Our culture suffers an epidemic of disconnected narrow analyses. Almost every single news article, opinion piece, insight from pundits, bestseller book, or internet screed fails to absorb a broad-enough view to fully contextualize this moment in time. What remains can be effectively useless or invalidated by a more complete and enveloping context.
A small but growing cadre of folks promote “systems thinking,” broadening the boundaries to acknowledge complex relationships “external” to the considerations of typical works. Whether those broader elements involve biophysical, planetary, anthropological, ecological, or more-than-human considerations, the effect can dramatically change conclusions and prescriptions.
So, systems thinking can make positive contributions. But it has a dark side as well. Novice engagement in this heady practice can serve to amplify a nasty human habit of deluding ourselves into believing that we can master it all—that our crude maps are essentially-complete captures of all relevant aspects of the territory. Encouraged by climbing atop a “big-boy” horse without falling off, one might be tempted to think they can gallop their way into a more perfect system for humanity on Earth. I’ll make the argument that the horse of hubris is inherently unrideable, and that the best lesson from systems thinking is that systems tend to be far too complex for our meat-brains to master. We’re not going to think our way to paradise. Any place deserving the name “paradise” has never been constructed by humans, but by a Community of Life over deep time.
Clash of the Narrow
One might say that Do the Math has its roots in challenging narrow analyses to take a more systems-based perspective. The following bullet points offer examples.
- Growth can’t last. Since the global economic system is predicated on growth, this blind spot is of enormous import.
- Fossil fuels are finite. Since modernity is still 80% fossil-powered, an enormous adjustment looms.
- Food supply has been made heavily dependent on fossil fuels, whose inevitable decline very likely partners with a population decline.
- Renewable energy not only has material limitations, but aims to keep the most destructive planetary force in 65 million years fully powered.
- A sixth mass extinction appears to be underway, calling into question every aspect of modernity.
- Imagining the Likes to be separable from the Dislikes exposes pervasive cognitive limits.
- Narrow temporal blinders hinder acknowledgement that modernity is a brief flash.
- Though we fancy ourselves as being separate from nature (“above” it; transcendent), this is woefully self-centered and short-sighted. We are nothing without the rest.
It is exceedingly rare that the torrent of information to which we are exposed acknowledges any of these foundational points—let alone all at once. Okay, the finite nature of fossil fuels gets occasional attention in the mainstream, but only because fossil fuel scarcity threatens economic “health.” Compounding the narrowness-predicament is that news outlets demand constant novelty in headlines, so that the most serious broad-and-persistent threats (like sixth mass extinction) are not tolerated as standing headlines, and therefore become “invisible.”
Perils of Partial Expansion
The complexity of the universe, of Earth, of living communities, and of modernity itself—as a subset of the previous three—operates at many scales and layers. Thus, it it always possible to take a step back and partially contextualize some tidbit of factual information into a more systemic perspective. Every news article does some of this—otherwise it would come off as just a data dump. But besides being wrapped in invisible mythology, there are systems, and there are systems. In other words, in a multi-scale situation, scope matters—in time, space, species considered, etc.
Someone who explicitly values systems thinking will tend to draw wider boundaries than is normally done. The results often recommend actions diametrically opposed to prevailing “wisdom” based on narrow-boundaries. In fact, a hallmark of complex systems is that pushing directly on one “parameter” invokes many unintended consequences that collectively overwhelm and easily reverse the intended result. We often use the term “whack-a-mole” to describe the phenomenon.
For instance, suppressing forest fires makes them far worse when they ultimately and inevitably do happen. Eliminating a drug kingpin can generate even more violence and more cleverly-concealed entrenchment. Introduction of invasive species to control a specific “pest” can spiral to a far greater negative impact than the original “pest” ever constituted (see cane toads for an example). Adoption of agriculture for food security actually introduces the threat of famine by crushing ecological diversity. Promotion of renewable energy technology gooses the economy so that fossil fuel use rises. Improved efficiency results in more widespread adoption and total use (Jevons’ rebound effect).
The common thread is that complex systems can be utterly counter-intuitive—seemingly paradoxical (by the way, a paradox almost always indicates trying to apply logic while missing key contextual perspectives).
But, in the multi-scale reality of our universe, this notion applies all the way out. Very few people (in fact, probably safe to say: no one) can reach the “outer scale” in terms of boundaries. So, our mental models will always be incomplete, and any recommended action risks a raft of unintended consequences that overwhelm the original intent. A true systems thinker isn’t the one who makes elaborate diagrams of nodes connected by lines in impressive form, but the one who expresses epistemic humility in the face of intractable complexity and refrains from proffering solutions. I am reminded of Taoist sages whose greatest accomplishments rest on not-doing.
Systems-Averse
I have developed an aversion to the word “system,” in fact. In particular, I try not to use the word “ecosystem” any more, substituting words like ecosphere, biosphere, or Community of Life. “System” sounds so engineered: deliberate; designed; fully-described; mapped-out; tamed; understood; all-inclusive. It falsely conveys a sense of mastery—a tendency that is fundamental to the predicament of modernity.
This is part of my concern about “systems thinkers” (a label that I never adopted for myself, for what that’s worth). And it’s a strange worry, because such people tend to be far more nuanced and aware than most experts: more prone to offer circumspect cautions and to expose otherwise-unappreciated downsides. So, at some level I would wish for more systems thinkers. On the other hand, as all such approaches are manifestly partial, I worry that overconfidence could result in continued hubristic overreach and negative unintended consequences. The goal isn’t to master the horse of hubris, but to recognize its unsuitability for riding.
My fear is in fact somewhat amplified by the recognition that systems thinkers tend to be among the sharper tools in the shed. It’s easy to get carried away by comparative intelligence. It can go to one’s head. “All these folks around me are morons, but I have the right answers.” Danger.
Moreover, implementing wider-boundary solutions potentially invites negative consequences at greater scales. In fact, one might say this is the story of modernity and how we got into this mess. Operating at local scales in band-level hunter-gatherer groups could have only so much negative impact. In tribal life, respect for ancient tradition and intimate connection to the local Community of Life tended to suppress rash actions carrying such negative consequences. Operating with a penchant for novelty and at a global scale—where individuals loose contact with the ramifications (out of sight, out of mind)—is clearly a recipe for disaster to the tune of a sixth mass extinction.
Lest I be misinterpreted, I’m not claiming that I have all the right answers: just expressing caution to heed our fundamental limits. The only “solutions” I tend to advocate are those worked out over ecological deep time, and not by the brains of modernity—including my own.
The Red Flag
I will happily listen to those who label themselves systems thinkers as long as they stress the fallacy of getting trapped in narrow analysis—exposing the negative consequences that can result from thinking—and acting—on any scale. That’s completely valid.
But my neck hairs stand up when the same people—well-aware of the dire cost of incomplete mental models—propose a superior mental model or system that corrects some identified mistake. You’ll hear the tell-tale preface often: “What we really need is a system that…” Whether it’s about economics, governance, energy, social programs, or even a “holistic” mix of these concerns (still inherently partial), the proposal tends to be about “doing modernity better,” but still in engineered form. It’s doubling down, failing to heed the core wisdom of ceding the conceit of control.
Thus, when anyone talks of a better system that will finally work for both Earth and humans, I applaud the more-than-human consideration but remain deeply skeptical that humans are capable of designing any system that works at the global, ecological scale. It’s not an ecosystem, but an ecology. It’s not centralized, but fully distributed.
What Does Work
Ecology is so unfathomably complex that the only way it works is via simultaneous interaction across a multitude of species, scales, and environments—in dynamic process. Our brains have no business trying to tame that tangled mountain. We might peer at small pieces in isolation through a telescope from the valley floor, appreciating their extraordinary beauty and inscrutability (while remaining oblivious to many relevant connections). But we are not capable of being king of the hill. No system we conjure in our meat brains merits any expectation of improving or even not-damaging this ancient edifice.
What we can do is find (or rediscover) our place within this mountainside community. Tuck in: humility, not hubris. The best result of systems thinking is to recognize our incapacity to master the system—or even that thinking of the whole as “a system” is itself misguided, since the whole defies adequate mental modeling. The “system” box can’t be made large enough to accommodate the true value of the universe. Don’t hurt yourself trying, because we’re all connected and get hurt together.
I thank Tim Crownshaw for insights relating to this matter.
Views: 2334
Thank you for this, and completely agree.
I just read Bird School, by Adam Nicolson, and towards the end the book describes a perfect example of what you're talking about: bird feeders. In the UK there are millions of people putting out bird feeders with seed. Turns out that only some of the seed-eater songbirds in the UK will go to feeders; the more gregarious, less nervous birds go. So, these birds get a leg up from the millions of feeders, and thus crowd out the more shy seed eaters, who are rapidly disappearing, faster than they would otherwise because of the extra help the more gregarious birds are getting from all the feeders. (Add in the spread of disease from feeders, and my conclusion is: feeding wild birds is a terrible idea!)
It's a good reminder that our actions, even those done with the best of intentions, have ripple effects in the biosphere, ones we can rarely even know or understand.
It was precisely *because* we love birds so much that we stopped feeding them several years back. Besides the imbalance and learned dependence you point out, we saw increased aggression and disease spread (e.g., a lethargic pine siskin). I miss seeing them up close so often, but my stimulation ought not come at the expense of overall population health. Who am I to decide what's best? They know better, based on their own proven ways. My focus has been on nest boxes to compensate for "ugly" snags (crucial habitat) people tend to remove for aesthetic reasons. These have been wildly popular, giving me great joy as chipper families emerge into the wide world.
In my little postage stamp of land in a small town with rural environs nearby, I protect a snag, piles of down wood, have gotten up to 100+ species of plants, in a blend of come what may and bringing some things in, and mostly just leaving it alone. But what I have realized is that the birds really appreciate to have fresh water. I keep 5 gallon buckets at my porch drip line for the dogs and I always keep one topped off to the brim so the sparrows don't drown. A risk I have learned to manage, in the very close to home 'system'. Thanks for this piece!
A good example Elizabeth. You final sentence presents it's own problem though. If we truly acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and ability to predict the future, how then should we live?
E.g. Tom may get some joy from providing nesting sites from birds (in his comment below), but what are the unforeseen consequences of that? Some of those may be "bad" for certain species or even for the birds themselves? What is "good" and "bad" in an ecological sense? (let alone a universal one…?)
You are correct that I can only hope (i.e., can't know) that my nest box interventions are a net positive in a greater context. It's all so messed up that my nest boxes join the chaos.
“What is the right thing to do now?” is the big question. We are faced with all sorts of ethical dilemmas of our own making. Modernity has forced such a hugely complex, chaotic, yet balanced/well-functioning system so far away from its “natural state” that working out a “way back” is way beyond us to plan. Many of us want to actively do something to help remedy things. What? We certainly can’t build our way out of this, that’s for sure. I guess we just seek to be humble and try to stop applying so much unnecessary “force” within the system. That doesn’t mean going along with what we’ve been doing (more modernity), but rather, actively disengaging with modernity’s “forcing” and starting to let the world do more of “the doing” again. We need to hand the reins back.
Even putting up nesting boxes has become a dilemma for me. I offered to donate some to a local park that has no tree hollows (for the few parrots around that need hollows), but was told by the gardener/ranger that introduced Myna birds that bully the native parrots just commandeer the nesting boxes. Would me secretly putting the boxes up be a net positive or just make things worse? If only we hadn’t cut so many trees down in the first place, or introduced the Mynas, or etc…
I’m certainly not saying we should stop doing things like engaging in active conservation, just that things are complex and we have to be very mindful, observant and responsive to what “Nature” tells us is “right” and “wrong”.
Nature, with our foot off its throat, is ultimately the only thing capable of working out how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
As George Box said "All models are wrong, but some are useful".
The question is: useful for what?
It's funny (or maybe you did it on purpose) that you chose the World3 model diagram as the graphic reference for your post because Donella Meadows also warned about the risks of thinking in systems and some of her conclusions rhyme with yours. She summarized her views in one of the last articles she ever wrote, called *Dancing with systems*.
"People who are raised in the industrial world and who get enthused about systems thinking are likely to make a terrible mistake. They are likely to assume that here, in systems analysis, in interconnection and complication, in the power of the computer, here at last, is the key to prediction and control. This mistake is likely because the mindset of the industrial world assumes that there is a key to prediction and control."
I do have great respect for what Meadows did in LtG, and the insights that came from the effort (including limited trust in complex models). I picked the LtG figure as one of the most complicated systems diagrams I could remember. The central conclusion from all the LtG modeling was that delays in negative feedback cause overshoot. In a sense, intuitive truisms like this have great power over complex models. If a model fails to match what we already know to be true, chances are the model is in error.
Wow! Just wow! A post most after my heart, so far!
While I have my reservations about some points I commented on elsewhere, there is so much in these words for me. Thank you. It seems they are going stronger and deeper as you advance with this blog. As a lifelong learner of complex systems ever since I discovered Ashby's book and Meadows's book and of many others like Heylighen, Odum, Ball, Baez, etc. (the list never ends) and getting my PhD thesis on process modelling, I also try to think in those terms now. It's not easy.
You will be a party pooper, a killjoy or worst: a misanthrope! After all, what could be a better measure of caring for ecology than for it to benefit humans. If it does not, then we are prevented from caring for it. Quite a circular argument, but is enough to label an anti-speciesist (someone who tries not to be a human supremacist) a misanthrope: a self-hating human. How can you say a termite is as valuable as a honeybee, right? Then go and let them eat your house for dinner. I agree your point about paradoxes. It is a question of scope, not logic. Our predicament, it seems to me is the misplacement of scope: we need to enlarge it not from local to global, and certainly not when it goes against the extension from now to deep time. Would you say that circular arguments are also better seen from what they are by enlarging the scope? That they are not a circular causation, perfectly healthy in an ecosystem, but our circular logic in trying to circumspect them?… Anyhow, I'd love to see a blog post from you on misanthropy, a topic that is bound to grow in prominence as mushrooming consequences of the fastest known mass extinction begin to set in. Cheers, Tom, and have a good one!
Misanthropy is surely irrelevant. I think the point of the article was that systems thinkers, *because* they know more than the average person (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing), believe they have the ability to solve the various disasters arising from modernity.
But all the scientists, engineers etc are only experts insofar as they have studied a lot of texts written by fellow humans who existed within a system that included writing etc.
It is not possible to be awarded a PhD in wisdom.
Systems thinkers themselves are products of the system they are trying to modify/repair. They're in the same hole (modernity), and the only tools are spades and shovels (becoming an 'expert' within the system).
Lest we be too categorical, the tools of science and engineering *can* be turned against the enterprise, like demonstrating the impossibility of exponential growth on a finite planet, studying/quantifying the sixth mass extinction to raise awareness, exposing the limitations of schemes in energy and space (i.e., much of the focus of this blog over the years). Most PhDs emerge with improved analysis capability and critical thinking skills that absolutely *can* be turned toward "wisdom," but the main problem is that jobs and incentive structures don't encourage or permit turning in this direction. Modernity does not create jobs aimed at questioning the premise of modernity. The flies have wings that could be put to amazing use, if they weren't stuck on the fly paper.
"Modernity does not create jobs aimed at questioning the premise of modernity" – exactly.
Qualifications (and therefore jobs) are awarded to those (necessarily) invested in a system that values memorizing facts and figures, calculating and analysing – but has no use for empathy, imagination or reverence for Nature (those qualities instead being a handicap).
The vast majority, not just of scientists and engineers, embrace and serve the system upon which their careers are predicated. It's hard to get someone to understand something when their job depends on them not understanding it etc.
Nature is reduced to commodity when utility is the sole value. Embodied experience in the living world has bowed to only that which can be 'known' with certainty – laws, rules and standard operating procedures, disembodied, uniform, quantifiable – controllable.
At all levels, freedom is replaced by bureaucracy in a positive feedback loop. Thus, the constrictor tightens its grip.
Let me respectfully disagree. I think misanthropy is at issue, very much. To dismiss the notion out of hand is regrettable. Except we should be more clear about terms.
In at least one post before, Tom himself related that such charge of a non-anthropocentric view is actually frequent. I argue that rather then simply deflecting the charge and coming across as defensive, we might arm ourselves with a more thoroughgoing approach. We might bring up salient points as food for quick thought. Not to disarm but to engage.
One such eye-opener is the dichotomy between Homo Sapiens and Homo Complexus, a term David Cantor offers in his paper "Beyond Humanism, Toward a New Animalism", available online.
Because, who are the ones accused with misanthropy in such a denigrating sense and in such a context? Someone who eagerly looks past Homo Sapiens in favor of *Homo Complexus*. Why? The unintended consequences of Homo Sapiens is the social obligation to worship human intelligence over the living kingdom. It has now gotten to the point of unhealthy exclusion the products of which litter all scenery with its victims, highly visible and much less so. So? Hasn't by now Homo Sapiens has lost the ear to hear their cry and the eye to see them on a daily basis, sympathize with them, and do something about them as a matter of practice?
To despise such behavior under the aegis of mass extinction is morally right, and call it inherent and innate is grossly erroneous. Homo Complexus had innate biophilia developed in deep time that sustained it in harmony with the living kingdom. It didn't fear predation since ability, skill, cooperation and sharing made that less a worry and more a cost on the balance sheet of living together, respectful of everyone's needs to feed themselves and their young. They didn't hate a tiger for it being a tiger and do what tigers do. They didn't create institutions to enshrine the violent exclusion of the other. Nature kept teaching them that that was a *moral* wrong. Not a practical or mental error. A moral wrong.
So yes, misanthropy is at issue. Both its philosophical and ethical value. Disgust of contrived obligation and behavior is quite different from hatred of a kind. Philosophers, like Schopenhauer and others, who consider misanthropy deeply are NOT haters. Alas, what we call humanism to this day does not demarcate anthropocentrism and human supremacy from it. Quite the contrary. What was valuable and celebrated during the Renaissance and ever since, is that whatever is human necessarily natural. However, is it not being hollowed out, when we are losing sight of what nature is?
The cane toad article covered invasive species: "Invasive species, as a general rule, live up to their name as non-native plants, animals, fungi and even pathogens that find their way to new territory and typically have a special affinity/predilection for wiping out the original inhabitants."
For all its talk about the problem, it somehow missed discussing one invasive species that walks on two legs, has opposable thumbs, and hasn't yet found a way to refrain from polluting and depleting its biosphere.
Definitely one dominant *culture* is guilty as charged, but attributing these behaviors to an entire species is painting with too large a brush, based on anthropological study. Some cultures indeed exercised deliberate restraint, refraining from a draw-down of local ecology. Modernity is not humanity. Whether or not enough people strike such a path, other ways of living as humans integrated into the Community of Life *are* possible.
I wholeheartedly agree with the need for humility amongst systems thinkers. I don't know whether or not you intended to suggest that the authors of Limits To Growth were guilty of hubris by including that picture. Probably not, but just in case that is implied I wanted to quote something from the book, by way of defense:
"Unfortunately, there is no perfect model available for use in evaluating today's important policy issues. At the moment, our only alternatives to a model like this, based on partial knowledge, are mental models, based on the mixture of incomplete information and intuition that currently lies behind most political decisions. A dynamic model deals with the same incomplete information available to an intuitive model, but it allows the organization of information from many different sources into a feedback loop structure that can be exactly analyzed. Once all the assumptions are together and written down, they can be exposed to criticism, and the system's response to alternative policies can be tested."
Meadows et al were very much drawing attention to the shortcomings of their system model, but at the same time pointing out that it was better than what came before. They have given us who care about timescales beyond the election-cycle, and systems beyond our day to day interactions, something to reference. And I'm very grateful for that.
Yes, the LtG work was a valuable contribution, and the book does couch their work in a fair dose of humility. All the same, the image is the most elaborate system diagram that came to mind for the purpose of a banner image. Their main conclusions don't actually need a model to "validate," like overshoot coming from delays in negative feedback, that a system predicated on finite non-renewable resources will show limits to growth, etc. The fact that 53 years later and we don't have an eighth-generation World11 model says something about inherent limits to such techniques, which is all fine.
I think it's like BMI. The point is not that you need to do the calculation to work out if the patient is overweight, rather that you need to do it to convince them they are overweight.
The relevant meme is “there’s always a bigger fish,” but I prefer “there’s always a bigger umbrella.” That may be understood as the view from 30,000 feet or god’s-eye view, but it necessarily brings in far more context than most can muster or conceive. Requires omniscience.
I innocently believed in my youth that complex systems would eventually yield their secrets for understanding if not active manipulation. Of course, in our hubris, humans have not employed the precautionary principle but instead initiated changes so vast and thorough one can legitimately call them terraforming. Your top five bullet points speak to that, though the topic is still mired in debate and disbelief.
Thanks for another lovely article Tom. I agree with all that you say. I would be one of those classed as a systems thinker, although I always feel there's a touch of ego involved when people describe themselves as such, so I tend to avoid it.
I do go by a couple of simple general rules when thinking about things, given I can't know everything. I believe that there are two distinct apex issues in our metacrisis. They are both mentioned in your article, the first being the sixth mass extinction, the second separation. Thus, when I'm considering a problem I always check to see if it solves for those issues, and if not then I disregard them. For example, electric cars could solve for climate change, but clearly don't for SME. I tend to find that most people erect a barrier around their chosen cause and refuse to see it as a subset of the larger/largest issue, and even when its pointed out, they don't budge, perhaps in the name of doing something. Obviously, I'm not ruling out that I'm also erecting a barrier, but I've yet to have someone convince me of a higher cause than the apex ones I mention. Usually I'm met with trite responses about humans just being a small blip and mass extinction is just a normal phenomenon, bound to occur, which I find a rather pointless debate.
The second "rule" touches on the apex issue of separation, as it is that I don't believe it is possible (again, as mentioned in the article) for humans to create an abstract system (global) that can be sustained. It is my assumption that as soon as you create abstractions such as money, agriculture and so on, you are on the path to collapse. The abstraction, by its nature, is designed to cloak reality. For example, agriculture provided the first utilisers with food, whilst disguising the slavery involved in production, and the devastating impact on other species (requires separation). Money puts one or more steps between the spender and the producer so that we can ignore the externalities. And so on. If I measure the proposed system against that general rule, it's fairly quick to spot the flaws. You simply trace the abstraction back to the reality. I've seen several suggestions of things like "ecosocialism" as a responsible global system for example. It contains all the abstractions like jobs and specialisms, of course. None of which comply when traced backward. They always seem to start with some base assumptions that are flawed, like "we'll power this society with solar and wind", and they'll be fiercely egalitarian. Yet there is never an explanation about who's doing the mining. They simply start at a palatable entry point that requires little thought. In order for there to be ecosocialism, you need some people to not be subject to its equality. But that can be hidden by money, or by being better than capitalism.
Again, I'm open to there being a system, but my base assumption until shown otherwise (because evidence shows it to be the case) is that it isn't possible to build a sustainable system.
I find it's a useful way to cut through most things. I do still get dragged into present day politics though, even though I have little care for them. That probably says a lot about me! Always ready for an argument!
Thanks again Tom.
Building on your argument about the limits of human cognition and systems thinking, I wonder if can we know for certain whether reducing or withdrawing from participation in modernity would meaningfully slow or alter the trajectory of the sixth mass extinction? Or would such an expectation itself be another form of logic constrained by our ‘meat brains’? Given that collapse may already be largely inevitable, Is the decision to not participate primarily about avoiding acceleration of 6ME based on our limited understanding?
Indeed, one can make arguments that the manner in which modernity winds down could be *worse* for the 6ME (e.g., hunger driving mass hunting). But pretending continued participation in modernity would not maintain us on the 6ME trajectory is also a non-starter. I suppose that's why a slow melting away seems most prudent: trim out obviously destructive behaviors where we can, wait for demographic decline and economic (permanent?) depression, and muddle through to a simpler life over several generations. The lack of drama wouldn't make a popcorn-eating Hollywood movie, but might be the best we can do in a most unfortunate situation. At least taking our feet off the accelerator seems a sensible start. Not that we know where it goes from there, but just trying to do the least harmful thing.
We can try that – and I agree that we should – but I suspect that if the global Community of Life needs our influence reduced – for the greater good – more rapidly than a voluntary movement by us towards 'a slow melting away' of modernity creates, then it will find a way to accelerate things. For example, a more 'effective' global pandemic may occur.
However conscious of the damage our civilization causes – and willing to accept some reduction in our planetary-boundary-exceeding lifestyle demands – we become, we may not be willing to agree to make the necessary degree of change ('sacrifice'?) necessary (at the rate required) to best serve the interests of all of Life.
What will be will be. In the meantime we do what we can to improve prospects, and seek to learn to value life in right relationship to the wider more-than-human community.
Ed Yong’s truly excellent book, “An Immense World: How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Around Us“ made me further gasp at the complexity that underpins the functioning of the biosphere, and hence the Earth (especially in its previous healthy, “stable” state). All of these organisms with their different sensing capabilities (some/many of which we are only just starting to comprehend to even a small degree) and hence different Umwelten, interacting with each other and their environment in different and complex ways. What hope to even remotely capture this with any “systems model” we come up with??!!
We don’t truly appreciate (hold in absolute awe) the complexity of the world and the fact that our existence and survival depends on it. Instead, we blindly destroy so much of the hard-earned, well-integrated complexity that evolution has delivered. What a bloody tragedy!
Sometimes we can get bogged down, because of our bigger brains and our thinking. Trying to live sustainably, with a keen hands-on approach to energy (harvesting/storage/use; food preservation, firewood-growing, batteries including water-at-height) I can report that it takes more physical 'doing', than it does thinking.
But you have to keep the thinking up, to not misdirect the doing (yes, in hindsight some effort was wasted, even if it led to learning). And the wider the lens, the better; there is no such thing as too-wide, nor a future-contemplate too long (I won't see our trees harvested, although we planted them 30 years ago. But I did think about what to plant, why, and where).
I regard Donella Meadows as my favourite human (we are all human, none of us perfect) being. Not many people have contributed as much to our culture.