It is debated when our proposed epoch, the Anthropocene, being the current geological age in which human activity has been the dominant influence on the climate and environment, was set into motion. Quantitative observations of trends following the agricultural or industrial revolution, can be used to determine so, as well as qualitative criterion (events), examples being the introduction of non-native materials to the environment such as radionuclides and numerous synthetic fertilisers.
The ‘frog in hot water’ analogy, is one that Andrew Fellows uses to demonstrate that, as a race, we are much better at recognising events than trends. This is implicit in Rachel Carson’s critique of the widespread use of newly developed pesticides in the U.S. (Specifically DDT), that supposedly catalysed the emergence of today’s environmental movement. However an over-reliance on events, simplified, speaks to me as an ‘act after its too late’ mentality. In one of the IGBP’s (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme) publications, Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure (Steffan et al., 2004), “strong evidence that the rate of quantitative anthropogenic impacts has accelerated massively since the 20th Century” (Fellows, A…) is provided. By looking at the total Earth system, as opposed to isolated events, trends in human activity show how anthropogenic impacts cascade though the earth system in complex ways, creating positive feedback loops that bring us dangerously closer to irreversible tipping points; The sudden release of methane due to thawing of tundra permafrost, the reduction of Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) and resulting solar heat absorption as a consequence of large scale loss of sea ice, and the shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (global oceanic thermohaline circulation) are some examples. The qualities of these irredeemable events will be outlived by the trends that precede them, as we continue to hurtle towards a state known as ‘Hothouse Earth.” Unless we change how action is catalysed.
I started writing this blog as an exercise to help me comprehend some of the more complex theories I have come across recently in regards to systems dynamics. As I type this however, I wonder how systems thinking, popularised by Donella H. Meadows, can help us develop an ecological ethic.
How to relate the above to systems theories?
Systems thinking
Systems Dynamics: This is a method used to understand the behavior of complex systems over time. It involves modeling feedback loops, stocks, flows, and time delays to simulate how systems evolve. System dynamics focuses on understanding cause-and-effect relationships and the structure of the system that drives behavior.
Teleology: Teleology refers to the explanation of phenomena in terms of their purposes or goals. It implies that systems or behaviors have an end goal or are driven toward a specific purpose.
Is Systems Dynamics Teleological?
- Not inherently: At its core, systems dynamics is about understanding how systems work and what outcomes they produce based on the interactions and feedback loops within the system. It does not inherently assume that systems have a purpose or goal; it is more focused on causality rather than purpose.
- Teleological Interpretations: Systems dynamics models can be interpreted or designed in a way that appears teleological if the model is built around an objective or goal. For example, if a system dynamics model is designed to show how a company’s strategy leads to profit maximization, the model might appear teleological because it is oriented toward a specific outcome.
- Open vs. Closed Systems: In open systems (systems influenced by external factors and not necessarily progressing toward a single outcome), systems dynamics is less likely to be teleological. However, in closed systems (where the structure is designed to achieve a specific goal or purpose), the model could take on a teleological perspective.
So, while systems dynamics can be used in a teleological context, it is not inherently teleological; it is fundamentally a tool for understanding system behavior based on structure and causality rather than purpose.
In o
Real life systems have a circular causality
circular causality = feedback
Systems are non linear : changes in input and output are not necessarily proportional to each other
Systems are both deterministic and unpredictable
There is an idea called “irreducible complexity” which basically means we can only break living organisms down so far before we have to conclude that they were designed.
The teleological argument as a means of proving the existence of god – intelligent design…
‘systems, even when they appear to be teleological, are invariably causal mechanistic phenomena’ (p.36)
according to donella meadows a system may exhibit adaptive, dynamic, goal seeking, self preserving, and sometimes evolutionary behaviour
collective patterns of dependence
systems – causality vs teleology…?
Cybernetics is the interdisciplinary study of systems, control, and communication in animals, machines, and organizations. It explores how systems use feedback, information processing, and regulation to achieve stability, adapt to changes, or pursue specific goals.
In order to take feedback as
preceded and outlived
the ontological basis of how we view earth…
how to get across trends