Emily Spence had sent me a PNAS paper on the “Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system” and “Is Economic Growth a Delusion” by Steven Stoll
Emily, Thanks much again. The PNAS paper on tipping elements, though as good as I’ve seen from established scientists, is still a bit flimsy relative to what you could say if you were to consider the evolving physical systems as developmental processes with organization of their own rather than as mathematical models. Models just don’t have many of the behaviors that natural systems do, using controlled variable theory to represent distributed uncontrolled systems with independently changing and reacting parts… Their definition of ‘tipping point’ shows an effort to address the subject, but ends up being a reiteration of the belief which was what got us in trouble, the idea that nature is an equation. I wish these kinds of people would talk to me!!
The strong empirical evidence of the type of hazardous tipping point approaching is persistent growth of whatever system you’re discussing. That is primary evidence the system will create conditions to destabilize its own growth process. That principle is not understandable until you think of systems as physical things having their own development and behavior, though, rather than equations, because equations have no independent parts and do not destabilize themselves. Only physical systems do. Considered as physical things you can realize why any growth system is a ‘machine’ for multiplying changes in the environment that will create conditions that upset itself.
Economic growth then, both is and is not a delusion. Every kind of organized system begins with it, and then the growth process upsets itself in one of a variety of possible ways. Whether small things might alter how the growth system upsets itself, to either form a mature and sustainable system or to collapse in a pile of dust (or various ways around and in-between) is the question. It’s not certain at that point of upset whether small things could tip the evolution of the system in different directions, but that is the usual time those possibilities open up if they are going to. That’s when such windows of opportunity for redirecting the system appear.
It’s a little like how space craft are guided using gravitation neutral points, called Lagrange points where the pull of gravity in different directions cancels out, making changes of orbital direction at those points very easy. L1 and L2 are the famous ones [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point]. For the evolution of systems, the point where a growth system destabilizes itself is where many of the bonds between the parts that define the system are broken. That makes the parts free to reorganize, at that ‘tipping moment’ for reorganization when the rules of the system are partly suspended. The big one we are now at or near, of course, is the destabilization of the whole growth mechanism of modern civilization. It’s been steadily working itself up to this point of profound uncertainty, by steadily bigger and faster steps of change, for at least 500 years, and maybe a 1000. Modern civilization is, in my view, what grew out of the Roman empire once ‘the dust settled’ from its failure. Here’s a digest of the whole system development curves I think help put that into context. http://www.synapse9.com/issues/World-eff_grow.pdf
Steven Stoll is accurately summarizing what I, Herman Daly, Bill McKibben, and James Gustav Speth all see as some of the symptoms of the deeper problem that our point in history represents. I also see a couple levels more, into both the problems and the solutions. There is a vastly superior way than what they recommend to respond to this tipping moment when physical exponential growth has ended, and culturally we find ourselves with no other plan. What they recommend is to keep capitalism the way it is, but just make it a zero sum game. In cultural terms that becomes a pure and simple plan to institute feudalism, due to the increasingly intense internal competition and conflict due to the parts of the system continuing to try to multiply. I don’t recommend it. It requires someone to have absolute power to make it stable, and I’m not ready for King Herman, king Bill or king Gustav. It would be both ill-mannered and definitely not work as intended.
Our entire problem with the earth is believing that we were “given” our powers of magical thinking to have dominion over the earth. That’s the fools notion we need to get rid of. On a planet that works only because independent things take care of themselves, it’s a mistake. Trying to control uncontrolled systems just doesn’t work, anyway, no matter how hopeful the intent. The other choice seems to be for people to be shown why now is the time to switch from using our wealth to multiply our own wealth for amassing ever growing privilege and power. The alternative is to spend the same earnings on *something else* of value. That switch in the purpose of having returns on investments, to *use them for doing good with rather than taking more* , would make money flow to what people VALUE (other than limitless self enrichment), and all the sustainability projects that deserve it would get the funding instead of money going into pumping up ever higher stakes games of using up the earth… Well, or at least that’s what it sure looks like to me!! 
Best,
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
NY NY www.synapse9.com