Mouserat

Let's Get Logical

     This week’s reading covered the basics on becoming a systems thinker—from creating your own systems maps (with information on tips for choosing colors and shapes for mapping) to understanding the structure operating behind these maps. Although I found this week’s reading to be a little on the dry side, I found one topic particularly interesting. Chapter 7 discussed logic behind relationships within systems. When two things relate to one another and one is defined as A, then the other thing by default is “not-A.” However, something that had not occurred to me (although seemingly very obvious) is that not-A has its own identity independent of A. The idea of not-A is based on perspective because not-A is defined in terms of A. Perspective therefore is absolutely necessary when determining what is being discussed.

     Something that the Cabreras brought up in this chapter was the application of perspective and logic to the real world. We often use perspective to cast ourselves in a positive light, while downplaying our opponents. The example of pro-life and pro-choice was used to show perspective logic. Those who support pro-life are seen as anti-feminist or anti-choice while those supporting pro-choice are seen as pro-abortion or anti-life. The “rebranding” of these stances does not embody what that whole population supports, but rather is just a direct application of A and not-A. Applying this type of perspective logic in the real world can lead to controversy, debate and division especially when nuances are not being considered.

Question: Using A and not-A logic, what are environmentalists “rebranded” as and how do we “rebrand” our opponents?

Show, Don't Tell

Last week my environmental collaboration class discussed how the daily bombardment of information from multiple social platforms creates slactivists. These slactivists have so many different causes streaming into their consciousness daily that they halfheartedly support issues by liking or sharing them on Facebook for example. How in this age can we create campaigns, community planning platforms, or explain systems in a way that drive people to participate and stay actively involved?

We do this, as the reading suggests, by showing and not telling them. In the same environmental collaboration class our group has been tasked with submitting to the city of Nederland new planning methods that more effectively engage the community than the policies currently in place. At this moment citizen involvement in Nederland is poorly accomplished through town meetings, which from what we have gathered, consist of a dry reading of proposed policy changes and projects. Town officials simply tell the few citizens who attend what is going on in the town, and have recognized that this is an ineffective way to communicate information.

My group specifically has found a new method for encouraging more participation in community planning through a process called "Have Your Say Days." These are community events held throughout the week that visualize different aspects of the community planning process through maps, vision boards, paintings, pictures, music, etc. We hope that by displaying important information in a way that is more attractive to the human brain than simply talking at people during boring town meetings, more community engagement will result.

Question: When you are creating information that will be presented to a group do you ever consider what it will look like from the audiences perspective, and whether or not your work would seem interesting, interactive, and engaging to yourself?

What isn't a system?

I’m not entirely sure that this is the right question to be asking in a class devoted to thinking in systems. That said, I’m curious to see how far this thought experiment has to go before I think of something… or resign my position, and admit defeat.

Let’s start at the obvious place: my capstone (because, obviously). Yes, my capstone, because it is the center of my universe, and has been the sole dispensary for my time these past few weeks… I say that only half joking. Kate and I have had to work through three research topics, the later having very little to do with the former, and has more to do with CU than Barcelona… but I digress.

Kate and I are at the precipice of studying something adequately out of both our depths: micro-grids. Indeed, a touch more than a stones through from Barcelona, yet the research question that we are formulating has as much to do with our original premise of trying to figure out how local governments collaborate and implement policy. Micro-grids, and grids more broadly, are by definition, systems that connect various points of the energy generation, distribution, and consumption networks. So, allow me to narrow my scope.

Perhaps, perhaps, the most narrow my scope can go on this project would be the solar PV that lay dormant on the northern corner of the SEEC complex. A PV on its own, just the one panel, is not a system. That said, it contains a particularly assorted mess of wires that allow the PV to transmit the electricity it has obtained from photons traveling along a series of semi conductors toward the negatively charged base of the panel. Those wires have a system of their own: the copper and rare-earth metals that together form a wire were collected from various points across the earth, from the Congo to Australia to Nevada. A system of extraction and processing, transportation and commerce.

Then perhaps the atoms that make up the copper, surely those aren’t systems? The atom, comprised of three parts, is in fact a system. And those protons, neutrons, and electrons are made op of smaller particles still. However, at this level, these parts aren’t concerned with systems that govern their existence. They simply exist.

It is hard to be sure, one way or another, whether these small particles (quarks and bosons and the like) have smaller parts still. So, to fully disassemble a system to the most fundamental parts is to break even the smallest component down to the point where it merely exists as means to an end.

Question: have I gone too far?

It's All in the Message

*I apologize for the late post! I submitted my blog entry last night and when I went to go check on it today, I saw that it wasn't posted—so I had to re-write it. *

A topic that has been reoccurring in different readings this week is messaging. In Collaboration, we read and discussed how social movements package their message to showcase their values. We also discussed how social movements, such as the environmental movement, may not be entirely successful because of its messaging. Currently, it seems as if the environmental movement has been focusing on a “doomsday” message, which can be a good one if it is meant to incite fear but does not entirely relate climate change to the values of a wider population. Similarly, using strictly scientific information in environmental messaging can isolate those who are not familiar with the jargon. To alleviate this issue, the environmental movement needs a bit of rebranding (in my opinion) in order to relate to all of those involved in the system.

In this week’s readings for Systems, we touched on different mechanisms within systems. In order for a system, such as the environmental movement, to be successful it must be understood that different parts constitute the whole. The environmental movement must simplify and streamline their goals, message and vision in order to appeal and reflect its audience. This will not only allow the environmental movement to gain more influence, but will also build resilience for the future.

Question: What are some key terms/phrases that you would use to “rebrand” the environmental movement?

A Better Definition

            Last week I found myself trying to explain to a colleague what systems thinking was. It was too bad I hadn’t started Systems Thinking Made Simple, or I have done exactly what the Cabreras say not to do, which is simply provide a laundry list of concepts encompassed by the systems thinking field. Instead, I would have known to define systems thinking as a way of thinking in which you understand complex systems by understanding the rules that govern them: Distinctions, Systems, Relationships, and Perspectives.

            The advantage of the approach to defining systems adopted by the Cabreras is that it defines a set of common characteristics that underlie various systems thinking approaches, rather than trying to develop a definition that encompasses the myriad techniques and disciplines which systems thinking spans. I found this definition very approachable as it doesn’t require the memorization of numerous leverage points, characteristics and behaviors as Meadows conceptualization of systems did. While I found Meadows’s characterizations helpful, her overview of systems read more like a systems encyclopedia, than a simple definition.

            Similarly, since DSRP encompasses essential components in the understanding of a system, this definition is less susceptible to becoming a buzzword than concepts, such as sustainability or resilience, may be prone to. Resilience, in particular, is often understood as something that is always desirable, even though there are certain things we may not want to be resilient, such as addition. By contrast, the DSRP framework merely serves as a way to describe a system, rather than becoming a characteristic we think we want systems to attain. In addition, it’s relatively easy to conceptualize how to apply these concepts to thinking about real world issues.

            By developing a set of simple rules to understand a complex field, the Cabreras have passed the “explain it to me like I am five years old” test and really made systems thinking accessible. Therefore, I would recommend Systems Thinking Made Simple to whoever seeks to learn more about the field.

Question: How can the DSRP framework help us identify leverage points we may not have noticed in previous conceptualizations of wicked problems?

The Accessibility of Systems Thinking

    One aspect of systems thinking that has always frustrated me is its inaccessibility.  Systems thinking is not made up of extremely complicated rules and ideas, but rather consists of simple rules and ideas that work together to create a complex network or system.  If this is the case, then why is "systems thinking" often thought of as a high academia tool, and why didn't I hear about it until graduate school?  If the systems thinking framework has the power to change the world, as the authors of Systems Thinking Made Simple claim, then why do you need higher education to be exposed to it?  This is a question I have grappled with through out the semester, creating many doubts and criticisms, and almost establishing systems thinking as a sort of 'academic high horse' in my head.

    I think that Derek and Laura Cabrera do a great job at explaining this inaccessibility issue on page 24.  They say that it make no sense that in order to be a systems thinker, you must receive elite training over many decades.  They call this "aristocratic, not democratic, and a slap in the face to the philosophical foundations of the field," (Cabrera & Cabrera, 24).  Systems thinking is a set of simple rules and concepts that most anyone can understand and in turn apply to wicked problems, however, the lack of access to a simple explanation/introduction to basic systems concepts flies directly in the face of this.  I fear that systems thinking was developed by academics, and therefore will only ever be used by academics.  On the other hand, the book Systems Thinking Made Simple is a great step towards increasing accessibility.

Question: How can systems thinking be made universal and democratic?  How can we encourage systems thinking for everyone without the privilege and complexity that academia applies to it?

How Google Embodies Simplicity That Drives Complexity

Chemist George Whitesides delivered a great TED Talk titled, "Towards a Science of Simplicity" in which he discusses, much like Systems Thinking Made Simple did, that underneath complex systems are simple rules. In his talk he focuses in on Google. From the very basic component of Google there exists transistors, which are essentially very reliable on and off switches. When billions and trillions of these transistors are combined in their simple form to create integrated circuits we begin to see complex systems such as the internet emerge. From these complex systems we then again can transition to very simple systems (for users) such as Google.

From the combination of billions of identical on and off switches a system in which we are able to access answers for almost any question in mere seconds has been created. Information previously not available to those outside of academia or specified fields has now become accessible to the masses. Following are examples of how we as system thinkers in training can use the simple complexity of Google in regards to the four simple rules and wicked problems. Lets consider the sixth most important crisis outlined in the reading: lack of global responsibility on the part of corporations, governments, and individuals.

Distinction Rule: we must determine what the problem is, and what the simple "transistors" are supporting this system that is allowing the lack of global responsibility on the part of corporations, government, and individuals. Is it the way our cities are constructed? The produce and consume paradigms present in every aspect of our society? Is it developing from the way our children are being raised?

Systems Rule: The whole in regards to Google is the simple search engine, whereas the parts are made up of many integrated circuits, communication channels, cultural understanding, and availability that allow it to function smoothly. How can lack of global responsibility be broken into sections such as this to allow for better comprehension and the ability to start solving problems? The whole is the lack of global responsibility whereas the parts, for starters, can be seen as corporations, governments, individuals, etc. Breaking this problem down as such allows for delegation and a simpler understanding.

Relationships Rule: In regards to Google this can be understood as how information is being distributed and utilized. What relationships are allowing not only for Google to exist, but for it to maintain its status as an incredible tool in our modern society. In regards to lack of responsibility, we as systems thinkers would need to determine what relationships exist in our current neo-liberal economy. What benefit is being received from these relationships on all sides, and how is this contributing to the problem?

Perspectives Rule: While many see Google as a powerful tool that is of great importance to our society, some might see it as a way in which our society is allowed to become more complacent and dumber essentially. It is our responsibility again as systems thinkers to examine these large problems from different perspectives, because to some they might not actually be perceived as problems.

Beginning to break down massive problems as a society as seem above is the only way we can ever hope to make a dent in creating solutions. If we only look at the current situation and problems without regard to the simple rules that created this system we will certainly go insane.

Question of the week: what is a problem is your own life that, when further consideration is taken, is created by simple rules? A dirty room, weight gain, getting behind on homework, good relationships, success, happiness, etc.

Link to the TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_toward_a_science_of_simplicity#t-689830

 

r/place: Artwork Meets Complex Adaptive Systems

As I was reading through Systems Thinking Made Simple by Derek and Laura Cabrera, I was reminded of a recent cultural phenomenon originating from the online Reddit community on r/place. In their book, Cabrera discusses the simplicity that drives complexity within systems which is quiet similar to what I saw that within r/place. They say that, “Many people hold the false assumption that underneath complex things are complicated explanations. The mental model they need is that underneath complex things are simple rules” (Cabrera, 36). Below is the final result of the experiment done in r/place. Like each individual fish in a school following simple rules to result in a complex adaptive system, r/place was created following simple rules.

r/place Final Product

http://i.imgur.com/ajWiAYi.png

Rules:

1. Each individual may place only one pixel every 5 minutes.

On the r/place website, it says, “Individually you can create something. Together you can create something more.” Looking around the final product, which will lead you to find everything from cartoons and university mascots to country flags and pop culture references, gives a glimpse at the identity and values of the people who collectively created it. Consequences of each autonomous agent following their simple rule resulted in a very apparently unique work of art, but also some interesting behavior.

Time lapse

 

https://i.redd.it/5p68ukzkwdpy.gif

Looking at a time lapse, which is shown above, you can see interesting trends emerging from the collective dynamics if you've watched it over and over like myself. Borders and banners move through the voids as swatches of black and blue fill the screen. Sometimes showing respect for small icons that have since evolved by other users and sometimes plowing through. Part of the freedom involved allows for users to place pixels anywhere they wish even if it tarnishes the work of other users. Over the course of time, however, a sense of intelligence or respect evolves amongst the community to protect individual creations showing an element of adaptive behavior amongst the collective. Lastly, I urge you to look at yet another time lapse.

 

3D Time Lapse

https://gfycat.com/EthicalJealousGraysquirrel

This one I find most interesting because it shows examples of Cabrera’s four simple aspects of systems thinking; distinction, system, relationship, and perspective. Adding the 3D element gives you a different perspective on how the same work of art was created. Trolls could go in and add black pixels anywhere they want, but what is evidenced by the gif is a cooperative effort by many people to create their distinct mark that is part of the whole. As some parts grow you can watch others shrink, and as some are left attended they get removed from existence. r/place truly is a great example of a complex adaptive system.

Question: What individual rules should one follow to lead towards the best civilization possible?

Neoliberalism in the food industry

2800 miles in a 2002 Subaru Forester makes for a long, albeit, fast drive. However, speeding along at the upper double digits through the vast emptiness of Utah while listening to “An Omnivours Dilemma,” reduced hours to short periods of intellectual discovery. The best part? That I have the opportunity to use the digested anecdotes from Pollan’s book as anecdotes of my own in this blog.

What allows humanity to persist? Besides our intellect, we have a growing resource of monoculture crops to support our ever-expanding cities, and waste lines. As Pollan notes, corn is found in not only corn, the vegetable, but also corn the animal feed, corn the sugar, corn the building material, and corn the ethyl alcohol. Corn is one of the constructs that defines today’s human culture. We are the children of the corn.

It’s not just that corn is grown large scale; corn is grown on an agro-industrial scale. Truthfully, there isn’t anything wrong with corn. The problem lies in the neoliberalist manifestation that is the corn industry.

Pollan points to the fact that animals raised on corn are less nutritional to eat than animals raised on grass, or their historic (natural) diet. This is seen in Omega-3 and Omega-6 levels­­­ - both of which are needed in an ideal ratio in humans, a balance that is not found in corn-fed livestock. Processed corn, in the form of cereal or otherwise, is also less nutritious for humans. The latter is due to the way the corn is grown at an industrial level – details that I would have to cite to use in this blog, and given that my copy of “An Omnivores Dilemma,” is in an audio format, is tricky to do.

So, what does the corn industry do to counteract the reduced nutritional benefits of their product? They rebrand. They augment their corn flakes with the would-be naturally occurring vitamins. They call their cereal (or beef) healthy, and they charge an extra dollar for it.

What am I getting at? The corn industry does everything it can to get an extra dollar from us. However, we can only eat so much… So they rebrand their food, they add vitamins, they sell seeds that cannot reproduce and force growers to only use their brand… all of this with the support of the federal government to supplement costs of corn to be used in ethanol in our gas, and the fact that low-grade corn is used in just about everything.

I agree that there is an inherent dilemma in the Anthropocene: we use, without accounting for the associated environmental costs; a cost that, if accounted for, would leave no industry profitable. However, we, as in the average citizen, have no real say in whether or not the industry is held accountable for their environmental impact, as we are the buyer. We don’t want costs ‘added,’ nor do we want to have to plant a tree for every 1000 miles (or however much) we drive our cars. If we were to say that we wanted change, and that we wanted to account for the environment, we simply would not be able to sustain or afford our lifestyles. Thus the neoliberal machine drives on, sowing the seeds of the Anthropocene as it

“A Finer Future is Possible”, for everyone?

In the first two chapters of her book, A Finer Future is Possible, Hunter Lovins outlines how the neoliberal economic mode of thinking came to dominate global discourse and drove our society to push the limits of what our environment can bear. I found these chapters to be a succinct and approachable explanation of the problem. However, I was primarily interested in the ideas presented in the third chapter, where Lovins attempts to create a vision for what a more sustainable future looks like.

The vision of the future that Lovins presents is a hopeful one. We move towards a Regenerative Economy, where goods and services sustain and rebuild natural ecosystems instead of destroying them. It is a future where we are stewards, not conquerors, of the environment. This vision serves the purpose of filling a gap that Lovins mentions early on: an ideal future we can all work towards. However, after reading this chapter, I was struck by the scale of some of the barriers we face.

I recently read another book for another class called The Great Derangement by Amitav Ghosh, which touched on some very similar themes to A Finer Future is Possible. Ghosh, like Lovins, argues that neoliberal economics has played a large role in landing us in our current predicament. He takes this a step further, and also examines the ways in which Imperialism has shaped the climate predicament. In his examination of Imperialism, he raises some points, which I’m not sure Lovins addresses.

Ghosh notes that for a long time, the high-carbon economy was only accessible to the global North, driven both by trade policies adopted by imperial countries and local resistance to market economies in the global South. However, as countries gained independence and began to adopt Western-style market economies, it became clear that not everyone on the planet could have the same resource footprint as the global North, without destroying our planet. Ghosh notes a calculation by geologist David Archer, that “a fair solution to the problem of emissions would ‘require cuts to the developed world of about 80%’”, closer to 90% for the US, Australia and Canada (Ghosh, 146).

While Lovins’ vision does seem to encompass the global economy, she does not offer a roadmap for resolving the current inequity between nations. She addresses the destabilizing effects of inequality, but does not discuss in detail, power imbalances between nations or how to address them. This may be something that is addressed in later chapters, but it a vital barrier to overcoming our current predicament.

Question: How do we equitably address climate change and ensure that everyone has access to the quality of life described in Lovins’ article?