An important if obvious realization

[Russ Abbott]

For some reason it struck me particularly strongly the other day how important it is that we conceptualize the world as an organism that we are a part of and whose health and viability we must be aware of. To many people this may seem like a trivial point: of course we must develop a global consciousness. But for some reason it seemed that doing so would require a form of conceptual phase transition, not just thinking about the global system in some metaphorical way. 

In attempting to explain what I means, I wrote the following (on my blog). I'm copying it here for convenience.  The following feels to me like a groping attempt to say something that many people may consider obvious. I think it's more than the usual global awareness meme, but I'm having a hard time explaining precisely why. 

It seems to me that what we need on a world-wide basis is a realization that we have reached the point that we must look at the world as a whole as a single organism. What that means is that instead of thinking of ourselves as multiple organisms (at the individual or country level) living within a relatively open and unlimited environment—which had made reasonable sense in the past—we are now at the point of global organization, influence, and connectivity that we must think of ourselves as components, e.g,. organs. of a single larger organism.

Many people are going to resist that change of perspective, saying that it gives up national autonomy. But I'm afraid there's no longer a real question of national autonomy. The heart can't say that it doesn't want to think of itself as being a part of a larger organism because that reduces its autonomy. The fact is, it is a part of a larger organism, like it or not. The only valid large-scale question from now on will be what should be done to ensure that the larger organism remains healthy. There will always be smaller-scale questions having to do with dividing up resources made available by a healthy overall organism. But the fundamental question will have to do with maintaining the health and viability of the larger organism itself.

This really is a change of perspective. The world (the planet) as an organism can be healthy or not given the the use it makes of the resources available to it. It can even be healthy without imposing a rigid overall controlling agency. Fortunately we now know of many entities that are successful without an overall top-down controller. Most biological organisms are examples as are stable ecological systems and many successful social organisms/organizations. But there will have to be overall structures that constrain various aspects of the component elements. And people will complain about those constraints as violations of their freedom or national autonomy.

But I'm convinced that if our current civilization is to survive as a global system in anything like its current form, we have to make the switch from thinking of ourselves as elements living within an open environment (the rugged American frontiersman) to being components of a larger organism whose overall health we must monitor and maintain—for our own survival.

This is not just a metaphor: the world as an global system. It is a different perspective on what actually exists. We have known (but have not paid too much attention to) the idea that the global ecosystem cannot be understood except on a global scale. But for most of human history that ecosystem has taken care of itself—and us—without our having to think about it very much. The new global environmental awareness now adds to our understanding of the global ecosystem the fact that we (human society) can actually affect it—for good or more likely for bad—and if we are not aware of how we are affecting it we are likely to suffer serious consequences.

But I'm saying even more than this. The global system is not just ecological. It is economic, social, political, and cultural as well. We are now a global economic system—and ignoring the importance of that will do us at least as much harm as ignoring the fact that human society is now a significant aspect of the global ecological system. Being a global social and economic system doesn't mean that we must be a homogeneous system. The US and many other countries show how economic and cultural diversity can survive within a larger overall cultural, social, and political system. But pockets of diversity can't survive on their own. And they can't be absolutely free to do whatever they want to do. There will have to be some overall cultural, social, and political constraints. Figuring out how to organize the overall system so that it is minimally constraining is one of the challenges we have faced and will continue to face. But we can't pretend that there will not be an overall system that must be kept viable and healthy.

Is the world a single organisms whose health we must look after? If so—and at this point we are so interconnected that it seems hard to doubt it—we must acknowledge that fact and begin to take seriously our responsibility for maintaining the health of the global organism. Thinking this way will be a transition that will be difficult for many people. But it's a transition we must make.

-- Russ A


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Robert Holmes]

Sounds a lot like Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. As ever, Wikipedia is a good starting point for links and references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Interesting factoid: the name Gaia was suggested to Lovelock by his neighbor William Golding (Lord of the Flies)

-- Robert

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

For some reason it struck me particularly strongly the other day how important it is that we conceptualize the world as an organism that we are a part of and whose health and viability we must be aware of. To many people this may seem like a trivial point: of course we must develop a global consciousness. But for some reason it seemed that doing so would require a form of conceptual phase transition, not just thinking about the global system in some metaphorical way. 

In attempting to explain what I means, I wrote the following (on my blog). I'm copying it here for convenience.  The following feels to me like a groping attempt to say something that many people may consider obvious. I think it's more than the usual global awareness meme, but I'm having a hard time explaining precisely why. 

It seems to me that what we need on a world-wide basis is a realization that we have reached the point that we must look at the world as a whole as a single organism. What that means is that instead of thinking of ourselves as multiple organisms (at the individual or country level) living within a relatively open and unlimited environment—which had made reasonable sense in the past—we are now at the point of global organization, influence, and connectivity that we must think of ourselves as components, e.g,. organs. of a single larger organism.

Many people are going to resist that change of perspective, saying that it gives up national autonomy. But I'm afraid there's no longer a real question of national autonomy. The heart can't say that it doesn't want to think of itself as being a part of a larger organism because that reduces its autonomy. The fact is, it is a part of a larger organism, like it or not. The only valid large-scale question from now on will be what should be done to ensure that the larger organism remains healthy. There will always be smaller-scale questions having to do with dividing up resources made available by a healthy overall organism. But the fundamental question will have to do with maintaining the health and viability of the larger organism itself.

This really is a change of perspective. The world (the planet) as an organism can be healthy or not given the the use it makes of the resources available to it. It can even be healthy without imposing a rigid overall controlling agency. Fortunately we now know of many entities that are successful without an overall top-down controller. Most biological organisms are examples as are stable ecological systems and many successful social organisms/organizations. But there will have to be overall structures that constrain various aspects of the component elements. And people will complain about those constraints as violations of their freedom or national autonomy.

But I'm convinced that if our current civilization is to survive as a global system in anything like its current form, we have to make the switch from thinking of ourselves as elements living within an open environment (the rugged American frontiersman) to being components of a larger organism whose overall health we must monitor and maintain—for our own survival.

This is not just a metaphor: the world as an global system. It is a different perspective on what actually exists. We have known (but have not paid too much attention to) the idea that the global ecosystem cannot be understood except on a global scale. But for most of human history that ecosystem has taken care of itself—and us—without our having to think about it very much. The new global environmental awareness now adds to our understanding of the global ecosystem the fact that we (human society) can actually affect it—for good or more likely for bad—and if we are not aware of how we are affecting it we are likely to suffer serious consequences.

But I'm saying even more than this. The global system is not just ecological. It is economic, social, political, and cultural as well. We are now a global economic system—and ignoring the importance of that will do us at least as much harm as ignoring the fact that human society is now a significant aspect of the global ecological system. Being a global social and economic system doesn't mean that we must be a homogeneous system. The US and many other countries show how economic and cultural diversity can survive within a larger overall cultural, social, and political system. But pockets of diversity can't survive on their own. And they can't be absolutely free to do whatever they want to do. There will have to be some overall cultural, social, and political constraints. Figuring out how to organize the overall system so that it is minimally constraining is one of the challenges we have faced and will continue to face. But we can't pretend that there will not be an overall system that must be kept viable and healthy.

Is the world a single organisms whose health we must look after? If so—and at this point we are so interconnected that it seems hard to doubt it—we must acknowledge that fact and begin to take seriously our responsibility for maintaining the health of the global organism. Thinking this way will be a transition that will be difficult for many people. But it's a transition we must make.

-- Russ A


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Russ Abbott]

As generally understood the Gaia hypothesis is taken to be a somewhat mystical mechanism. Wikipedia puts it as follows.

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climaticbiogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis.

More dispassionately, I think of Gaia as a name used to refer to (some of) the homeostatic mechanisms that maintain conditions on earth within a fairly large basin of attraction that we find convenient.  We are fortunate that such mechanisms have worked in the past. (Or if one wants to drag in the anthropic principle, if they hadn't we wouldn't be here to be grateful about it.) But I wouldn't reify those mechanisms as a sort of global consciousness as it often is. What I'm saying is that we must now start to be explicitly conscious about global conditions--and not just about ecological conditions but about social, economic, and political conditions as well.

-- Russ A

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sounds a lot like Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. As ever, Wikipedia is a good starting point for links and references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Interesting factoid: the name Gaia was suggested to Lovelock by his neighbor William Golding (Lord of the Flies)

-- Robert

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

For some reason it struck me particularly strongly the other day how important it is that we conceptualize the world as an organism that we are a part of and whose health and viability we must be aware of. To many people this may seem like a trivial point: of course we must develop a global consciousness. But for some reason it seemed that doing so would require a form of conceptual phase transition, not just thinking about the global system in some metaphorical way. 

In attempting to explain what I means, I wrote the following (on my blog). I'm copying it here for convenience.  The following feels to me like a groping attempt to say something that many people may consider obvious. I think it's more than the usual global awareness meme, but I'm having a hard time explaining precisely why. 

It seems to me that what we need on a world-wide basis is a realization that we have reached the point that we must look at the world as a whole as a single organism. What that means is that instead of thinking of ourselves as multiple organisms (at the individual or country level) living within a relatively open and unlimited environment—which had made reasonable sense in the past—we are now at the point of global organization, influence, and connectivity that we must think of ourselves as components, e.g,. organs. of a single larger organism.

Many people are going to resist that change of perspective, saying that it gives up national autonomy. But I'm afraid there's no longer a real question of national autonomy. The heart can't say that it doesn't want to think of itself as being a part of a larger organism because that reduces its autonomy. The fact is, it is a part of a larger organism, like it or not. The only valid large-scale question from now on will be what should be done to ensure that the larger organism remains healthy. There will always be smaller-scale questions having to do with dividing up resources made available by a healthy overall organism. But the fundamental question will have to do with maintaining the health and viability of the larger organism itself.

This really is a change of perspective. The world (the planet) as an organism can be healthy or not given the the use it makes of the resources available to it. It can even be healthy without imposing a rigid overall controlling agency. Fortunately we now know of many entities that are successful without an overall top-down controller. Most biological organisms are examples as are stable ecological systems and many successful social organisms/organizations. But there will have to be overall structures that constrain various aspects of the component elements. And people will complain about those constraints as violations of their freedom or national autonomy.

But I'm convinced that if our current civilization is to survive as a global system in anything like its current form, we have to make the switch from thinking of ourselves as elements living within an open environment (the rugged American frontiersman) to being components of a larger organism whose overall health we must monitor and maintain—for our own survival.

This is not just a metaphor: the world as an global system. It is a different perspective on what actually exists. We have known (but have not paid too much attention to) the idea that the global ecosystem cannot be understood except on a global scale. But for most of human history that ecosystem has taken care of itself—and us—without our having to think about it very much. The new global environmental awareness now adds to our understanding of the global ecosystem the fact that we (human society) can actually affect it—for good or more likely for bad—and if we are not aware of how we are affecting it we are likely to suffer serious consequences.

But I'm saying even more than this. The global system is not just ecological. It is economic, social, political, and cultural as well. We are now a global economic system—and ignoring the importance of that will do us at least as much harm as ignoring the fact that human society is now a significant aspect of the global ecological system. Being a global social and economic system doesn't mean that we must be a homogeneous system. The US and many other countries show how economic and cultural diversity can survive within a larger overall cultural, social, and political system. But pockets of diversity can't survive on their own. And they can't be absolutely free to do whatever they want to do. There will have to be some overall cultural, social, and political constraints. Figuring out how to organize the overall system so that it is minimally constraining is one of the challenges we have faced and will continue to face. But we can't pretend that there will not be an overall system that must be kept viable and healthy.

Is the world a single organisms whose health we must look after? If so—and at this point we are so interconnected that it seems hard to doubt it—we must acknowledge that fact and begin to take seriously our responsibility for maintaining the health of the global organism. Thinking this way will be a transition that will be difficult for many people. But it's a transition we must make.

-- Russ A

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Russ Abbott]

Thanks for the comments Patrick,

Gaia bothers me a bit. As you say, it may not be just "anthropomorphic babble", but it sounds a lot like it--especially if referred to as "she/her."  Someone on the Friday group also mentioned Gaia.  I had this to say.

As generally understood the Gaia hypothesis is taken to be a somewhat mystical mechanism. Wikipedia puts it as follows.

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climaticbiogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis.

More dispassionately, I think of Gaia as a name used to refer to (some of) the homeostatic mechanisms that maintain conditions on earth within a fairly large basin of attraction that we find convenient.  We are fortunate that such mechanisms have worked in the past. (Or if one wants to drag in the anthropic principle, if they hadn't we wouldn't be here to be grateful about it.) But I wouldn't reify those mechanisms as a sort of global consciousness as it often is. What I'm saying is that we must now start to be explicitly conscious about global conditions--and not just about ecological conditions but about social, economic, and political conditions as well.

I'm less convinced that Gaia "will sort things out again after we have gone."  Certainly the universe will continue after we've gone. But that's small comfort if one cares about this civilization.  Look what happened to Venus--even without the "benefit" of human intervention. Is there really sound reason to believe that the same thing can't happen here?  Homeostatic mechanisms can respond to only a limited range of disturbances. They won't always work--and once a system switches from one attractor to another it's hard to move back to the former one. 


-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Cell phone: [phone]
o Check out my blog at http://russabbott.blogspot.com/

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Patrick Beautement <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ,

Yes, hence the value of James Lovelock's thinking of the Earth in terms he characterised as "GAIA".

 

At present, GAIA has the the flu, and 'her' high temperature may result in 'her' immune system doing away with that nasty 'human' virus that is making her so ill.

They, 'her' powerful homeostatic / autonomic processes, will sort things out again after we have gone.

 

This is not just anthropomorphic babble - behind Lovelock's 'theory' is some really solid and elegant complexity science - just very much ahead of its time.

If you haven't read his books, I recommend you do.

 

You say "The global system is not just ecological. It is economic, social, political, and cultural as well. We are now a global economic system—and ignoring the importance of that will do us at least as much harm as ignoring the fact that human society is now a significant aspect of the global ecological system." - I though people always understood this? There was a lovely discussion one lunch at Complex 07 in Brisbane about the Internet being the way that Gaia could become 'self-aware' through her humanoid agents. And that was why the 'democratic' nature of the Internet was so important as it allowed humanity to realise its 'identity'.

 

Lots of philosophical assumptions here, BUT, the truth of this is the understanding (brought our in the public discussion of climate change at Complex 09 in Warwick last month) that the only corrective mechanisms with the 'requisite variety' for large scale climate 'correction' are Gaia's - human intervention is too clumsy.

[There is then a nice discussion to be had about how humans can tweak what Gaia is already doing (top-down, bottle up or via existing autonomic activities) - I would contend that we have a conceptual framework available for this already].

 

A wonderful public discussion then followed about data - the lack of it, whether we knew what to collect, whether it was collectable by humans anyway (so many hidden processes (Bill Chamberlain and I have identified at least 58 levels of abstraction / nesting where relevant 'data' may be hidden') etc.

'The modellers' (David Batty and others) then conceded the inadequacy of what had / was being done in these respects.

[The video of this will be on the web eventually]

 

Now there's a good case study for Paris?

Best wishes, Patrick

 Patrick Beautement
 Research Director
 [hidden email]
 [phone]
 www.abacipartners.co.uk
============================
The abaci Partnership LLP is registered in England No. OC316272.
Registered Office: 10 Beauchamp Road, Tewkesbury, GL20 7TA.
This email and any attachment(s) are for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this email and any attachment(s) and inform the sender.

 

---

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: 04 October 2009 23:27
To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [Causality in Complex Systems] An important if obvious realization

For some reason it struck me particularly strongly the other day how important it is that we conceptualize the world as an organism that we are a part of and whose health and viability we must be aware of. To many people this may seem like a trivial point: of course we must develop a global consciousness. But for some reason it seemed that doing so would require a form of conceptual phase transition, not just thinking about the global system in some metaphorical way. 

In attempting to explain what I means, I wrote the following (on my blog). I'm copying it here for convenience.  The following feels to me like a groping attempt to say something that many people may consider obvious. I think it's more than the usual global awareness meme, but I'm having a hard time explaining precisely why. 

It seems to me that what we need on a world-wide basis is a realization that we have reached the point that we must look at the world as a whole as a single organism. What that means is that instead of thinking of ourselves as multiple organisms (at the individual or country level) living within a relatively open and unlimited environment—which had made reasonable sense in the past—we are now at the point of global organization, influence, and connectivity that we must think of ourselves as components, e.g,. organs. of a single larger organism.

Many people are going to resist that change of perspective, saying that it gives up national autonomy. But I'm afraid there's no longer a real question of national autonomy. The heart can't say that it doesn't want to think of itself as being a part of a larger organism because that reduces its autonomy. The fact is, it is a part of a larger organism, like it or not. The only valid large-scale question from now on will be what should be done to ensure that the larger organism remains healthy. There will always be smaller-scale questions having to do with dividing up resources made available by a healthy overall organism. But the fundamental question will have to do with maintaining the health and viability of the larger organism itself.

This really is a change of perspective. The world (the planet) as an organism can be healthy or not given the the use it makes of the resources available to it. It can even be healthy without imposing a rigid overall controlling agency. Fortunately we now know of many entities that are successful without an overall top-down controller. Most biological organisms are examples as are stable ecological systems and many successful social organisms/organizations. But there will have to be overall structures that constrain various aspects of the component elements. And people will complain about those constraints as violations of their freedom or national autonomy.

But I'm convinced that if our current civilization is to survive as a global system in anything like its current form, we have to make the switch from thinking of ourselves as elements living within an open environment (the rugged American frontiersman) to being components of a larger organism whose overall health we must monitor and maintain—for our own survival.

This is not just a metaphor: the world as an global system. It is a different perspective on what actually exists. We have known (but have not paid too much attention to) the idea that the global ecosystem cannot be understood except on a global scale. But for most of human history that ecosystem has taken care of itself—and us—without our having to think about it very much. The new global environmental awareness now adds to our understanding of the global ecosystem the fact that we (human society) can actually affect it—for good or more likely for bad—and if we are not aware of how we are affecting it we are likely to suffer serious consequences.

But I'm saying even more than this. The global system is not just ecological. It is economic, social, political, and cultural as well. We are now a global economic system—and ignoring the importance of that will do us at least as much harm as ignoring the fact that human society is now a significant aspect of the global ecological system. Being a global social and economic system doesn't mean that we must be a homogeneous system. The US and many other countries show how economic and cultural diversity can survive within a larger overall cultural, social, and political system. But pockets of diversity can't survive on their own. And they can't be absolutely free to do whatever they want to do. There will have to be some overall cultural, social, and political constraints. Figuring out how to organize the overall system so that it is minimally constraining is one of the challenges we have faced and will continue to face. But we can't pretend that there will not be an overall system that must be kept viable and healthy.

Is the world a single organisms whose health we must look after? If so—and at this point we are so interconnected that it seems hard to doubt it—we must acknowledge that fact and begin to take seriously our responsibility for maintaining the health of the global organism. Thinking this way will be a transition that will be difficult for many people. But it's a transition we must make.

-- Russ A

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "Causality in Complex Systems".
To post to this group, send email to
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Causality_in_Complex_Systems?hl=en?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org