Non-Linear Problems Require Non-Linear Solutions
Dr. David Orr, Environmental Science Professor at Oberlin College, gave s series of lectures recently in Charlotte. In some ways, it was more of the same — think Al Gore without the I-Shoulda-Been-Your-President animosity. But Orr particularly resonated with his audience when he described our environment and the threats of climate change using the mathematical concept of a “nonlinear system.”
Now, I realize that doesn’t exactly scream excitement, but stay with me while I explain. In a linear system, 2+2 = 4. That is, a linear system is made up of the combination of the individual elements of that system. Conversely, in a nonlinear system, the output is not proportional to its input. Therefore, in a nonlinear system 2+2 MAY equal 4 or 22 or 7 or something else entirely.
So why should this matter to you? For this reason: When a linear system is breaking down, we can see it happening. So if a simple linear system has five parts (a,b,c,d,e) and c is removed, we can observe that the linear system is diminished by a specific and quantifiable amount (c). And we can fix it by adding c back into the equation (i.e., system).
When a nonlinear system is breaking, however, we may not be able to see the breakdown coming. In a nonlinear system: it works, it works, it works, … it doesn’t work — at a seemingly arbitrary time that isn’t directly related to a single change in a single component. Rather it’s the interplay between myriad components and their specific and multiple relationships among each other that make the system operate appropriately or not. And as a result of this complexity, fixing the system isn’t a matter of fixing (adding more or taking away some of) a single component. When it breaks down, the entire system may require a complete overhaul.
Perhaps you’re saying to yourself: “I was told there’d be no math on this exam. What gives?”
Because of their complexity, the exact breakdown points within nonlinear systems are difficult to see or predict. We know they are coming, but we just don’t know when or how they will manifest themselves exactly. In that way the breakdown of a nonlinear system is unpredictable. And it’s that unpredictability that makes it so difficult for many to care about a nonlinear system’s health or at least to care about it over an extended period of time. The system is so complex, so messy, we can’t see what we’re fighting for (or is it against?). The result? We don’t fight at all. And so at a time when the science around climate change is getting better (and the predictions more rapid and more dire), Americans are decreasing their attention and vigilance. Earlier this month, Gallup reported:
“Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.”
Unfortunately, I don’t believe there is much we can do about that. Human nature just doesn’t allow us to deal with problems that big, that unclear, and that (seemingly) distant into our future. We’re so consumed with today’s problems (mortgage payments, falling 401Ks and school budget cuts) we don’t have the capacity for much more. And so no matter how many scientists or how many politicians or how many granola-eating treehuggers use some version of “trust the science; focus on the science; the science is overwhelming” in regards to climate change, it doesn’t matter. We’re simply not wired in a way for that message to take hold in any substantive way.
So then what do we do?
I don’t know precisely. There I said it. I don’t know, but until its both cheaper and easier to live sustainable lives, most of us won’t. And that means it continues to be a difficult battle fought by an undersized army. Even so, for those of us who do care about this issue and for those of us who are able to see what’s coming, we must commit to multiple lines of effort simultaneously. After all, if a nonlinear system isn’t directly linked to one specific input, it stands to reason that multiple inputs would be required to fix a system that is breaking. There are three inputs that I believe are critical. In future essays, I’ll tackle each of them individually, but for now, here they are:
1. Strong political leadership and political will. We must advocate for, support, and help elect leaders and pursue policies that are forward looking and that do care about the aforementioned overwhelming scientific data. And we’ve got to do this in spite of apparent public indifference or outright disdain for the topic. Undemocratic? Perhaps. But I’m more interested in appropriate policy than I am appropriate politics.
2. Innovation from both public and private sectors. We must generate new ideas, produce new products, and offer new services that simultaneously make citizen’s lives easier and/or more effective and reduce our impact on the environment. And we have to do it more cost effectively (read: cheaper) than we doing things now. As long as it costs more per mile (in time and money ) to take public transit than to drive to work, many more folks will be walking to their garage instead of the bus stop. American adults aren’t going to change their minds and habits because we ask them to. We have to offer them a better (cheaper and/or MUCH more convenient) way to do the same things they’re doing right now. I don’t care if we change their minds as long as we can change their actions.
3. Educate future generations while they still have the capacity to care. It’s too late to change significantly the attitudes of most adults in the US. The entrenchment is simply to deep and their current mindsets too ingrained. Not so with the younger generation, whose minds haven’t fully been made up yet. Remember it is kids who are largely credited with increased acceptance and participation in recycling programs across the US. I think we have the same opportunity with energy efficiency and environmental stewardship now. It won’t be easy, but it’s possible. And I think it starts with programs that take children outside of their school walls to conduct classes outside. We know for sure that if folks aren’t in “nature” they rarely care about it. So we’ve got to get our kids outside. Plus, what better place to teach earth science or biology than by exposing students to the earth and the living organisms (i.e., nonlinear systems) all around them?
Putting these efforts into place won’t be easy, but most important things aren’t.
Originally published March 25, 2009
