Tag Archives: systems thinking

Systems Thinking Predicts Economic Collapse in 21st Century

According to some researchers, it’s the end of the world as we know it – sometime this century, in fact. Economists and policy researchers have actually envisioned it coming for about three centuries, though.

The most recent tap on this subject came on March 7, 2009, when journalist and Hot, Flat, and Crowded author Thomas L. Friedman published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, entitled “Is the Inflection Near?” He describes how the economic, financial and political systems that we have established in the world – particularly in the west – are inherently unsustainable, and that in order to achieve a truly green world, our fundamental systems for living life must shift:

Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese …

We can’t do this anymore.


What would you think if I told you that this was actually not a new idea, and that the notions Friedman presents were determined by a simulation done over thirty-five years ago? Furthermore, what if I let you in on the fact that people have been thinking about this conundrum since the late 1700’s? It may sound outlandish, but in this case, truth is stranger than fiction.

The simulation that I refer to was done in 1972, with a model called World3 which was coded in the object-oriented Modelica environment. It’s the subject of the Club of Rome commissioned study called “The Limits to Growth” (full text is here). Although the model has received criticism for some of its assumptions, a redaction in 2002 upheld many of the outcomes of the model. In 2009, Dr. Dennis L. Meadows (who directed this research) was awarded the 25th Japan Prize from The Science and Technology Foundation of Japan. Recall that the Japanese were the ones who initially recognized Dr. W. Edwards Deming for his contributions to revitalizing the economy – decades before the Americans embraced Deming’s teachings – and spawned the quality revolution in U.S. business in the late 1970’s and 1980’s that has embossed the landscape of how we do business today. From the Japan Prize announcement:

Dr. Dennis L. Meadows served as Research Director for the project on “The Limits to Growth,” for the Club of Rome in 1972. Employing a system simulation model called “World3,” his report demonstrated that if certain limiting factors of the earth’s physical capacity – such as resources, the environment, and land – are not recognized, mankind will soon find itself in a dangerous situation. The conflict between the limited capacity of the earth and the expansion of the population accompanied by economic growth could lead to general societal collapse. The report said that to avert this outcome, it is necessary that the goals of zero population growth and zero expansion in use of materials be attained as soon as possible. The report had an enormous impact on a world that had continued to grow both economically and in population since World War II.

We also have a rich literature dating back centuries that has studied the relationships between population, environment and technology. In the 1700’s, English economist Thomas Robert Malthus studied these relationships in terms of the projected effects of uncontrolled population growth. “Before Malthus, populations were considered to be an asset. After Malthus, the concept of land acquisition to support “future large populations” became a motivating factor for war.” (citation) The 20th century Boserupian Theory of Ester Boserup, in contrast, suggests that advances in technology will drive the capacity of the world to support population. Researchers like Steinmann & Komlos (1988) have simulated the interplay between both paradigms over time and suggest that there is a cyclical dominance. (I note that references to Malthus and Boserup, let alone Meadows’ World3 model, are rarely on the lips of policymakers.)

In my opinion, it is not climate change we should be worried about per se, but the social, economic and global political system that drives human interactions with each other and with the environment. Climate change may be a symptom, but it is just a tracer for the attitudes of unbounded material growth that are contributing to the effects (if you want to learn about climate change and policy, Prometheus is a good place to start – my point is not to argue the merits of “is it” or “isn’t it” happening because others including Pielke, Jr. do that very well). Regarding climate change, we need to decode what the data is trying to tell us about how we’ve structured our large-scale systems of interaction with one another – rather than merely trying to control our personal “carbon footprints” or recycle more (though these may be important ingredients in the solution).

There is nothing new under the sun. Only today, the forces of production, consumption and population have metamorphosed into a crisis of sustainability – a “perfect storm” to test our ability to live and work in the limit case.

Steinmann, Gunter & Komlos, John (1988). Population growth and economic development in the very long run: a simulation model of three revolutions. Mathematical Social Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 1, Aug 1988. 49-63 pp. Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Systems Thinking and Ships in Shanghai

shanghai-shipQuality experts and practitioners alike know that a solution should be designed for a particular context of use. The complete environment of the problem should be considered, and political, economic, social and technical ramifications should be examined before investing in a costly project.

This wasn’t the case for the $260 million construction of a cruise terminal in Shanghai along the Huangpu River which was recently opened. The building is ultra-modern, environmentally friendly and a model for sustainable development. But to get to the terminal, ships have to sail underneath the Yangpu Bridge, which has such low clearance that a third of the world’s ships can’t fit (and the trip is risky for many of the others, who have to wait until low tide to navigate it).

An architect or designer should have recognized that for the terminal to achieve “fitness for use” as defined by Juran, the traffic pattern to bring ships to the building would play an important role. The situation is a little more striking when you consider the question of siting airports – how useful would it be to build an airport in the center of a metropolis where airplanes couldn’t find a clear path to the runway? Building the terminal without consideration for traffic patterns was wasteful: the city will miss opportunities to serve many customers, blocking out the possibility to drive passenger revenue to the city, extra time will be needed for captains to successfully steer their ships in, and extra fuel will be expended in the process. (Not to mention that the only solution now would be to raise the bridge, which would cost several tens of millions more.)

These types of problems are not limited to examples in transportation. I remember several years ago I went to a meeting where a group of highly skilled, senior engineers were discussing how to deploy a sensitive piece of research equipment they’d been working on for years. It had been a long, hard road, and they were finally ready to see the fruits of their labor in use. A concrete monument had been poured to keep the instrument level, and they were discussing in excruciating detail how to get the instrument onto the pad.

“Hold on,” somebody asked. “How many pounds can that monument hold?”

Another engineer quickly replied. “We used some really high-grade concrete. It can hold up to ten thousand pounds.”

“Yeah, but our instrument is almost twice that weight!”

Ten scientists and engineers looked around the room, pensively. Some wrinkled their brows and others started furiously scribbling notes on paper, but no one said a word. After a few uncomfortable minutes, the leader of the meeting said “Well, we’ve come to the end of the hour. Let’s talk about that next time.”

I don’t think the instrument ever got deployed. Remember: think about the whole system! Quality depends on fitness for use in a particular context.

Lim, L. (2008). Some Ships Can’t Reach Shanghai’s New Terminal. NPR News, November 3.