Mudita Journal

Fear: How NOT to Manage Complexity

September 2, 2006 · Filed under: Current Events, Intellectual, Politics
Share

I just finished reading an excellent lecture by Michael Crichton called “Fear, Complexity, and Environmental Management in the 21st Century.”

Highly recommended, as it dissects many of the biggest problems humanity as faced (or not faced), how we have fared, and what we can learn from our past experiences. Has lots of implications for so-called “global warming.”

Here’s a money quote from mid-way through the lecture:

[I]n summary, when I went back to examine old fears [e.g., of nuclear disasters, Y2K, overpopulation, etc], the first thing I found was that newspapers were focused on momentary concerns; the second thing I found was that the language employed was excessively frightening, and the third thing I found was that a lot of advocacy was encouraging what was happening anyway. But I learned some other things, too.

To find out what else he learned, keep reading.

Posted by Joshua Zader · Trackback URL · Link
  • Dean F.

    “… you know very well that a complex system cannot be controlled, it can only be managed. Because responses cannot be predicted, the system can only be observed and responded to. The system may resist attempts to change its state. It may show resiliency. Or fragility. Or both.

    An important feature of complex systems is that we don’t know how they work. We don’t understand them except in a general way; we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, we learn we don’t. Sometimes spectacularly.”

    This strikes me as a very tough challenge. Many times I have in my own small complex system … my life … confused management and control. Seemingly, the desire to act, to control and be safe outweighs any advantage the tactics of observation and response might provide. Paradoxically, that is probably what it takes even though it seems counterintuitive.

    Very interesting read. Thanks for providing.

  • Aaron

    I think Mr. Chriton is engaging in a bit of a shell game with this piece. The reason is that he shows detailed photographs and models of organisms, and contrasts them with alarmist claims, suggesting one side is real science and the other isn’t. Certainly there are reams of boring things to read and look at that advance the case of global warming, and not all of it is on a PowerPoint presentation. However, he cites the more extreme claims, ties them to pseudoscience, and proposes that these are the sum total of the argument. So is he really getting at the question of whether or not global warming is occuring? I say he isn’t. He is engaging in an ad hominem attack. Regardless of whether or not global warming is real or imagined, his argument is a logical fallacy. A closer look at global warming proponents would find honest scientists who are in fact quite concerned about what additions to a complex and not understood system might be.

    Extreme environmentalists can be very annoying, and I understand Mr. Chriton is trying to lessen their impact in the public sphere. But it’s time better spent looking at actual costs, impacts of current and suggested standards, etc.

    Also, here’s a good link for reimagining the presentation of data:
    http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

  • http://www.zader.com Joshua Zader

    Aaron,

    Although this essay has many implications for global warming, this is not his argument against global warming.

    So if you think you’re addressing the crux of his arguments, far from it.

    To see his arguments against global warming — including a lengthy annotated bibliography of citations etc — see his novel State of Fear.

    I promise you, you will not be able to brush off the arguments in that book as a “shell game.”

    Joshua

  • Aaron

    Joshua,

    You’re right, I can’t say that I’m addressing the totality of his argument against global warming. And there indeed are people who are presenting data contrary to the thesis that the world’s temperature is increasing due to human activity. However, I believe that the article you linked to was designed to not discuss just how difficult it is to know the way a complex system behaves, or to say that models of the physical world may be oversimplified, or even that some people connect phenomena isn’t actually related. I think he was writing to imply that anyone who supports global warming is using oversimplified models that aren’t accurate, and is doing so to advance their political interests ahead of anything beneficial. What motivated me to write is that this style of argument in my eyes is overused by everyone on all sides of political issues these days. Lefties will quote something stupid Rush Limbaugh said in order to discredit any conservative policy, righties find some sophomore Women’s Study major to represent Democrats, and on it goes.

    I can’t find the source right now, but there was an op-ed recenly discussing just how cost prohibitive environmental precautions will be, and that they will have unknown benefits. It can’t be known which ones will and won’t work, and none of them are cheap enough to try out in a pilot program. That’s the type of analysis I think we need more of. People were sold a bill of goods when it came to recycling, and that’s an effective example of the near-futility of trying to solve complicated problems strictly with legislation. Mr. Chriton’s footnotes might better address my concerns, so I’ll turn to them when I get a chance.

    Thanks for thoughtful site, and I hope this exchange was worthwhile. I do think there’s a lot of interesting stuff on Edward Tufte’s site that talks about the dangers of oversimplification in scientific endeavors.

    Aaron

blog comments powered by Disqus