Tag Archives: howard t odum

Big History

Leave a reply

I hadn’t heard of Big History, and this article in Aeon is actually critical of it, but it sounds interesting as an attempt to fuse natural and social science into a curriculum.

The Big History narrative itself is given shape by the interplay between the forces of entropy and complexity that are represented, respectively, by the second law of thermodynamics and evolution. The second law of thermodynamics postulates that there is a finite amount of energy in the Universe that is slowly dissipating, but evolution shows that there are moments when a particular threshold is reached and overcomes entropy by the creation of new forms of complexity. Big History proposes there are eight ‘threshold moments’, when profoundly new forms of complexity appear in the past: (1) the Big Bang; (2) stars and galaxies; (3) new chemical elements; (4) the Earth and solar system; (5) life on Earth; (6) the human species; (7) agriculture; and, our currently proposed geological epoch, (8) the Anthropocene.

Aeon

A lot of thinkers I admire, among them Howard T. Odum (not mentioned in this article), have focused on entropy as a sort of defining principle to understand the universe we find ourselves embedded in. Our universe is spirally toward disorder and randomness, but that process is very slow and somehow we find ourselves in a tiny pocket of increasing order within that universe. It starts with the Earth somehow orbiting the sun, and continues with life, the purpose of which seems to be to continue creating order out of chaos where mere physics and chemistry leave off, and then it seemingly culminates in intelligent life and the things intelligent life is able to create.

That’s my quick take from a skim of the article, but this article references a number of articles and books by the Australian developer of the Big History idea (the somewhat ironically named David Christian, because this is a system of belief at least somewhat intended as an alternative to traditional religion.) There is also a TED talk out there for people who like that sort of thing (give me a book, please), and apparently a middle- to high-school curriculum developed by the Gates Foundation.

What’s new with emergy?

Leave a reply

Okay, I basically understand what emergy (embodied energy) is – the amount of energy incorporated (as opposed to lost to heat) in something useful, like an organism or a whole ecosystem. I am partial to the concept just from secondhand exposure to Howard T. Odum at the University of Florida. I never studied with him, but I knew some of his students and absorbed a little bit of his ideas through osmosis, and then I went back and did some reading later when I realized what I had missed. This paper is co-authored by Mark T. Brown, Odum’s long time collaborator who is still at UF pumping out studies on the subject.

The paper is interesting just for its literature review of other studies of ecosystem services and ecosystem function. The methods section has a nice run down of available spatial layers on energy, biomass, and ecosystems. The conclusion is that ecosystem functions are valuable, we have destroyed a lot of them, we are continuing to destroy them, and we may not be able to survive without them.

emergy

Leave a reply

There are still people working on emergy (embodied energy) as an accounting and system simulation system. This group is in Brazil.

Contribution of the Paraconsistent Tri-Annotated Logic to emergy accounting and decision making

The process of decision-making is a complex task that can become more challenging if the information provided by indicators is contradictory. Emergy accounting is an environmental accounting methodology that has been used to guide environmental decision making. In this paper we propose a comprehensive tool to support decision-making in emergy accounting. Paraconsistent Logic is a non-classic logic, which can aid in decision-making when the investigator is confronted with contradictory results. Paraconsistent Tri-Annotated Logic (PL3v) is proposed as a decision tool to compare different systems and allow selection of those alternatives with the best performance from the standpoint of sustainability defined in emergy terms. The rationale behind our selection of a set of emergy indicators to assess sustainability included such factors as increased efficiency, setting a priority for local resource use and minimization of the use of non-renewable resources. Two actual examples from the literature that resulted in contradictory evidence of system sustainability were compared within the framework of PL3v. Emergy indicators that correspond to positive evidence of sustainability (i.e., those that show increased efficiency and greater local resource use) were assigned as two favorable logic measures of sustainability. The PL3v analysis is completed with the identification of evidence that is unfavorable to sustainability, which is given by a third indicator negatively correlated with sustainability (i.e., non-renewable resource use). Operationally, the methodology proposed the normalization of the indicator values between [0,1] to fit to the PL3v annotation framework. Comparison of the systems examined is presented through the Paraconsistent Logic approach with the aid of a graphical representation and the calculation of the degree of certainty related to the truthfulness of the sustainability proposition.

a prosperous way down

Leave a reply

This paragraph caught my eye in the blog A Prosperous Way Down:

The environment is not an element (subsystem) of the economy/finance role-playing game. The economy is actually a subsystem of society, which is embedded in the geobiosphere, its super-system. From a systems perspective, any rearrangement of the geobiosphere as a result of new driving forces, including anthropogenic emissions, affects the behavior, the stability and the sustainability of the global economy as a subsystem. Economically based choices do impact the environment, but the geobiosphere then readjusts its operation (somewhat unpredictably) and impacts the behavior of the global economy itself. Any hope to make significant changes to the global environment (the super-system) while at the same time keeping the operation of our economy fixed or expanding is inconsistent with systems thinking. But this seems to be exactly what people are trying to do, by trying to freeze the current status of the environment as a provider of raw material and ecosystem services that can guarantee economic growth.

If you think about it enough, it becomes fairly obvious that humans are not that different than other animals trying to gain an advantage by exploiting finite energy and other resources in our environment. We are such ingenious exploiters that we have been able to pretend the environment isn’t there, but it seems clear that the environment may finally be catching up with us. Reorienting the principles of economics in an ecological framework seems like an obvious and clear thing to do.

causal emergence

Leave a reply

Causal emergence is either a brilliant new marriage of science and philosophy, or a bunch of useless nonsense. You can be the judge but I am leaning slightly toward the latter.

Some physical entities, which we often refer to as agents, can be described as having intentions and engaging in goal-oriented behavior. Yet agents can also be described in terms of low-level dynamics that are mindless, intention-less, and without goals or purpose. How we can reconcile these seemingly disparate levels of description? This is especially problematic because the lower scales at first appear more fundament in three ways: in terms of their causal work, in terms of the amount of information they contain, and their theoretical superiority in terms of model choice. However, recent research bringing information theory to bear on modeling systems at different scales significantly reframes the issue. I argue that agents, with their associated intentions and goal-oriented behavior, can actually causally emerge from their underlying microscopic physics. This is particularly true of agents because they are autopoietic and possess (apparent) teleological causal relationships.

In other words, how can your atoms and cells, which have no intentions or will, sum up to create you, a person who I presume has intentions and will. Then all of us persons with intentions and will add up to a civilization, which has intentions and will, which is part of a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, and universe, which arguably do not. If I were smoking something, I might find this profound, but I don’t see an application for it. But it does remind me of Howard T. Odum’s concept of a “mesoscope” as opposed to the microscope and macroscope, which refers to understanding systems at a middle scale where these complex, messy interactions between the physical and human worlds take place. Most of our scientists and engineers are studying the world through a microscope, and that is what we as a society and economy are rewarding, while the most important problems that could be solved at the middle scale are not being tackled by many people, and the people who are tackling them are not being sufficiently rewarded.

the Phillips machine

Leave a reply

Here’s a 2009 New York Times column about a hydraulic model of the economy.

In the front right corner, in a structure that resembles a large cupboard with a transparent front, stands a Rube Goldberg collection of tubes, tanks, valves, pumps and sluices. You could think of it as a hydraulic computer. Water flows through a series of clear pipes, mimicking the way that money flows through the economy. It lets you see (literally) what would happen if you lower tax rates or increase the money supply or whatever; just open a valve here or pull a lever there and the machine sloshes away, showing in real time how the water levels rise and fall in various tanks representing the growth in personal savings, tax revenue, and so on. This device was state of the art in the 1950s, but it looks hilarious now, with all its plumbing and noisy pumps.

When it debuted back in November 1949, the leading thinkers at the London School of Economics crammed into the seminar room, some having come just to laugh, others gaping in amazement at the thing in the middle of the room, which had been cobbled together in a garage, with a pump cannibalized from an old Lancaster bomber.

Maybe it shouldn’t be quite so surprising. Before there were digital computers, there were “analog computers”, essentially circuits that could simulate various types of systems at equilibrium. Different types of systems have analogous building blocks and processes, like storages, flows, and resistances. As Howard T. Odum showed us, you can use these basic building blocks to model all types of systems, from physical to biological to socioeconomic.

children and patterns

Leave a reply

Here’s an interesting article in The Chronicle of Higher Education about Laszlo Polgár, a Hungarian who set out to turn his daughters into chess prodigies, and succeeded. A few interesting quotes:

There are three Polgár sisters, Zsuzsa (Susan), Zsofia (Sofia), and Judit: all chess prodigies, raised by Laszlo and Klara in Budapest during the Cold War. Rearing them in modest conditions, where a walk to the stationery store was a great event, the Polgárs homeschooled their girls, defying a skeptical and chauvinist Communist system. They lived chess, often practicing for eight hours a day. By the end of the 1980s, the family had become a phenomenon: wealthy, stars in Hungary and, when they visited the United States, headline news…

Laszlo believed that physical fitness was vital to intellectual success, so the girls played table tennis several hours a day, on top of their full day of chess and schooling. The parents were tireless in their devotion, buying every chess book they could, cutting out pages with past games, gluing them to cards, and storing it all in an old card catalog. They assembled more than 100,000 games; at the time, only the Soviet Union’s restricted chess archive could match it…

By the late 1980s, researchers had established that, contrary to what you might imagine, chess masters don’t tend to anticipate more moves as they gain skill. Rather, they gain expertise in recognizing patterns of the board, and patterns built out of those patterns. A question remained, however: How do they gain those skills? …

The focus of the article is on “nature vs. nurture” and the “10,000 hour rule” or “practice makes perfect”. What caught my attention though is the idea that children have a natural aptitude for pattern recognition. And systems are about patterns. I am thinking about H.T. Odum’s beautiful system diagrams, which are essentially circuits depicting the energy flows through any type of system. The building blocks are simple but they can be combined to describe very complex behavior in systems of any physical type. (Odum would have said they describe all the important aspects of social and economic systems too, but I haven’t decided if I agree with that yet.) So if young children of roughly average mental aptitude can memorize patterns in chess, could they learn to memorize Odum’s system patterns through repetition, perhaps through games? And if all children learned general systems theory in this way, could they be prodigies in solving the world’s complex problems later on? Are we focusing on entirely the wrong things in school?

H.T. Odum

Leave a reply

I promised some posts about H.T. Odum this year, so here goes.

First, because I’m cheap, I bought a used copy of his 1983 book Systems Ecology: An Introduction, that a library was getting rid of. This book was reissued in 1994 as Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology. My 1983 copy has some typos and endearingly quaint references like this:

The amount of memory within the computer useful for storing programs is usually between 8000 and 64,000 bytes.

He probably updated that in the 1994 version, but whatever it was updated to probably still sounds endearingly quaint today. It reminds us how far we have come.

The 1983 book has a chapter on “analog computers”. Digital computers have come so far and are so powerful that I guess we have forgotten that this sort of thing used to be useful. An analog computer is basically a circuit, and you can simulate almost any kind of system with a circuit – in a hydraulic system, water flow is analogous to electric flow and friction is analogous to electric resistance, for example. Essentially, he took the idea that energy flows through any kind of system and drew beautiful circuit diagrams of how those systems work. Almost any kind of system between the sub-atomic scale and the astronomical scale – mechanical systems, cells, organisms, ecosystems, cities, farms, economies, etc. Although the systems can get pretty complex, in both structure and behavior, they are all based on a set of surprisingly simple core building blocks, and the same set of core building blocks can describe any of these seemingly very different systems.

All the systems are concerned in some way with controlling the flow of energy and using it to do useful work. This concept is fairly obvious in electrical and mechanical systems, but it is also present in my body right now, where electrons are being passed through a series of complex chemical bonds that allow my body to operate its various organs, maintain my temperature, and repair tissues as they break down and build new tissues (hopefully not too much more, at this point.) A rainforest, a coral reef, a city, and the global economy are similarly engaged in controlling the flow of energy and using it to perform useful work. One of his key concepts was that systems try to maximize “power”, or find the right flow rate of energy that can be converted into the most useful work. Extracting the most work always involves controlling or limiting the flow in some way, which always results in some dissipation as heat. (I should mention, he doesn’t use the word “work” in exactly the same sense that I am, but I find it useful to think of work as the amount of energy that was converted into something useful.)

Another core concept was “embodied energy”, which I think of as the sum of all the useful work it took to get to a certain point in a system. For example, a fish has more embodied energy than the plants it ate, and an eagle more than the fish it ate, and a city more than the farms and mines that produced the raw materials to sustain its people and its economy.

MIT invents thermodynamics

Leave a reply

A professor at MIT has just discovered the second law of thermodynamics! Wait, maybe a few people knew about that before. But he also has discovered that various systems, including organisms and ecosystems, evolve to find ways of taking in energy, using some of it to do useful work, then dissipating the rest as heat! Wait, I just remembered that a guy named Howard T. Odum at the University of Florida thought of that before. Okay, I am just teasing my friends from MIT, who are very very smart, just not the only smart people in the world. All teasing aside, the MIT guy does have a novel angle – suggesting that because living systems do a better job of this than non-living systems, the formation of life was more or less inevitable. I like how this article talks about entropy in simple, understandable terms:

Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low — that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms — by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings. In his influential 1944 monograph “What Is Life?” the eminent quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger argued that this is what living things must do. A plant, for example, absorbs extremely energetic sunlight, uses it to build sugars, and ejects infrared light, a much less concentrated form of energy. The overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates, even as the plant prevents itself from decaying by maintaining an orderly internal structure.

So we are selfishly concentrating energy to create orderly, useful systems  – Odum’s core concept of “embodied energy” – here on Earth at the expense of the rest of the universe. Even if Earth is not the only planet with life, there is still a lot of universe out there so I don’t think we need to feel too guilty. The real question is, just how open a system is Earth as a practical matter – as we keep using more energy to create more sophisticated systems here, can we continually improve our ability to keep exporting the consequences (heat being the most obvious)?

One of my few regrets in life is that I studied in close proximity to Odum in the late 1990s, but didn’t actually study with him or even meet him. I just didn’t know who he was at the time, because in the late 1990s I was just a dumb kid. One of my New Years Resolutions is to read more things written by him, and to do more blog posts about him.