Category Archives: Natural systems

scientific methods & principles for natural systems research

Complexity too great to follow what’s happening… ??

I’ve been discussing since the 70’d how and why growth creates growing complexity and so growing difficulty of problem solving, as a natural physical limit of growth for systems with physical working parts of any kind.  A a discussion of the signs to look)  It’s both a real concern as a threat to the health of an economic growth system, and good proof that the natural world functions very differently than a conceptual model.  It led to my proposing a whole new set of scientific methods for how science can study natural systems in their own form, as forms of natural organization not concepts.

1970 marked the sudden end of steadily growing  US wages, and the start of ever growing wealth inequity. “Information overload” as a threat to societal resilience was becoming a key topic of discussion as computers emerged as our premiere business tools

Was that how the economy changed behavior, as humans began to be replaced by technology as things got too complex?

Below this discussion of the general problem is the blog comment from 9/3/2012 observing the strangely logical connection of the emergence of computers as a (false) solution for the ever more numbing complexity of our lives.

A follow-up Sept 7 2012 post Computers taking over our jobs and our pay? explores a fairly reasonable cause for the systemic decline in demand for the products people produce, that the computers making them don’t buy them…

__________

Here’s a graph of the use of the word “complex“, as found in books scanned by Google. It seems to show a distinct end to the long historic growth of interest in complexity, apparently in pace with the increasing complexity of the economy.   The complexity of all our life issues, as well as demands of education, etc. have similarly increased with the growth of the economy, but only up to ~1963.

growing complexity, then shrinking interest

Google’s Ngram tool shows steady exponential growth in the use “complex” beginning in ~1840 and continuing to ~1963, where there’s a distinct growth “inflection point” (curvature reversal) in the trend.  The clear end of increasing use of the word is a little mysterious.

The 1960’s, of course, coincided with the actual time when the complexity of the economy’s environmental conflicts, the emergence of computer use, and the rise of true globalization were noticeably exploding the complexity of things…  That is also directly implied by the continuing explosive growth in real GDP, as shown in the combined graph below.

That divergence between the two trends would seem to imply that a very large gap, between the real complexity of our experience and our cultural awareness of it, began for some reason to grow faster and faster at that time.  It seems to have starting in the early 1960’s and to continue!

Is that really “the mark” of information overload?

The combined data implies a subculture developed increasingly intense awareness of what was going on, as the rest of the culture stopped being able to focus on it. Continue reading Complexity too great to follow what’s happening… ??

Dollarshadow…

After getting the two research papers (1) that came from it through peer review, I updated the research notes page they came from, How to understand your Dollarshadow

_______

The reality is that every dollar is, on average, responsible for 1 equal share of the wealth and consequences of the whole world economy.   So earning or spending a dollar earns you a share of all the accumulating consequences for the earth that use of the economy causes.

That turns out to be much less “hyperbole” and more an “accurate measurement”, than we are normally aware of.    There are some very simple statistical reasons, having to do with world GDP/person being the world average consumption of all people.

an $8 glass of wine, also actually buys you 8 pounds of CO2

The data and calculations are quite clearly illustrated on the Dollarshadow page now.  You might find it a little extreme, that every $8 glass of wine or other consumption, unexpectedly, also buys you an added 8 pounds of CO2, to stay in the atmosphere for a couple hundred years.   It would be a quite natural reaction.

That is a true measure of the scale of direct impacts of the economy that we’ve been missing.

Continue reading Dollarshadow…

In a nut shell, what’s wrong with our world

Read my site (& your world…) with some of these questions in mind
it could help

_______

People get into trouble with believing the stories we make up for ourselves.  It’s so easy because consciousness presents them to us as fact.   If we then get attached to our stories we find it hard to change them as new facts have to be added.

It may then be embarrassing, and need to be worked out with others who also agreed with them.

To change that we’d need to stop being embarrassed about asking the “dumb questions” about things left unexplained. That hesitancy to question “the story” seems to be what allows them to diverge ever further from the truth.

It seems to be why in a world of interesting and caring people, as individuals, we develop ideologies that so sharply conflict with each other and with the nature of the world we live in. It’s quite hard to get to the truth when people are embarrassed to mention it, and we become socially committed to lots of conflicting stories. Continue reading In a nut shell, what’s wrong with our world

Models Learning Change – published by Cosmos & History

My 2010 research paper for Cosmos & History is just published. It describes how scientists can guide their models of natural systems to change along with the evolutionary changes in the systems being modeled, “Models Learning Change” (PDF).

_________

The classic case of systems that people in them will need to change their models for, is that of growth economies.  Their growth is a process of rapidly evolving organizational development, with many natural limits as an environmental system.

Ways to anticipate when the ‘=’ signs of a model should be again considered as ‘?’ marks are discussed. A change the model is called for, for example, at the point when a growth economy’s environment becomes increasingly unresponsive to increasing investment. Continue reading Models Learning Change – published by Cosmos & History

The story of the Missing Stuff

Re: Annie Leonard’s brilliant work in the “The Story of Stuff“, and the hiding places where nature puts some of the missing stuff.
+++

Annie, Hi, great work, I’ve always admired it. I’m a natural systems scientist, and… there’s a whole LOT of “missing stuff”. Closely studying the mystery of how nature organizes things into “whole systems” has a secret power, that any one part can lead you to… layer upon layer of the missing stuff. We should have a lot to talk about, but catching your attention is a difficulty these days.

Unseen universes abound, at all scales and energies, lives known only by feint traces, the true reality beyond our words

Most people assume that once they’ve found one answer to a question, that’s it, and there’s nothing else to look for. But oh no, that’s usually the beginning not the end. Like, people see 1 thing wrong with money and think fixing that fixes every thing that is wrong with money. Nope, you have to look at things from ALL sides to find ALL the gaping holes. Just patching up the first thing that comes into sight isn’t enough. After a stumble you may tie your scarf and in a hurry “look smart”, but not notice you’ve been sitting in mud! Continue reading The story of the Missing Stuff

Ecosystem decline and economic risk…

The question was asked by Sue Charman on the UK Finance Lab, How do we start predicting ecosystem decline, and if business is capable of changing?
________

 

One way is to begin to use more scientific measures of the net effect of things. There are some rather major problems with “sustainability arithmetic”, you might call it.

People tend to mix statements of social values and the numbers they use in a way that is very forgiving for whatever purpose intended. I don’t exaggerate. For one familiar example, people count their own personal waste items as their environmental impacts, such as the number of plastic bags they use.  They might count their efficiency in limiting cooking and cleaning, or running the AC, etc.

The real scale of their environmental impact, adding to economic risks, is hardly related to their personal waste at all, though. Continue reading Ecosystem decline and economic risk…

Risk of a further physical system collapse

Conceptually it would be nice to have ever multiplying money, but the physical systems of the economy are not cooperating.

Hybrid models of how money systems are linked to the physical world, show why money is putting dangerously increasing performance demands on the underperforming physical assets. Those demands need to be understood and relieved, by some means other than a further substantial loss of the fabric of our society.

If you only want to think about it your own way, and not study my insights, that’s fine. Please speak with others you think need to understand the subject, though. I think we all feel the next wave of irreversible loss brewing. What also seems at risk is further loss of our physical ability to recover. Continue reading Risk of a further physical system collapse

But, can a whole economy be “Small is Beautiful”?

Most of the popular alternative economy proposals I read about, hold out hope we can return to simple living as the source of security it once was.  But how would we actually reduce the complexity of society and return to self-reliance, while somehow keeping our modern culture and character?

Can we really go ahead to the past?  Everyone seems to want to.

I really don’t think that’s remotely possible. There’s no sliding scale of time. The future can only be built from the the present.

I also hear a lot of criticism of the “sweeping technology solutions”, and would tend to agree with criticisms of things like high speed rail.  They’re proposed as if meant to have the economic impact that new highway systems did before.  It’s inappropriate to think change can now proceed by ever bigger steps as before.

There’s also a tendency to promote things like home energy conservation as an economic stimulus, but that is not in the least bit like discovering a new cheap source of energy, for example.  Trying to imagine how societies can change dramatically seems to bring out a lot of incomplete thinking.

It’s as if the question conceals a real lack of imagination these days. I think there’s a lot of evidence we’re grasping at straws. Continue reading But, can a whole economy be “Small is Beautiful”?

Billions of cells looking for what to make whole

How a body comes to become self-organized…

begins with the perfection of a single cell and then a furious multiplication of their numbers and connections of increasingly complex design. Outside observers may know what the overall plan is from similar events before, but no cell does. As independent organisms themselves the cells just work it all out by local give and take.

begins with the perfection of a single cell and then a furious multiplication of their numbers

People organize ideas by determining rules of logic about categories, though, so our models have no independently behaving parts. That we just don’t think the way nature works makes how nature actually does work much more difficult to appreciate.

Still, you can see nature working that magic that allows distributed systems of systematically multiplying parts to become whole again, making things we like and depend on all around us. Continue reading Billions of cells looking for what to make whole

How to build a “multiverse”, the general case

Responding to a somewhat ‘edgy’ physics blog post, How to build a Multiverse, about the “creation of adjacent spaces with their own laws of physics”. here’s my “general case” posted as #comment-219799

++++++++++

It’s actually a lot less ‘hokey’ than it sounds, that one might discover small worlds with their own original “laws of nature”.  It not hokey because it’s also not in the least bit uncommon. It might even be said to be the most commonly unrecognized thing in the world.

“universal laws” may often be “local laws”, of the system from which an observer is part of

Unique explanatory models would ALWAYS be are needed where natural systems emerge with their own original interior sets of relationships.  That’s the real problem of emergence, and local originality which we observe in all sorts of both expected and unexpected places.   What such “local laws of nature” might include or discard relative to what conventional theory says is instructive, and a bit disturbing.

It appears much of what people have come to think of as “universal laws” are not at all, but actually “local laws” of the system which an observer is part of.   So it seems it’s our own self-serving questions that lead us to seeing them as universal. Continue reading How to build a “multiverse”, the general case