Steve Kurtz:
>(Douglas: I urge you to have a look before attempting to re-invent the
>wheel.)
Then, summarizing a paper:
>Simulators are descriptions of complex systems representing the
>interrelationships among the processes that constitute the system; they
>combine observations of past states of the system with scientific
>understanding of processes. As such, simulators are explicit and
>communicable representations of the mental models that guide our
>perceptions and actions. Unlike verbal or mathematical descriptions of
>systems, simulators are active and can be experienced. Learning how the
>system works arises from the experience of using the simulator. The user
>will come to appreciate the complex system-as-a-whole behaviour as it
>emerges out of dynamic interactions among relatively well understood
>processes such as manufacturing, consumer demand, technology and energy
>use.
I must first apologize to the list for my ill-tempered reference to dancing
in the High Arctic. I may have had a little too much wine last night, which
made me cranky. It is possible that the Aboriginal people I referred to had
no more idea of why they were dancing than we did, and were thus simulating
just as we were. Perhaps they danced not out of an understanding of their
own changing traditions, but because they knew that we, the visitors,
expected them to. And perhaps we expected them to because they were
Aboriginal people, and that is what they do. Anyhow, what matters most is
that we all had a good time.
Nevertheless, I do feel that the questions I have raised about the
simulation that Douglas Wilson is proposing are valid: Is there really
something to be simulated? If so, what? Will the proposed simulation lead
to a better understanding of economic phenomena? And, do we not already
have a considerable understanding of the global impacts of megaphenomena
such as population growth and energy resource depletion? I will try to
address these issues.
On whether there is something to be simulated, I pointed out in a previous
posting that, despite headlines and hype to the contrary, economic activity
is still overwhelmingly domestic, not international. This makes me wonder
how a "global economy" might be defined for the purposes of simulation. I
feel too that, in a global simulation, broad political realities would have
to play a central role. How might they be factored in? For example, the
world of the Cold War consisted of two massive politico-economic blocks,
each trying to extend its hegemony over nations by foreign aid and other
"instruments of diplomacy". Politically and economically, that world was
quite distinct from the much more fragmented, and perhaps more dangerous,
one which has replaced it, a world in which even the powerful United States
is merely one player among many, and there is no real certainty about how
many are playing or what the real game is. I would suggest that, in a
simulation of the kind being proposed, it matters a great deal what kind of
overall global world is being assumed, since the nature of that world would
determine who provides economic support to whom, who is willing to sell
strategic resources to whom, who provides weapons to whom, and other such
things. Perhaps the model would have to be capable of being redesigned to
take account of a variety of possible global scenarios representing
possibilities ranging from a bipolar, Cold War type, world to one which is
even more fragmented than the one we live in today.
Which leads me to the issue of whether a model of the "global economy" would
really be helpful. In a previous posting I asked what it might tell about
whether China might devalue the yuan, knowing full well that it couldn't
tell us much. But perhaps it could tell us quite a lot about the
consequences of yuan devaluation. Yet would it really tell us more than we
already know? At the most general level, we know that the impact of not
devaluing would largely fall on the Chinese economy, whereas the impact of
devaluing would, to a considerable extent, export the problem from China.
We also know far more than this. If we really put our minds to it, we
could, on the basis of known trading patterns, probably make some pretty
good estimates of who would lose and who would benefit, and by how much.
But in doing this, it is probable that we would get down to a level too
micro for a global model -- or the global model would have to terribly
comprehensive. So the point is, perhaps a model would not really be of much
use in a case like this. And, to extend this line of thought, most of the
thinking that needs to be done about day to day or even year to year changes
in the international economy is essentially of a micro nature: How will the
continuing Japanese recession affect BC lumber and mineral production, and
ultimately employment? How will an excess of global pork combined with
European subsidies affect Canadian farmers? How might the devaluation of
the South Korean won affect the American computer industry? Should the
Canadian farmer be allowed to sell his grain directly to US buyers, or must
he continue to sell via the Wheat Board? Mundane stuff, but important to
the logger and farmer, and the politicians who must answer to them.
Now to the megaphenom stuff - the end of cheap energy, population growth,
the concentration of population in unsustainable cities, pollution, the
effects of climate change. Here there is both a very great need for
simulation and the possibility of doing something useful. But you are no
longer dealing with the global economy. You are dealing with something much
bigger and more comprehensive, a little "like the grand theory of
everything" in cosmology. And I would suggest not proceeding to do anything
without a thorough grounding in what has already been done. I am very much
behind the times here. All I really know about is what the Club of Rome and
people like the Meadows have done some years ago. A great deal of thinking
and work must have been done since then, even if governments and
international bodies such as the UN continue to be hung up on the quaint and
cozy notion of "sustainable development". I would not do any further work
until I was pretty sure I knew about everything that has been done during
the past couple of decades. I would then see how I might fit in.
Ed Weick
