From: Ray E. Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sorry guys, but considering the history of people who have "solved" the
problems of the past like highways, nuclear power, the "free market", the
buffalo, the Indians, the internal combustion engine, the Concorde, the
economy, all with out looking at the big picture, makes me not look to
science as the great parent or authority for all things that have to do with
life. The simple fact is
I all cases, when I say "sciences", I mean "systems sciences" -- big picture
sciences that include the social impacts in analysis. I am thinking of a
top-down analysis of the whole enchilada
SYSTEM DEFINED
Interacting, interrelated, or interdependent parts combine to form a
"system." A system exhibits emergent "properties" that are different from
the properties of the individual parts. Alone, the individual parts of a
bicycle do not exhibit the property of a bicycle (people transporter). The
property of a bicycle emerges once the parts are in their proper places and
interacting together.
To solve a problem in a system, one must analyze the relationships of the
parts to each other and to the environment. For example, if the spark plugs
were removed from a car's engine and put in the back seat, an inventory of
the parts would show the car intact. To understand why the car's properties
had changed, one would have to study the relationship of the spark plugs to
the rest of the engine.
It is important to understand that system properties derive from the ongoing
interaction of the parts. If a system is producing unwanted effects, then
we consider improving the system so that it stops producing those unwanted
effects. For example, should we "treat the symptoms" of an unmoving car by
attaching a horse, or should we improve the system by putting the spark
plugs back
into the engine? This example is not as silly as it seems, because we
usually treat symptoms rather than improve systems -- it's the way our
economic system works.
For example, some unwanted effects of the "booze" industry are alcoholics.
Rather than trying to improve the system (e.g., by banning booze
advertising), we treat the symptoms by creating a
new industry to treat alcoholism. If the pesticide or tobacco industry
causes cancer, then so much the better for those in the cancer industry.
The same illustrations also apply to many other social and environmental
problems.
Obviously, if our economic system is producing unwanted effects, we should
improve it so it stops producing those unwanted effects. We know it can be
done because lobbyists "improve" our
economic system all the time.
By "treating the symptoms" we continuously increase system complexity -- and
increase minimum energy requirements (see Tainter). But if we "fixed the
system", we would simplify and reduce minimum energy requirements.
Jay
