Today’s post is by regular contributor, Richard Jurin who, before his retirement, led the Environmental Studies programme at the University of Northern Colorado, where he launched a degree in Sustainability Studies. His academic interests are environmental worldviews and understanding barriers to sustainability. As ever, with our blogs, the views expressed are not necessarily shared by NAEE.
Computer Modeling is used extensively to try and predict future events and situations. And while these models are useful in helping us consider plans of action, they are only useful for now with very simple systems. Our understanding of so many things is still in its infancy compared to the complex systems we are studying. We are always discovering new factors – it is the way research works. When we try to predict complex and chaotic systems using computer models, they leave a lot to be desired simply because the many variables needed for such models are either variable in themselves and chaotic in nature, or many variables of the complexity are currently still unknown. Any model that predicts a future situation can be tested by predicting backwards to multiple known situations. This is where most computer models fail, so using them to predict forward is about potentials and not actuals, yet we persist in believing them as better than they can be.
The natural world is a truly complex and chaotic system, yet it gives us a wealth of knowledge in how it works successfully, under multiple situations over long periods of time. Even without knowing the intricacies of the system, we can easily observe when the system failed or went chaotic when certain observable events occurred. This is useful for our need to predict since we can then just mimic existing natural systems under specific climatic circumstances (Biomes) and avoid doing certain things, even if we do not yet understand the full complexity. Indigenous peoples have been doing this for millennia – at least the ones that thrived over the millennia. Nature has spent eons developing unique adaptations that we also are now starting to successfully mimic (biomimicry).
When discussing this idea with my students, I would show a picture of a climax forest system and ask whether it was growing or dying? They all would agree that it is growing and thriving. But it is not growing exponentially except in minor places where a new micro-niche opens up (e.g., dead tree falls creating a glade of light where young saplings grow exponentially to fill the gap in the forest canopy). I would then show a picture of a clear-cut forest and ask whether it was growing or dying? Many environmentally minded students would lament that the forest was dead until I pointed out some features of the clear cut. Yes, the climax forest as an intact ecosystem had just been devastated, but providing the soil base was not washed away yet, the resilience of the system was self-evident. Everywhere in the clear cut was new growth rushing to fill the void left by the mature trees. The many plants rush to fill the potential niches opened up by the clear cut. As the forest regrows, the growth continues with interacting species producing stability and establishing maturing groups of species self-regulating with each other. As the forest approaches a climax community the rapid growth tails off to dynamic steady state – it is never simply static.
The primary currency of this natural system is energy and it can show us a lot about how a human economy ought to work. Nature is a self-sustaining, adaptable, and resilience system. Regulatory feedback systems are built-in without the need for controlling bureaucracies. Human involvement in such a system would mean living within the system instead of trying to micro-manage and overuse it, which might be the best path of success for the human race in these ecologically chaotic times. But it will require us to reconsider our place within nature. We have many examples in the world where this different way of thinking has worked for the benefit of humans and nature. It’s not that humans can’t adjust the natural world, but we must do so within a worldview that is not predicated on factors that cannot co-exist within this natural system. As we ponder the next crucial steps for humanity’s future, we must consider what will benefit the health of all of humanity and the natural world. Our success and ability to thrive may well be based on whether we use a steady state model proven to work, or use dangerous computer models predicated on trying to continue exponential growth in a finite world.
…………………..
Richard can be contacted at richard.jurin@risebroadband.net