My PhD advisor told me a very interesting exercise he did when he was a PhD student. In order to develop systematic thinking, he was asked to identify connections among a group of seemingly irrelevant concepts, e.g. Hush Puppies, Barack Obama and invasive species.
Influentials theory is the connector in this case.
Traditional wisdom, as presented by Malcolm Gladwell in his bestseller The Tipping Point says highly connected people shape the world. The Hush Puppies' success was such a case. It all started with a few New York hipsters and fashionistas followed by cool kids and then less cool kids. Sales of Hush Puppies had exploded by 5,000% within two years, without a penny spent on advertising. All because a tiny number of the influential began wearing the shoes.
Trends spread like diseases according to this model. The influential are the vectors who amplify and propagate the infection.
A new model developed by Duncan Watts from University of Columbia, says though trends are more like forest fires. Their success depends not on the person who starts it, but on how susceptible the society is overall to the trend. Forest fires happen all the time but a few have devastating impacts because the social-ecosystems are rarely ripe in most situations. "And nobody will go around talking about the exceptional properties of the spark that started the fire," Watts said.
This debate related to what I recently have read about Barack Obama. He was considered an underdog by mainstream media (and himself), but how come he became so successful?
He is charismatic, no doubt about that, people compared him to JFK. But perhaps more importantly, American people are ready for "Change" after seven years of Bush. Assuming Obama had ran in 2004, could he have been anywhere close to Kerry?
All these ideas and questions made me think about the topic of impacts of invasive species I am currently doing research on. Obviously both sides of the arguments have their merits, as ecologists have long figured out not only the invasive species itself but also the system it invaded matter. For example, species with fast growth and without natural enemies has a better chance to invade; a disturbed ecosystem, on the other hand, is more vulnerable compared to a health one.
Of course my focus is on the socio-economic side of the story, to be exact, the interaction between social-ecological systems. What is the lesson learned from this disease vs forest fire debate then?
It seems to me that we have been investing too much on protecting ourselves from invasive species but not enough on securing healthy and resilient social-ecological systems. I am only into this job for four months so far and I could be very wrong, but from what I gathered people still aim at research and solutions at species level, e.g. how to predict which species can be invasive and how to monitor and estimate the impacts of a single species after it became invasive.
By no means I am saying these species-based approach is not important. But, in a case like biosecurity business where uncertainty, risk even ignorance is the norm, perhaps we humans may well be better off if we shift our attention on the adaptability of our social-ecological systems? To maintain a diverse ecosystem so that there is no empty niche for an exotic species to invade, for instance, and to develop a decentralized social network where information and first-aids can reach to those needed them most?
1 comment:
Hi vey interesting post
this is the source of the agenda for the 2005 G8 Summit in Scotland. It was placed inside a United Nations Environment and Development report commissioned by the UK Government in 2002
http://www.mp2.worldfriend.com/sustainable_development_forum.htm
it has been taken off the UK Government site but we parked it up here for reference
I assessed the global dynamic in 2002 in terms of entropy, ecological sytems, evolution etc.
I determined that it was unnecessary to invade Iraq to make the Saddam regime extinct. Not thatIhad any interest in makingit extinct, I just didn't think it was a good idea to drop bombs on children.
Species extinction is about thermodynamic stabity with respect to the environment etc.
No need to invade Iraq. Just make the world better, the gradient would increase and the Iraq regime would become unstable and collapse.
The US and the UK still invade Iraq, but my meme or species of information was thermodynamically stable and able to survive.
Note it recommends not war on Iraq but climate change and Africa as focus of policy. Supported by the premise and assessment that climate change was a greater threat than terrorism.
This is the build up to war and the invasion of Iraq. In a highly influencial UN report Ihave deliberately introduced an invasive species. I want to see if it will replicate as predicted.
The war went ahead though. 13 months later UK Chief Scientist Sir David King, a member of the UNED I believe, publishes in Science that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, and gives a speech at AAAS.
The global media and science community attribute Sir David as the author.
He wasn't. He was a vector a carrier in a deliberate 'experiment'.
In 2005 the agendaof the G8 was announced climate change and Africa. Bush and Blair thoughthey didn't know it discussed an anti war agenda, deliberately introduced as a invasive replicating meme.
Then the Stern Report. Al Gore gets his Nobel prize saying the british Government says climate cgangeis a greater threat than terrorism.
It was all a deliberate experiment in entropy, information theory, inertia of info systems. Switching global development trajectories by using invasive information species in high level influential Government consultations on development.
Thers a lot more toit thanthat, butyoursis the firstblog Ihave seenwhich comes close topresentigan understandingof what I did.
Gore saying that climate change was a greater threat than terrorism while getting a Nobel was as predetermined as seeing if you throw an acorn over your shoulder an Oak tree will grow.
There was a lot of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle though. The idea got taken on board,I just didn't know where it would appear etc.
most of the global climate change movement over the last few years is due to an experiment in invasive speciation, ecological dynamics, Schrodinger, quantum theory etc.
Roger
Celtic Lion Ltd
Post a Comment