Life Is About Complex Adaptive Systems

What was the impetus behind this aha moment? In 1995 I read the first edition of the book, Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos by Roger Lewin. It changed my perspective on humanity’s relationship to the ecosphere.

This book was my introduction to complexity theory and the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs). In brief, a CAS is a network of self-similar adaptive agents. These agents operate as a supra-entity, as a collective. Each individual agent interacts and communicates with the others in a dynamic way. A CAS’s overall behavior is shaped, altered, and dependent on the experiences of each individual agent and that of the collective as a whole.

Before reading this book, I had an innate sense of the interconnectedness of humankind with Earth’s ecosystem services. After all, prior to receiving my MBA, I majored in ecology (I also majored in molecular microbiology). But the notion of CASs opened up a more technological understanding of this interconnectedness and made me realize that economies cannot thrive in the longterm without full integration into the ecosphere.

Economies As Malfunctioning CASs

Economies depend upon raw materials that are processed to create and exchange value of some form or fashion. The raw materials range from basic materials such as natural resources to higher-level materials such as human thought, energy, and action. All along the way, inputs of one type of material are transformed into outputs of another type of material.

Each subsystem within an economy is its own Complex Adaptive System (CAS). In fact, economies operate as nested CASs. Transactions within and between an economy’s CASs ebb and flow across information channels—the outputs and inputs that conjoin the various parts of the overall system.

The set of all economic subsystems is a singular high-level economic CAS, the master CAS in which all other economic system exists. Here we use the singular term “economy” to encompass the global economic engine, the net affect of all subset economies.

In a healthy functioning economic system, the likelihood (probability) of outputs from one Complex Adaptive System being properly received and utilized as inputs to another CAS is high. The issue with today’s economy is that outputs that are deemed of low-value (have limited utility in being processed into new outputs) are usually classified as waste products and expunged from the system.

Another way of stating this is that waste products are not perceived by the economy as worthwhile inputs for any other process. The terms byproduct and waste are often used interchangeably to differentiate what is considered low-value materials from that which is considered useful output.

The Economy Has Become Malignant

The economy is not the highest-level Complex Adaptive System. And as much as some people may like to believe, the economy is not the most important CAS either. For purposes of this discussion, we will assume that the highest-level system is the ecosphere—the concatenated, symbiotic network that encompasses the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere. It is the complex web of planet-wide foundational services upon which all life depends.

From an information theory viewpoint, CASs can only have two operating states—they ingest inputs and release outputs. In order for CASs to operate in harmony, in a healthy and symbiotic manner, all inputs and outputs must be processed. In other words, nothing is considered waste. Another CAS exists that can readily accept a given output as its needed input. This is exactly what a properly functioning ecosphere does. There is not a single output that does not act, is not received, as an input into some other CAS at the same or different level.

A malfunctioning economy–such as our current global economy–accepts the existence of some outputs that cannot be reused or repurposed anywhere. The issue that the global economic CAS currently is facing is that some of the waste products expunged by lower-level economic CASs are not readily usable by the ecosphere—or at best are not needed in the quantities that they are currently being produced.

What does this mean? The “waste” generated by a diseased economy might actually not find a CAS at any level that wants or needs it as an input. From this sense, an unhealthy economy acts more like a cancer than a valued collection of tissue. Over time, it provides little value, maybe even harm, to the larger CAS of which it is a part.

Sustainability and Growth Can Be Counter Currents

Economies depend on growth as a key measure of health. As the highest-level CAS, the ecosphere depends on resource sharing and recycling. If one sub-level CAS consumes a disproportionate share of those resources, the higher-level CASs can get out of balance. In other words, growth in one CAS is not necessarily sustainable when it results in other CASs losing resiliency. The notion of economic growth as the only desirable, sustaining measures of health needs to be revisited.

All economic outputs need to be viewed as resources that should and can be utilized by at least one other CAS—whether a subsystem CAS within the economy or a higher-level CAS outside of the economy. By retooling the economy to properly think about its inputs and outputs, this diseased, misbehaving tissue cluster can be reintegrated into the larger CAS.

Shouldn’t we want to truly integrate the economy into the ecosphere? After all, the ecosphere is the higher-level CAS upon which the global economy ultimately depends.

Additional Resources

For more resources on Complex Adaptive Systems, visit the Santa Fe Institute’s site.

Notes

Part of this article was originally posted to a Google Plus post by me as a comment to one of Seb Paquet’s posts. I’ve decided to extract my comment and expand the concept into an article that lives on my blog, under my full control. Why would I do this? See my article, Is Surrogate Blogging via Google Plus a Good Idea?

As publishers and authors scramble to figure out which of the quickly-evolving publishing paradigms will take hold, the issue of what product type is greener–ebooks or paper books–keeps coming up. In my mind, there is no longer any debate. The answer is clear. Ebooks are the preferred choice. Here’s why.

Looking Beyond Carbon

My wife (as many of my readers know) is a successful children’s book author primarily writing books about science and nature. Therefore, this issue is very close to our hearts.

Like most paper-based children’s books published these days, most of her books are sent overseas to be printed in Asia. One of our greatest fears about the sourcing of the paper used to print her books was recently confirmed: most of the paper used by Asian printers contains some pulp from virgin Indonesian rainforests.

This is absolutely devastating news to us. As avid naturalists who have literally spent thousands of hours in rainforests around the world, this confirmation of our fears hit us like a nail-riddled two-by-four in the face.

( See the Rainforest Action Network’s recently-released report, Turning the Page
on Rainforest Destruction: Children’s books and the future of Indonesia’s rainforests )

The e-book versus treeware book calculations do not, in fact cannot, take into account the loss of ecosystem services from the destruction of complex, highly-biodiverse virgin rainforest habitat. Unlike virgin temperate forests that are not as complex or species diverse, tropical forest recovery is a significantly longer process, requiring centuries. In fact, it is not yet fully clear if a destroyed virgin tropical forest can actually recover.

Environmental calculations that simply compare carbon emissions are woefully myopic. Furthermore, the more robust cradle-to-grave analyses (sometimes called life cycle analysis) are inadequate at fully quantifying the scope of ecosystem services. Ecologists are still discovering the immense complexity and real-world economic value provided by intact, virgin rainforest— vital services that are lost (possibly for good) when the land is destroyed.

Suffice it to say that ecosystem services of all forest habitat are numerous. And when comparing temperate to tropical forest ecosystems, those factors are often multiplied many fold. I will not go into the currently-known ecosystem services provided by virgin rainforest habitat. You can read the linked-to report to learn some of these.

Are We Hypocritical?

Of course, April and I did not turn our backs on the fact that books are printed on paper. Even before publishers started sending the majority of their children’s books overseas to be printed in Asia, we knew that forests in Europe and North America were being destroyed to print her books. Most of those forests, however, were non-virgin forests, having long ago been destroyed. We took some solace in the fact that very few virgin acres of temperate forest were being decimated for producing paper.

Yes, there are many environmental impacts of foresting, paper manufacturing, printing, and distribution of which the book publishing industry is complicit, but we rationalized that the environmental benefit of April’s message resulted in a net positive. With this recent revelation, the environmental calculus may have shifted to a net negative.

So the next time you read or hear a debate about the environmental costs of ebooks versus paper-based books, think about what is happening with the production of paper-based children’s books. When it comes to children’s books, we feel that the answer is clear. Paper-based children’s books need to be phased out. Paperless ebooks are the better alternative.*

What are We Doing About this Issue?

As some of you know, my project of the last several years is to build a pioneering ebook venture that will redefine the concept of book publishing and sales in the Web 2.0 / Web 3.0 Internet age.

My resolve has been strengthened many fold with this unfortunate news. I am redoubling my efforts and will be unveiling our new publishing vision later next year.

* It is not currently possible to fully account for the actual environmental costs of producing ebooks and ebook readers. But we feel that once those costs are taken into account (materials mining, solvents used for electronic component manufacturing, energy used in production and distribution, usage patterns, etcetera), the ebook ecconomy will still turn out to be more environmentally friendly than the old-style, habitat-destroying, paper-based publishing. Producing any product–hardcopy or digital–requires resource exploitation. We believe that fewer resources and significantly less sensitive habitat will be destroyed if the publishing economy transitions to being fully-digital based.

So, here are three sources to get you started:

1. My blog post, The Hot Air About Global Climate Change
2. A timely, short recap of the affects of global warming on global climate
3. A humorous, but poignantly true, report from the Daily Show

With 2010 Winter Olympics about to begin, big snow in the higher mountainous elevations is to be expected. But there are questions of whether there will be sufficinet snow for some of the planned events. Granted, Vancouver is not the coldest or snowiest place on earth, but its mountains usually have more consistent snowpack this time of year. In fact, it appears that this Winter Olympics will be the warmest on record.

As I sit in my office looking out at a gorgeously sunny day–where I live, it’s an unusual treat to have 7 days in a row with bright sun in the winter–and pondering the fact that our average snowfall is almost 15% below for this time in February, I think how odd it is that states to our east and to our south are having an exceptionally severe winter yet Vancouver is scrambling to preserve what little snow they’ve got. But then I think about the science and realize that global climate change does not mean hotter and drier everywhere at the same time. So, if you are in the global cooling camp, please cool down your hot rhetoric and learn more about the science.

UPDATE:

November 17, 2010: Here’s a study showing that Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter.

I was planning to post an article this morning about the Semantic Web and Web 3.0 but this gnawed at me as I just ran into these phrases once again. So, I decided to write a quick rant. I’ll post the more serious stuff in a week or two.

Okay, my rant is now officially beginning…

«rant»

I Am Not an Animal

Contrary to the Elephant Man’s insistence, he was indeed an animal. So was his mother. So were all the people who mocked him. So is every human being that has ever lived or is currently living.

People–our species, Homo sapiens–are in the Kingdom Animalia. We are animals just like the birds and squirrels outside my window; just like the butterflies that I enjoy watching in the summer; just like the mosquitos that I don’t enjoy nearly as much as the butterflies; just like the fish I had for dinner last night, which I enjoyed more than the mosquitoes who seem to enjoy me.

Get over it people. We ARE animals. If you think otherwise, then go back to school and take a basic science class.

People = humans = Homo sapiens = animals

animals = {people; fish; flies; gnats; beetles; cats; dogs; mice; lions; aardvarks; sloths; worms; snakes; frogs; turtles; sharks; bees; and many more species}

So, the next time you want to write about the difference between humans and animals, instead think about writing about the difference between people and non-human animals.

Case closed.

Universe in a Vacuum: It’s Chemical Free

We’ve all seen advertisements for chemical free skin-care products, or all “natural” chemical free laundry detergent, or chemical free organic lawn products.

To these amazing claims, I ask, Oh really?

Chemical free. Contains no chemicals. These are idiotic claims that many “natural” products companies use in their marketing copy. (Now, before you think that I’m against natural, organic products–I am not, I use them all the time–please read on.)

To make my point, let’s look at two simple examples of everyday chemicals.

• Water: Yep, it’s a chemical
• Oxygen: it’s one of the 117 (or so) known elements, also called atoms. But guess what? It’s also a chemical just like the other 116 (or so) elements

That’s right. Even the base elements–those funny little guys that comprise the Periodic Table of Elements–are considered chemicals, although they are often referred to as chemical elements. Why do you think it’s called Chemistry Class?

Speaking of water, not only is it a chemical, it is also a molecule composed of two different bonded species of atoms—hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, it is composed of two different chemicals and is therefore often referred to as a chemical substance or chemical compound.

So, when I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I expect to have just purchased something that contains absolutely nothing. No, that’s not sufficient.

NO CHEMICALS are used at any time. Really? Aren't enzymes chemicals?

When I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I demand that it contains absolutely nothing. It better not contain a single atom of anything or I will sue for misleading advertising.

When I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I want a tube, a bottle, a jar, a box whose contents are guaranteed to be absolutely void of any matter whatsoever. It should be a microcosm of the vacuum in deep space.

Of course, deep space is not even a perfect vacuum. The vacuum of deep space is not even chemical free. So, how do these “natural” products companies create a chemical-free product? You have to wonder. It must be magic.

It’s “Natural” and Organic, So It Must Be Good!

Have you noticed that I keep qualifying the word “natural” by putting it in quotes? Why is this?

Well, natural means absolutely nothing special. It simply refers to something that occurs in nature, is naturally occurring, or is produced by natural processes.

Well, plants growing surely must be a natural process; so peppermint oil is natural. Bees building their hives surely must be a natural process; so beeswax must be natural.

What about people–in particular chemists–who create unique chemical substances that are highly toxic to insects? Is that natural? Well, sure.

Since people are animals, we are part of the natural world. Therefore, everything that humans do is part of the natural process and all of our creations can be considered natural. I know that aliens consider us as puny little, natural organic animals messing up the rest of nature.

What? Are you kidding me?

Not at all…Oh, you’re not asking about the aliens, are you.

Natural is not the appropriate word for separating humankind’s activities or creations from the rest of the ecosystem. Instead, manmade, human made, or artificial should be used.

I prefer people remember that they are part of the natural world instead of abstracting themselves from it. That way, they are less likely to get swollen heads and think that they are separate from all the other animals, that they are not part of the ecosystem. (NB: That is why I think that the phrase anthropogenic climate change is brilliant. It keeps humankind in the climate as part of the ecosystem. See my other rant, The Hot Air About Global Climate Change.)

Okay, what about organic products?

Wow, now this is just becoming too long of a rant. But, since you asked.

The phrase “organic” is another co-opted word used by product marketers. Why? Because most chemical substances can be broken down into two categories—organic and inorganic.

If a chemical substance is primarily comprised of carbon and hydrogen atoms, it is usually classified as being organic. Thus, DDT is organic and, by the way, since it is a human creation, it is also natural. But that does not mean it is safe to eat DDT. It is also best classified as being a highly toxic, artificial chemical substance.

How about plant-based chemicals? Surely they must be safer to use than human-made chemicals. Not necessarily. Some plant-based chemical substances are highly toxic to human animals.

How Can This Get Better?

Well yesterday, when I was looking for a healthier alternative to petroleum-based lip balm, I came across this description on a “natural” products company’s website. I just about lost it when I read this:

Our all natural chemical free lip balm… is not tested on animals.

Holy Cow! I got to get my some of that!

The second thought that came to mind is that I actually should avoid that product at all costs. Why? Because when I use it, I will be the first person to have ever tested the product. I will in fact be the company’s guinea pig. I mean, if it has not been tested on animals, then it cannot yet have been tested on any person.

But then I realized that they might actually be telling the truth. Since the product is chemical free, it contains absolutely nothing. So, it cannot be tested on anything—animals, plants, protozoans, fungi, bacteria, inanimate objects. You get the point. There is nothing to test because they are selling a product which has had all the chemicals removed. So, they can’t even test it on us human animals.

It’s Just a Marketing Message

I realize that phrases such as “chemical free” and “not tested on animals” are meant to convey the message that the products are natural, safe to use, and politically correct to purchase because no non-human animals have been forced to use the products. But, let’s be clear. Natural does not imply safe anymore than organic implies edible.

Lead, arsenic, and benzene are all naturally-occurring chemicals that are quite toxic to people. I don’t know about you, but I try to avoid using any of those natural chemicals when washing my hair. Water, a natural essential chemical substance for all life (as far as we know), can even be lethal under certain uses.

Here’s an interesting article about the toxicity of avocados to some non-human animal species. Once again, “natural” does not necessarily connote edible, healthy, or safe.

Finally, the uninformed usage of the word animal occurs in more that just marketing copy. I see it all the time in news reports, popular articles written by scientists, and many times in letters to the editors. Every time I see someone removing humans from the animal zoo of life, it irks me just a little.

Am I being unreasonable? Well, of course I don’t think so.

In our science-illiterate culture, expressions such as “chemical free” and “not tested on animals” simply add to the disconnect between science, nature, and our view of humanity’s place in the world. I think it is inexcusable and irresponsible.

Okay, end of rant.

«/rant»

I bet you are now entirely confused about all natural, organic, chemical-free products that have not been tested on animals. I’m glad I could help.

Disclaimer: This natural rant is chemical free and has not been tested on any animals (other than organic humans). However, a few plants of multiple species were severely masticated as I sat at my computer writing—yummy all natural organic rolled oatmeal with locally-grown organic blueberries, organic raisins, freshly-ground organic flaxseed, and local genotype native, organic pecans. Oh, I also imagine a number of organic-based bacteria lost their natural lives as well.

Updates:

Here’s a great editorial on the foolish-popular thinking about good chemistry versus bad chemicals: Where are the champions? Viewing requires registering for a free Nature.com account.

Global climate change has two, basic components:

• Global warming
• Greenhouse effect

These terms are often incorrectly thrown around on news reports, in political discussions, and on talk radio. Sometimes they are intentionally misused to mislead the general public. However, these three terms should never be used as synonyms.

The terms global warming and climate change are also sometimes used interchangeably by some scientists and politicians (like Al Gore). By mixing these terms in such a way, I believe they do a disservice to the understanding of climate processes.

What is Global Climate Change?

In short, global climate change is the accelerated change and alteration in Earth’s natural climate cycle. This change is brought about by an increase in average temperatures within the lowest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere—from which the term global warming is derived. Global warming, in turn, is the result of an increase in trapped heat energy caused by a build up of certain gases–both from natural and human-made sources–within the lowest two layers of the atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect.

This is climate change in a nutshell. Without the solar-heat-trapping help of the greenhouse gases in the lowest two layers of the atmosphere, the Earth would be too cold to support the level of life that currently exists. But, as the concentration of key greenhouse gases increases as a result of human activity, the lowest part of our atmosphere warms faster than would be the case if just naturally occurring and produced greenhouse gases were the solo cause. This results in Earth’s natural climate cycle being thrown out of whack.

It’s Global Cooling, You Know!

Non-scientists who have an agenda–for example, certain radio talk show hosts–ignorantly (or irresponsibly) misuse the term global warming for their biased political purposes. The problem with their razor-like logic is that they do not know what they are talking about—or they are selectively choosing their data and terms to misled the public.

By focusing on the term global warming, they can then refer to all sorts of “evidence” that xyz has just had a record-cold winter, or that abc’s average (surface) temperatures have moderated over the last decade. So obviously, the Earth is not warming. It is getting colder. It is global cooling!

Up Above More Than Down Below

When scientists speak of global warming, they are not directly referring to the changes in surface temperatures over the decades (or millennia). Instead they are referring to overall changes in the temperature of Earth’s lowest atmospheric layer, the troposphere—where most of the planet’s weather occurs.

The troposphere has an average depth of 7.5 miles (ranging from 4 miles to 12 miles in thickness). It begins at our planet’s surface and extends above the altitude of commercial jetliners. Scientists studying global warming measure the temperature in the troposphere at many different places around the global. The measurements come from higher up in the troposphere and not from the surface—although land and water surface temperatures are useful for other reasons.

There are some researches who have claimed that anthropogenic global climate change is not real since the average temperature increase in the troposphere is not as great as the average rise in surface temperature. They say that satellite and weather balloon data backs this up.

However, that research has been peer reviewed and fatal flaws discovered. Here is a layperson’s article on the subject. If you are a scientist, you can search out the sources yourself and read the actual research.

The Scientific Process Has No Agenda

Those against the preponderance of scientifically, peer-reviewed evidence are simply ignorant or have ulterior motives. The scientific process has no agenda. It has worked very well for decades, bringing us many wonderful advances in medicine and technology.

Although the scientific process does not have an agenda, it is clear that some scientists (on both sides of any issue) do. All fields of study experience this unfortunate phenomena. This is inevitable. Some proponents of a theory, a belief, become so fervent in their world view that they act in unethical ways.

When it comes to the politically-charged issue of climate change, unethical behavior on both sides not only hurts the inexorable crawl of the scientific process, but also confuses the general public who has little understanding about the science behind the claims.

But, the scientific process itself is sound. The best discernible truth, at a given snapshot in time, is eventually determined. It is not necessarily the final truth. It is the best fit to the collected body of data given the then current understanding of all the numerous variables. As current processes are better understood, and new ones discovered, the underlying framework in a given scientific field improves. Here is a great example.

Hotter, Colder, Wetter, Drier

As the global climate changes, areas of the Earth will be affected in different ways. Some surface areas may experience colder than usual temperatures for a time. Some areas hotter than usual. Some may be drier, while others wetter. The weather patterns may become more erratic, sometimes even more severe. The affect of global climate change may be more pronounced in some years, and not apparent in others. So, just because there are stretches of time when hurricane activity or intensity does not live up to the hype, as an example, does not mean that the science is incorrect.

Over time, though, the climate will become more unpredictable as a result of the affects of the increase in tropospheric temperature. Those increases will impact the average surface temperature, causing it to slowly rise. Change may continue to occur in all directions, although the general trend over time will be an increasing average surface temperature.

Global climate change is simply about the rate of natural climate fluctuations being exacerbated by human activity. If we do not successfully ameliorate the impact that human activity is having on that rate of change, then the climate will continue to change at an accelerating rate, causing all sorts of potentially undesirable impacts to our planet and society.

You’re Grounded

Global warming is not something that is directly discernible by assessing the changes in surface temperatures over the decades. That is because global warming is a phenomena that occurs in the troposphere, not on the surface of the planet. But global climate change–the combined impact of the greenhouse effect and global warming–is something that can be measured in part by changes in surface and water temperature.

Science can discern a lot about the rate of global climate change by studying surface phenomena—ice cores, lake sediments, carbon content in ancient soil layers, and ocean temperatures and acidification. These studies can help to establish the previous rate of climate change and the natural fluctuations of our climate in the past. The study of air trapped in ice cores and of ocean acidity can help establish a reasonable picture of carbon dioxide concentrations over time.

I’m Not a Scientist. How Am I to Know the Truth?

If you are a trained scientist and can take the time to understand the underlying climate processes and theories, I encourage you to do so. You should read select research papers, assessing the studies’ methodologies, quality of data sets, analyses, and conclusions.

But if you are not a trained scientist, then reading peer-reviewed research papers will be of little help. So, the question is, How can the average citizen with poor scientific literacy know the truth?

That is a difficult answer. The best advice I can give is to not listen to politicians, general news reports, or radio talk show hosts. You need to listen to the real experts. You need to have faith in science.

Consider this thought. You wouldn’t go to your local congressman or radio station to have a medical issue diagnosed. Nor would you go to your local church or political rally to have your computer fixed. Medicine and technology are the happy outcomes of sound, scientific research. They are not the result of opinion.

The scientific process can never be perfect, but it strives to discern the truth. If the majority of scientists in a given field have determined something to be the probable truth, then it is a safe bet to accept their conclusions.

It is true that there are a number of examples of scientists, considered rogue at the time, whose “crazy” theories have turned out to be true. Those are perfect examples of the beauty of the scientific process.

As technologies and fundamental understandings improve, the accuracy of the body of science improves as well. Outlying theories that have merit can be reassessed, retested. If they turn out to be valid, they will eventually be accepted by the scientific community—although it may not be within the lifetime of the “rogue” scientist.

The Answer is…

The current preponderance of scientific evidence strongly points to a human-induced acceleration in the rate of change and alteration of Earth’s natural climate cycle.

This issue is being thoroughly researched and debated within the scientific community. If the consensus view is that anthropogenic climate change is real and poses tangible dangers to our way of life, then it is wise to accept this as the truth. It is better to be conservative and side with the science than liberally assume that the slim minority opinion is correct.

As a trained scientist, I have taken the time to read enough of the research and to fully understand the processes in question (to the best of my ability). I have decided to side with the consensus view, the view that the natural rate of climate fluctuation is being thrown off balance by anthropogenic causes.

It’s Global Climate Change

So, the next time you hear someone decry global warming, insisting instead that the planet is actually experiencing global cooling, you’ll know the flaws in their logic. And the next time you talk about this issue, please use the correct term—global climate change.

Related Posts:
Big Snow Equals Global Cooling, What?

Updates:

November 17, 2010: How an agenda distorts the truth. Do 80 percent of Scientific American subscribers deny global warming? Hardly.

November 19, 2010: This is another great example of the beauty and power of the scientific process. A balanced response to a report that says ocean acidification may not be much of an issue.