What Have We Done?

 

 

The World on Fire

Introduction

Apparently scientists are “shocked” or “scared” at the ever increasing rate of climate change. This year alone we have seen huge forest fires, like in California or in Siberia, flash floods, like those in Germany, China, or in Tennessee. We have even seen powerful tornadoes in the Czech Republic. But I don’t see any reason to be “shocked” by all this. Perhaps “scared” but not “shocked”. It is not as if this hasn’t been predicted. Scientists have been warning that this would happen for decades. Even if things are happening faster than expected that should have been given as a possibility. The climate is, after all, a non-linear, chaotic system and such systems can suddenly flip from one state to another state. Such a change is called a phase shift.

Despite all the warnings and all the evidence we haven't actually done anything to prevent the current changes have we? I’m sure we are all buying “environmentally friendly” stuff. We are all using some kind of “bio fuel” and our government has made all kinds of environmental agreements and introduced schemes like carbon tax. Yet, all that hasn’t really done much has it? It’s like throwing a bucket of water of the fires in California or Siberia; pissing in the ocean. And just to add to the problem, we have been busy with climate change denial and other activities to counter any advance we might make.

What’s the Problem?

Is the problem too little carbon tax or what stuff we buy? I would say no. And if that is so, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that we are not having much effect on preventing climate change. I would argue that the problem is to do with the way we do things in general; with our whole socioeconomic system.

Our socioeconomic system is a debt based money system that aims to grow exponentially with finite resources. This leads to an amazing advancement in human civilisation but it is also fundamentally unsustainable. We produce more and more stuff and in doing so produce more and more waste as goods are not made to last. We end up over exploiting the planets resources and creating the conditions for climate change as well as many other problems. So, if we really want to do something about climate change then we need to change our current socioeconomic system to something sustainable.

An Alternative?

There are probably many alternative socioeconomic systems to our current one. But I would propose one where we can maintain a high standard of living but one where we also balance our needs with those of the planet. We could do this given the huge waste we have in our current system. Think about cars, just as an example. Cars spend most of their time standing still in a car park or garage or just by the side of the road. Most of them are not actually doing something useful most of the time. Now imagine a system where cars are used for 80% of the time. We could do that if we shared cars. If I was to take my car to work in the morning I wouldn't just park it and leave it for the day until I need to drive home again. Instead, the car could be used by someone else to drive them to work or for other tasks. At the end of the the car would be ready and waiting to take me home again. So long as the car is there when I need it, does it matter if others also use it? If we had such a system we would need far less cars. If we had a system that minimised transport needs (by, for example, work from home) we could cut down the amount of cars even more. If we also made cars to last, we would not have to make so many new ones each year. If we did this for as many products as possible then we could drastically reduce our impact on the planet yet still maintain a high standard of living.

We can’t have such a system in our money based world, so I would propose a system without money. To do that we would still need some way to account for all the materials and energy we have in the system. We could do that by using exergy. Exergy is a measure of how useful the energy we have is (we can’t always use all the energy we have) but it can also be used to measure materials. If we use exergy we would have, what I would call, an energy accounting system. We could then allocate production capacity to people so they decide what gets produced or what services they can use. As the capacity to produce or consume a service will take energy and materials we can use exergy as a way to allocate these to the people.

But for such a system like that to work it will need experts to run it. The whole system is complex and is made of systems within systems. Just to understand how one part of it works can take many years of study or experience. So, we would need teams of experts from different disciplines to run the system, calculate out the exergy, allocate production capacity, and keep things running.

Such a system would also need to balance our needs with those of nature; it will be sustainable by design from the beginning. Again, we will need experts to design the system and the systems within the systems. Cars are just one example of that but cars are part of a transport system. If we think about how a transport system works and what it aims to do, we can start thinking about how to build such a system so it has minimum impact on nature. We wont have to worry about profit or cost, we just need to know if we have the energy and the resources to achieve the goal. But a transport system are part of cities as well, so we would have to think of transport within the context of cities and the other systems that make a city.

The system I propose is really about engineering society. It takes a scientific approach to what we do. Scientific because we need a good understanding of how nature works in order to balance our needs with those of the planet and still maintain a high standard of living. Science is demonstrably the best system for understanding the world. What I propose is engineering society as it is about applying science to society.

A Way Forward

The Bio Dome that EOS built

I say “I propose” but this is not just my proposal. There are a number of groups around the world working on similar ideas. One of the more well known groups is the Venus Project in the US but the proposal I have just introduced here is put forward by a group called EOS, which is based in Sweden. The full proposal can be found here. But a summery is also presented here and here.

If we want a sustainable future, a future that balances our needs with those of the planet, a sustainable future, then we need to act ourselves. It is not going to build it self. We also ready have people acting. EOS has not only worked on a proposal but has started to test some of the ideas out. From simple projects like building a bio dome, EOS is now working on building a test community. But more needs to be done. More people and more finances (irritatingly for an organisation that wants a moneyless world).

What can scientists achieve during pandemics?

San Francisco

Introduction

It’s been quite fascinating watching the feed on my facebook page. Beautiful, even if somewhat eerie pictures from San Francisco where the sky is a burnt orange just like the sky in Blade Runner 2049. A comparison that has not gone unnoticed as many pictures on my facebook page testify. Images are shown comparing the real sky in San Francisco to the computer generated sky in Blade Runner 2049. I’ve even seen people recreate scenes from Blade Runner 2049 using the sky of San Francisco.

Blade Runner 2049 is, of course, a dystopian sci-fi film. The images passing by as a scroll down my facebook page all makes it seem like we are heading to a dystopian future. It is not just the images of California on fire but we now live on a planet that has gone into lockdown due to a pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus. How more dystopian sci-fi can you get than that? Perhaps even more. We have many more dystopian scenarios just around the corner; resource depletion and climate change to mention but two. The wild fires in California as well as those in other places such as Australia, Russia, and Sweden are all linked to the ominous approach of climate change but other disasters face us such as biodiversity collapse. If only someone had warned us that this dystopian future would happen!

But they did warn us, people in the know warned us, and what did we do with the timely warnings? It is like riding on a bus where we are all heading to the sheer cliff of certain doom. The all too few passengers at the back of the bus try to warn the all too committed driver but the driver continues to apply increasing pressure to the accelerator so the bus travels faster and faster as it heads to the cliff edge. The other passengers on the bus responded to the situation by painting the bus green. It’s better to do something than nothing, isn’t it?

But now we are in a planet around lockdown as a pandemic rages as if we are in our own dystopian sci-fi. But this gives us a little time to think. So, what can scientists achieve during pandemics? How about coming up with something to solve the bugbear of climate change and resource problems we are heading into? How about a sustainable socio-economic system that balances our needs with the needs of the planet? Clearly, whatever we are doing at the moment doesn’t work. So, we need a new approach. I think this is something that will take scientists from many disciplines, working together, to come up with both an alternative and a way to implement it.

I would split this vital project into two parts. First, what do we need? And second, how do we get there?

What do we need?

By “what do we need”, I’m asking about the social-economic system. Scientists could use their fiery imagination and wealth of knowledge to ask “what would a sustainable socio-economic system look like?” If we could start from scratch, how would we design such a system? If we were to base such a design in science and engineering we would, most likely, end up with a system so vary different from our mess of a current system. 

In the beginning there was physics. An economic system has at its core root a physical reality; materials, energy, and people. We could view such a system as a resource allocation system. But how could the resources be allocated in a sustainable socio-economic system?To start with, we can use physics and chemistry as our foundation. Physicists have developed enlightening theories regarding energy and this also overlaps into the wonderful world of chemistry. We can use concepts already developed to account for the energy in an economic system. Or even more interestingly, we can account for the usable energy in the system, the exergy. But we could also use concepts such as energy memory (emergy) as well. If we use exergy we could also account for materials in the system, the resources we use to make things. So, we now have a possible accounting system that scientists can explore and see how we could use such a system to measure and account for the processes we have in a socioeconomic system. 

At this point we could throw in the marvels of biology and ecology. How would a sustainable socio-economic system be organised? We could see such a system as an interconnected network of production facilities, such as factories and farms as well as people, we could see it as a web of life. To model such a system we could understand it as a biological system. We could then bring in concepts such as holons and see it as a holonic system. Networks within networks within networks, producing a complex society. But there is more to it than this; sustainability. For the system to be sustainable we need a good understanding of biology and how the natural world works so that we can balance our needs with those of the planet. So that we can protect the planet instead of destroying it. Mimicking the beauty of biology. So now we have an area where all kinds of scientists with a knowledge of biology can contribute to the design. But the complexities of networking could also bring in mathematicians as well.

If we look at the intricacies of the people aspect we could see plenty of room for sociologists and psychologists to contributor to the design. After all, if we design a sustainable socio-economic system all kinds of people will be involved and the monkey in the loop is always the weakest point. So, can we design in the human element from the start? Design the system to include the ambiguities of human behaviour in such a way that people contribute to the sustainable nature of the system. But also can we design the system to give a high standard of living for everyone on the planet? Something of interest for anyone interested in human behaviour and societies. How would that work? We already see the human element designed into many business models such as social media with the effect of the like button and the creation of reality bubbles. How about using such ideas in persuasion engineering to benefit the planet?

Going back to networking, not only is that of interest to mathematicians but also to computer scientists. This could bring up the whole idea of automation as well as Artificial Intelligence. How would they apply to a new socio-economic system? Robotics, automation, and AI have the potential to reduce the drudgery of people’s work and to optimise systems to minimise environmental impact. How could we do that? Also, if we reduce people’s work how would we effectively allocate the finite resources of our home planet evenly between people? Now we are starting to see how the different areas of science actually beautify intersect with each other. Designing a new socio-economic system isn’t about scientists working in their own ivory tower. It’s all about teamwork.

But if we make the system sustainable by design, from the start, then that could mean less production and goods having a longer life expectancy. We could also see designs for recycling and reuse, built right in to the core of the system. This is another area where it will take collection of teams from multiple disciplines working together. It will take physics and chemistry to design things that have a low environmental impact and long life. To design things sustainable. And sociologists and psychologists to look at the impact of producing less on society.

How do we get there?

We have had credible warnings for over a century that we would have problems with climate change and global warming. We have had warnings since the time of M. King Hubbert that we will have resource problems. Yet, what have we done with these precocious warnings? What have we done with the precious time it has given us? These warnings come from credible people. People who know what they are talking about. Yet all we have done is find excuses to carry on as we are. Frittered away the time we had. At best we have painted the facade of a rotting building green to make it look pretty.

So, if we want a sustainable future then we need a way to achieve that? How can we do that? How can we do that in a way that works? Can’t we use our knowledge of sociology and psychology to nudge people in the right direction? Towards a sustainable society and away from our current destructive path that we now wonder? There is a task for sociologists, psychologists and even political scientists and behavioural scientists.

But it is not just a case of gentle persuasion, nudging people in the right direction, there is also a question of demonstrating. There is no point in having scientists apply their knowledge to the problem of a sustainable society if their design doesn’t work. So we need a way to build a test platform, a way of showing that we can indeed have a sustainable society, one that balances our needs with those of the planet.

For that we need to experiment. Some of that can be done in cyberspace, the domain of computer scientists. Computer simulations to explore ideas but computer simulations can only get us so far on our life-sustaining journey. Somewhere along the line we will need to experiment in the real world. The first rule of research is to get someone else to pay for it. So, then we will need the collective experience of scientists in applying for grants. 

The Phoenix Arises

But what happens if scientists don’t take up the challenge of designing a sustainable society? One that has a high standard of living for everyone? One that balances our needs with the planet? Will we not just continue on the doomed path to disaster unredeemed that we aimlessly travel upon? What happens then? Are we finished as a species?

Another task that scientists could put their minds to is how to both survive a devastating planet around disaster and then rebuild afterwards as a phoenix arises from the ashes. Rebuild something that is sustainable. It has been argued that we will not be able to build a sustainable society in the present socio-polticial climate. That it will take a collapse before we can build something.

If that is really the case (and perhaps we can determine if it is) then how do we survive? How do we sow the seeds of a future civilisation that will be sustainable. That will care for the planet as well as people? Perhaps we need to apply our minds to that and start laying the foundations?

If we take that path then much of the thought that would go into trying to turn our current society around would go into designing a better society that could emerge from the ashes of a burnt world. A world where resource limits were real. A world where we could see a disastrous runaway climate change. Where we could be looking at species collapse. What kind of foundations would we lay that would not only survive such a scenario but could build from such a ruin to construct something better in the future. These are all questions and problems that scientists could ponder during pandemics. 

Summary

We are currently in a state where we face many serious challenges to not only our future survival but the survival of the planet as a whole. One thing that scientists from many different disciplines could do during this pandemic is work out what a sustainable society looks like and how it would work. One that both benefits our needs as well as those of the planet.

From that, scientists could then work on a realistic plan to implement it. Clearly, whatever we are doing at the moment isn’t working. So, what would work? How?

Failing all that, Scientists could come up with a way to survive the coming disaster so that we could build again and recover. How can we do that?

Conclusion

The challenge of avoiding the coming disaster of climate change and resource depletion could be seen as one of the most important challenges any group of scientists could work on; our very survival could be at stake. There is plenty there to challenge many scientists from many different disciplines, working together. Perhaps in doing so, this pandemic may be one of the best things to happen to the human race. If we could take this pandemic and turn it into a way to build a better future. A sustainable future. One that works for us all and for the planet as a whole.

So, what can scientists achieve during pandemics? I don’t know, but maybe save the planet and perhaps the humans too?