is primarily the energy from warm ocean water that powers hurricanes and we are just beginning to understand how the warm surface waters of the Pacific can affect climate over much of the globe. Discovering how changes in our atmosphere affects the oceans—actually the complex exchanges of energy between oceans and atmosphere—is an extremely difficult and complex task. Though there is much we do understand, that understanding is but a tiny portion of what is needed to design competent computer simulations. What we can project from current knowledge is a SWAG (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) at best.

Too often adherents to an idea will take a SWAG and run with it as a definite fact. Our media in particular tends to do this particularly if the SWAG happens to promise dire consequences for our nation or the world. Those dire predictions seem to sell newspapers and gain TV viewers. It is well known that bad news sells much better than good news. We all have a tendency to stop and gawk at an accident scene and pictures of all manner of disasters and mayhem bring many viewers to TV. The temptation to sensationalize seems far too great to keep reporters and TV news writers from emphasizing the negative aspect of virtually any situation. With all this sensationalism available it is quite difficult for any calm, objective, broadly based observations or studies to get much exposure.

Often reports of such careful observations are condemned as opposition to an accepted position or known fact. The known fact of global warming is just such a creation and is now accepted by many as axiomatic. Thirty or forty years ago many of these same individuals were treating global cooling as a known fact.

When we learn enough that we are able to predict precisely where a hurricane is going to go and how strong it will become when it is merely a disturbance off the coast of Africa—then we may be able to say whether global warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide is a reality with some degree of certainty. Now, no matter how you look at it, to say that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the responsible agent causing global warming in the manner it is being described by so many agenda driven spokespersons is Chicken Little at best.

The same type of observation could be made about Mr. Henley’s report. I am not saying it is wrong, just that it may be an effect, rather than a cause—a symptom rather than a disease. Certainly it is worth consideration as being among countless other factors. It may be a factor, but certainly not necessarily the definitive one. There is probably not a single definitive factor at all, but rather many significant ones. To make comparison of the situation in Rome and in America today requires another stretch of the imagination and denial of countless other factors. The two systems and their complexities have far too many differences for the type of conclusion made to have more than passing interest and value. An interesting thought perhaps, but quite far from proven.

To me the concerns expressed about our lavish lifestyle and fiscal cancer are far more significant than the heavy ecological footprint. The paragraph, "The empire also needed tax gatherers and civil servants. These armies and bureaucrats had to be supported by the empire. Expansion was also necessary to get booty and other forms of wealth, such as gold, to pay for the Roman lifestyle and the costs of expansion itself." is to me a far more significant comparison as it could be said almost verbatim of our present government. I believe Tyler’s observation about democracy cited earlier in this commentary predicts a far more accurate and likely scenario and provides more serious concern than any ecological effects. Unfortunately, it is also a real menace that seems to interest very few Americans and certainly few politicians. Currently, this frightens me far more than any concern about our ecological footprint.