Arlen Wolpert: My name is Arlen Wolpert.
I studied mechanical engineering at the University of Minnesota,
specializing in heat transfer analysis. My highest degree was
MSME. I worked in ME for 15 years. Areas of application were:
1) Jet engine and auxillary equipment analysis and testing.
2) Design, analysis, and construction of thermionic energy converters.
3) Cooling of electronic equipment.
4) Energy auditing.
Of these areas, energy auditing was the most meaningful work. For example, I performed an in-depth building energy audit at the Cox Building as a consultant to Massachusetts General Hospital. The US Department of Energy used that audit as a basis for granting MGH $170,000 to make mechanical changes in the building. When I checked a few years later, MGH had reduced energy consumption at Cox from [its equivalent in constant 1980 USD of] $1,000,000/year to $700,000/year by skillfully using insights gained from the audit.
My experience in energy auditing during 1977 to 1982 led me to the following
conclusions:
1) Energy consumption in complex buildings in the USA can be cut in half,
mainly by making the HVAC system more efficient.
2) To accomplish this, corporate management must find the technical insight
and the will to slice through the Facilities Engineering Department's
bureaucracy and 'cover your ass' mentality. This holds also for corporate
management itself. The will to deal with this will arise when the price of fuel
is doubled or tripled.
3) Technical invention and innovation in energy generation, such as solar
collectors, etc., will be bought up and then suppressed by their rich and
powerful competitors, such as the oil and gas companies.
4) Only a national emergence can tame the greed of the oil and gas companies
and others who are in control of the economic and political system.
I got into system dynamics in 1984. For the past 15 years I have been applying it in the fields of psychoanalysis, phenomenology, cultural anthropology, and religion.
Here are some of my observations of system dynamics:
1) The World Dynamics model indicates that sustainable development is, as
Jay Forrester has put it, 'an oxymoron.' [This statement was made by Forrester
at his IAP lecture at MIT in January 1995.]
2) There is a tragic lack of forthrightness and courage on the part of the
system dynamics community as a whole when it comes to issues of world
dynamics: 'Shush! Don't tell anybody, but the world is headed for disaster.'
Khalid Saeed: My name is Khalid Saeed. I would be
very interested in seeing a stimulating discussion emerge on this list, but would
mostly be a passive listener.
[Khalid Saeed is Professor and Department Head of Social Science and Policy
Studies at Worcester Polytechnical Institute]
John Wolfenden: Colleagues: Arlen makes two interesting observations.
I don't know that I _want_ to believe either of these pronouncements because they seem to leave us with no hope! Surely there is always hope?
Is sustainable development really an oxymoron? Certainly sustainable _growth_ is, as any beginning student of SD could soon demonstrate. However, to assert that 'development' must be unsustainable, presupposes that it always demands the consumption of more non-renewable resources. Is this necessarily the case? Suppose that development is tied to increasing 'quality of life', then it could actually involve a reduced consumption of resources, particularly if quality of life includes factors such as aesthetics of ones surroundings. Perhaps someone could sketch a causal loop diagram of that one? I will if I get the time ...
We certainly face some difficult environmental problems - global warming,
ozone layer depletion, air pollution, fossil fuel depletion and polluting
use etc, etc, etc. But are we headed inevitably for disaster, or does that
presuppose all sorts of steady state conditions? What of feedback from the
environment to human decision processes? For example, in Australia ongoing
environmental degradation over recent decades has resulted in a concerted
effort by many in society (political, government, community groups,
farmers, environmentalists) to reverse some of this damage. Its early days
yet, but we have seen some reasonably impressive outcomes with initiatives
in Landcare and Integrated Catchment Management. Hardly revolutionary
stuff, but responsive to feedback, nevertheless.
[John Wolfenden is the listserv moderator. He is at the University of New
England at Armidale, NSW in Australia]
Finn Jackson: I would make two points.
First, I can see two cases where development could be sustainable: if it is 'asymptotic' (tending to a limit which is never quite reached) or if that development were to be continued along different "axes" (once one need is fulfilled, another takes its place, in line with Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
Under either of the above two conditions the resources of the world are still finite, and therefore limited; but within what timeframe. Has work been done which shows that 'the world is headed for disaster' within a specific timeframe? (In which case, please could you provide me with reference(s).) Or is the disaster inevitable only in the sense that one day the sun's hydrogen will be used up?
Arlen Wolpert: According to my reading of Jay Forrester's World Dynamics(Pegusus Communications, One Moody Street, Waltham, MA 02453, USA. 1973) world population collapse will occur around 2040 +or- 30 years. System dynamicists may argue that system dynamics doesn't give specific dates, only dynamic trends, but that's a cop out when applied to World Dynamics. A recent study by Donella Meadows et al, Beyond the Limits (Chelsea Green Pub., Post mills, VT, 1992) shows that Forrester's 1971 model is right on track.
The problem is population growth. The solution is to put downward pressure on population growth by reducing the following ratio: The rate of increase of world capital investment over the rate of increase of world population. Forrester points out that there are two very promising areas to concentrate on when reducing the rate of increase of world capital investment: health facilities and agriculture.
Note: This will be very difficult to accomplish, politically. That is why I say that the world is headed for disaster, unless the system dynamics community gets serious.
Greg Hennessy: My name is Greg Hennessy, and I help organizational leaders apply systems thinking / system dynamics to their strategic business concerns. And similar to Ms. Smith, I try to make the case for sustainability when I'm working with clients. I have graduate degrees in social science and system dynamics from Caltech and MIT, respectively.
Sustainable development is a serious interest of mine, and I have recently been working with Dennis Meadows in this area. However, my schedule may not allow me to participate fully in this list.
Like some others who have already responded, I am curious about some of the
comments Mr. Wolpert has made. It would be a great benefit to me (and
perhaps others reading this list) if Mr. Wolpert would provide some examples
of how the SD community could *get serious* (see below). I'm not sure I
understand what Mr. Wolpert is asking members of the SD community to do.
This is not intended to be a *flame*, but rather is a genuine inquiry made
in the spirit of learning.
[Greg is Managing Director of Dynamic Strategies in Arlington, MA USA]
Arlen Wolpert: Seriousness begins with renunciation.
Bill Braun: I'm all for brevity but this has only
whetted my appetitie. Perhaps you could expand yet further?
[Bill Braun is a system dynamicist working with The Health Systems Group]
Arlen Wolpert: Renunciation lies at the heart of the Enlightenment:
"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude: 'Have courage to use your own reason!' - that is the motto of enlightenment." Immanuel Kant
John Wolfenden: So, Arlen, are you simply advocating a courageous stand by reasonable thinking people who are prepared to shout 'The emperor has no clothes on!'? Are we to renunciate consumerism, economic rationalism, and/or some other -ism? And once we have expunged the evils of previous belief sets, where to then?
Arlen Wolpert: We have to go very slowly here, [John]. Greg's question was deep, full of controversy, and provokes alot of emotion. My answer could very easily be misinterpreted or misunderstood. At the same time, these matters are very serious. So I am building up my answer very slowly, thoroughly, and watchfully. Please bear with me. Seriousness, renunciation, integrity, authenticity, how the system dynamicist's mind is controlled and conditioned by economic forces, etc. are what I am presently trying to open up. You are getting way ahead of me.
It is necessary to do this because World Dynamics is a revolutionary idea. It has profound and very emotional implications. It is not at all like Industrial Dynamics where the great majority of system dynamicists are making their living.
Bill Braun: Please continue. How do you see [renunciation and Kant's quote] in an applied context. Perhaps some 'habits' that SD folks could develop?
Arlen Wolpert: Many jaded, tired, and overworked cultural observers believe the Enlightenment is finished. I believe system science, particularly system dynamics, is the leading edge of the still alive and robust Enlightenment. The problem is to find system dynamicists who are willing to rise to the greatness of the Enlightenment, as Kant has defined it above. What does he say?
Kant distinguishes between the ability to reason well and the
'resolution and courage to use [apply] it without direction
from another.' There are very few system dynamicists capable
of making a good SD model. So we are very impressed when we
see such a model. Nevertheless, that is the easy part of system
dynamics. The hard part is to make that model the dominant
paradigm of society's intellectual, scientific, and political
leaders. That will require the system dynamicist to tap
qualities within that he or she never knew existed.
[It has been said that if you can find a dozen people that will give
their heart and soul to a great project, they can change the world.]
That is rare, but it is what I am calling 'serious system dynamics.'
Arlen Wolpert: We are all aware that what we say here is being read, or will be read via the archives, by our clients and potential clients; by representatives of those who have the money to give our University Department grants to perform investigations; by representatives of corporation who need our advice to promote corporate growth; and [by] those who are wary of us and want to buy us up.
I for one welcome them and invite them to stand up. Let us give them a round of applause.
Chip Chin: Earlier in this thread, the reduction of the rate of investment in medical an agricultural investment per capita was suggested as a place to begin the path to a sustainable future, based on Forrester's research in 1970, reported in World Dynamics in '71. 30 years later, as we see little done in this direction, we can look at some of the decisions that would likely have been considered to implement this policy.
1. AIDS research would not be undertaken.
2. Ebola research would not be undertaken.
3. Smallpox would have been allowed to continue.
Politically difficult? As a politician, would you look at what systems thinkers have to say and make these choices? I'm not arguing for any of these choices being made, but rather I am trying to say just how hard these choices are.
Arlen Wolpert: A better place to begin reducing the rate of increase in capital investment may be as follows:
Health facilities: Reduce heroic medicine for the very elderly.
Agriculture: Reduce research on crop genetics that destabilize the ecosystem.
Perhaps others on the list could suggest other items where capital investment in health facilities and agriculture is not wise and should be eliminated.
Jack Homer: I have done system dynamics as a student and then as a professor and an independent consultant since 1973. I was attracted to the field by such works as World Dynamics, Limits to Growth, and Jay Forrester's classic paper, Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems, all of which center around the issue of sustainability. I consider myself to be a pragmatist but also an unrepentant idealist, and think that is a stance shared by many other SD 'old-timers' as well, including Dana Meadows (Dana, are you there?), the lead author of Limits to Growth and director of the recently formed Sustainability Institute.
I think it is grossly unfair to characterize World Dynamics and its offspring as covert doomsday treatises. Instead, they have always been primarily wake-up calls to reality. A part of that reality is that our world is ALREADY facing the consequences of overgrowth, as reflected in an increasing number of tragedies and crises affecting Third World populations and the natural environment. A careful reading of World Dynamics will tell you that what we need are policies that radically slow both population growth AND runaway industrial growth -- that population policies alone are insufficient to create sustainability. Forrester used reductions in food productivity and health care investments merely as EXAMPLES (probably unfortunate ones) of how one could stem the population tide. Today, I think we can point to far more compassionate (AND politically acceptable) examples of how to reduce population growth, such as the notable successes in family planning and female empowerment in portions of the Third World.
I am no expert on issues of sustainability, just a very interested systems thinker and citizen of the world. As such, I would like to hear more about compassionate ways to achieve both population and economic/industrial sustainability that take us beyond what I learned twenty years ago, rather than rehashing and distorting the messages of World Dynamics and Limits to Growth.
Arlen Wolpert: Jack: My impression of Donella Meadows et al, Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1972) is that it makes minor improvements on Forrester's World Dynamics (Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press, 1971), but that essentially it politically corrects Forrester's usual no-nonsense, straight shooting approach to system dynamics analysis.
Truth is one thing; politically acceptable is another. Let's not confuse the two.
Keith Woodford: My name is Keith Woodford, and I am a member of the
School of Natural & Rural Systems Management at University of Queensland in Australia.
We are a multidisciplinary and interdiscisplinary school, and some of us try to be
transdisciplinary. If anyone wants to look at our website the address is
www.nrsm.uq.edu.au
My position title says that I am a Reader in Rural Management &
Agribusiness, but my interests are bounded broadly rather than narrowly. I
spend quite a lot of my time working on rural development and education
projects in developing countries. I am interested in sustainable
development as an integrated process of development. It seems to me that
the processes of integration are often hidden and that typically they
involve unstated value judgements.
I came across system dynamics some 25 years ago but then forgot about it
until I was introduced several years ago to ithink. I have used system
dynamics mainly in relation to 'hard systems' quantitative modeling . This
could be seen as ironic given that my current interest is much more in
qualitative methodologies, critical systems thinking and the relevance of
this thinking to sustainable development.
I am one of the optimists who believe that sustainable development is not an
oxymoron, although sustainable growth is indeed an oxymoron. Given that
sustainable development has a strong and fundamental emphasis on equity both
between and within generations, I am uncomfortable about some of the
comments I have seen on the list re investment in agriculture and health.
In that regard I found that Jack Homer's comments were refreshing. All
predictive models are based on many assumptions. What I like about critical
systems thinking is that it attempts to lay bare all of the assumptions, not
only technical assumptions, but those that are value based.
I note that less research into crop genetics has been suggested. Genetic
research can have positive as well as negative benefits. Current research
into genetically modified rice varieties is possibly the only hope of
preventing major famines in major parts of the developing world. Much of
this research is focusing on adding genes that will reduce the difference
between potential and actual yields through disease and pest resistance. In
other words, getting more consumable yield from the same amount of
fertiliser inputs, but with less control chemicals and less waste. But key
questions do remain as to who is doing the research and for whose benefit.
Working in developing countries tends to put a different perspective on
sustainability issues. The first challenge for many people is survival.
They have the same right to survive as any of us, and they are attempting to
that with only a small bundle of resources. They are not the ones with the
large ecological footprint.
I have a short trip to Papua New Guinea as from tomorrow so I won't be back
on line until the start of September.
John Wolfenden: Dear List members
This is just a note to say 'Welcome!' to those of you who have joined recently.
The list now has over a hundred subscribers and is growing daily.
For those who have joined more recently, there are archives of list discussions
available on the host's web pages. Surf to www.onelist.com, login, and follow
the archives link.
Greg Hennessy: Friends of Sustainability,
I'm not sure what data/research Arlen used when forming his impression about
World2 (Forrester's model in World Dynamics) vs. World3 (Meadows et.al.),
and he is certainly entitled to his opinion. But (as with my last message
to Mr. Wolpert) it would be helpful to me (others?) if contributors would
provide a bit of grounding when you make bold statements of opinion. This
would really help me understand your reasoning.
Though not an expert in these matters, I have been working closely with
Dennis Meadows over the past few months and, as a result, have come to a
impression different from Mr. Wolpert.
There is no doubt that World3 is the *son* of World2. As the authors of
Beyond the Limits (Meadows, Meadows, and Randers) state: *The World3 model
was developed from World2, primarily by elaborating its structure and
extending its quantitative data base.* So it's not surprising that World3
is quite similar to World2.
It is my understanding (through conversations with Dennis Meadows and
reviewing the literature) that the World3 team focused on adding rigor to
the World2 model. Both *Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World* and *Toward
Global Equilibrium* (available through Pegasus Communications) describe in
detail the model structure and quantitative relationships used in World3,
and especially important, the scientific investigation and analysis that
went into these assumptions.
It is also my understanding that World3 and the Limits to Growth were far
from *politically correct.* While receiving praise from some quarters, the
work was widely attacked by policy wonks and economists.
It has been my experience that the detailed and rigorously supported models
that sometimes (should?) follow preliminary models often show *moderated*
behavior when compared to preliminary models. This, I believe, is often due
to the fact that closer investigation leads to a more-balanced capture of
the structure of the system -- neglected balancing processes are added, the
*gain* on reinforcing loops is lowered, etc. The overall dynamic behavior
may not change, but the peaks and valleys move a little bit. Since I wasn't
present when these models were evolving, I can't say that this last factor
applies, but it seems relevant to me.
Therefore, my impression is that World3 (the Limits to Growth model) is an
extension and improvement of World2 (Forrester's World Dynamics model) based
on rigorous analysis using the best science available at the time.
Anyone else care to comment?
Sorry for the length of this reply, but for me, exchanges at a high level of
abstraction aren't helpful. I'm not interested in reading (or for that
matter, writing) a litany of unsupported opinions.
Yours in learning,
Arlen Wolpert: Greg: You're making a good point here,
but I believe your response is a little too harsh.
As I have said, the World Dynamics model is
revolutionary. When we leave our cubicle and
go out in the world and attempt to apply
World Dynamics, we become involved in a
political force field. So we have to deal with
that as well as with technical considerations.
The main thrust of my comments is toward engaging
with system dynamicists in understanding and
dealing with this complex political force field
or political arena. I think it is important to do
this, rather than just contribute as a technical
soldier.
In addition, I have tried to point out why this
very important task is difficult to do on a
listserv devoted to the politically charged World
Dynamics. I have pointed out how World Dynamics
is different from Industrial Dynamics, which fits
very nicely into the politics of the
Industrial-Military[-University] complex.
I am doing this at this earlystage of the SDsustain discussion so we can decide
whether such an unbalance listserv discussion is advisable.
John Wolfenden: [Arlen,] I agree in principle with
your statement:
There certainly is a need to be non naive when it comes to engaging in the
political arena in respect of sustainability.
However, I cannot accept that the role of the system dynamicist in the
sustainability debate is limited to spruiking the implications of World
Dynamics to any/all who will listen. Whereas this model has certainly given
some useful insights and warnings about environmental catastrophe, there are
many other frontiers upon which a SDer can engage the wider community.
My intention was never that this should be '.. a listserv devoted to the
politically charged World Dynamics' as you assert, but rather as indicated in
the welcome message which all list members have received on joining:
Perhaps it is time that discussion on the list moves on from this particular
thread for now. How about some practitioners who are focusing upon
sustainability issues (whether at local, regional, national or global scale)
tell us something of what they are up to at present?
______________________________________
[AW: I will continue to record this discussion when it picks up again.]
Arlen Wolpert
"When we leave our cubicle and
go out in the world and attempt to apply
World Dynamics, we become involved in a
political force field. So we have to deal with
that as well as with technical considerations."
"This is a list for those with joint interests in System Dynamics and the
sustainability of our world. Its purpose is to provide a forum for discussion
of various aspects of SD praxis as it pertains to the sustainable development
and use of the natural world. Discussion could range from qualitative end
(e.g. soft systems methodology and similar approaches) through to issues of
quantitative modelling."
Whereas this preamble certainly does not preclude discussion of the
implications of World Dynamics, it by no means asserts that the ONLY or main
topic of discussion should be World Dynamics.
September 19,2003
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
http://world.std.com/~awolpert/gtr345.html