[Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research

[Robert E. Ulanowicz]

Dear Pedro & Nikhil:

Thank you for taking us once more into the realm of economics and ecology!

Since 2003, perhaps the most significant new insight to me has been the
discovery that ecological systems do not (and cannot) run at maximal
efficiency. A degree of efficiency is required for resource utilization,
but too much can lead to system collapse -- the system becomes too
dependent on the few most efficient pathways and loses alternative, less
efficient routes that can replace the major players when they are impacted
by novel disturbance. Systems that endure have achieved a balance between
efficiency and reliability.

This pertains to IT, because the Bayesian decomposition of the Shannon
diversity allows one to track the complementary attributes of network
efficiency and reliability. Data are still insufficient but it appears
that ecosystems favor reliability over efficiency. See, for example, Fig.7
on p1890 of <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Dual.pdf>, where most
systems cluster around 40% efficient order and 60% residual diversity that
can function as "strength in reserve".

In applying the IT calculus, it is important to keep in mind that
information theory is predicated upon quantifying something that is
*missing* (the Shannon diversity) as prelude to quantifying that which
exists (the mutual information). Conventional science very rarely
addresses that which is missing, but with IT it can be quantified
<http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/FISPAP.pdf> and manipulated as a
part of ecological management. (See pp. 50-51 in
<http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Methods2.pdf>.)

The possible economic implications of these observations are enormous.
Classical economics is centered around making the economic system as
efficient as possible. Market efficiency is the sine-qua-non of economics,
but the likelihood is that going too far down that road leads to collapse
-- witness the boom-bust cycles of the capital system. Might there not be
some balance in economic systems akin to that which nature seems to be
revealing?

Bernard Lietaer has been promoting the use of alternative currencies for a
long while now, but was receiving heavy criticism from his fellow
economists, who countered that multiple currencies degrade market
efficiency. But perhaps that is exactly what is needed to make our
economic system less volatile?

A few publications giving more details of this argument include:

<http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/ECOCOMP2.pdf>

<http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Goerner.pdf>

<http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Lietaer.pdf>

<http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Crisis.pdf>

These notions have already attracted the attention of the French Ministry
of Economics, and our colleague, Bernard Lietaer, has been busy extolling
the connection all across the European academy.

Peace to all,
Bob Ulanowicz

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Ulanowicz                |  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory      |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
Department of Biology              |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biological Lab
Bartram Hall 110                   |  University of Maryland
University of Florida              |  Email <ulan at umces.edu>
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA     |  Web <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


> Dear Nikhil and FIS Colleagues,
>
> Thanks for the thought-provoking opening. Actually even a superficial
> reading of all the stuff you have recommended us becomes quite a bit of
> hard work--but it pays. For my taste, the paper on "Part Three" contains
> the most essential new thinking.  Perhaps the excessive reliance on
> systems-systems parlance is not convenient, both from a rhetorical and a
> conceptual point of view. It gives the impression of a reductionist
> Procrustean Bed where all the (endless!) stuff not amenable to the
> ongoing treatment becomes eliminated or treated as nonexistent. But it
> is a matter, maybe, just of style, that can be conveniently reformulated
> . Notwithstanding these trifle comments about form, the contents are
> significant and timely (at least for my personal taste!).
>
> About contents, again I will start with a few mild criticisms to the
> particular scheme proposed where mycorrhiza and gut bacteria appear as
> central modulators. I can be wrong, of course, as I think you have taken
> new arenas of research (still unsettled) and somehow put them on an
> argumentative extreme, not much reliable actually. But the discussion in
> Section 3.5 about new avenues for aligning ecosystems and economic
> systems is full of valuable insights. I get along with it (with
> secondary nuances) and so it allows me to respond explicitly to your
> question 3 below, quite positively. Conversely, question 1 and 2 imply
> excessive caveats for a positive response even though I admit they have
> served as the scaffold for the present scheme.
>
> I will point to two ecological-economics scenarios where the ideas you
> develop may produce further insights: carbon emission markets and the
> evaluation of Nature's capital & services. We have not achieved a proper
> informational formulation of economic systems yet, so traditional ideas
> cannot cope with the human "value" of Nature although they struggle to
> put it into the same footing as the "artificial". New thinking avenues
> are needed, and  I think something quite interesting looms in your Part
> III paper. Reminding the excellent contributions in the FIS 2002 session
> on "Ecological Economics and Information" (seee
> http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/ ), maybe some of those
> voices are willing to speak up again.
>
> All the best--Pedro
>
> Nikhil Joshi wrote:
>>
>> *(This email post has also been archived in the drop box. In case you
>> are unable to read this entire post, please download from this link
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/iej3xeu4as8rz8g/Abstract%20FIS%20v3.pdf?dl=0>)*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society
>> Build-A-Thon*
>>
>> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>
>> Over the last fifty years or so, we have made significant progress in
>> enhancing our theoretical understanding of self-organizing complex
>> systems. When it comes to self-organization in complex /living
>> systems/, along with advances in theoretical research, advances in
>> disciplines like prebiotic evolution, molecular biology, complexity,
>> linguistics, information systems, ecology, bacteriology, soil
>> microbiology, sociology, and economics have all contributed to provide
>> deeper insights into the processes and organization in living systems
>> at multiple different levels.
>>
>> Having reached here we can ask the questions- can this new science
>> help us develop a unified view of our socio-economic and natural
>> systems?  Can such a view reveal new systemic ways to align economics
>> and ecosystems?
>>
>> This series of articles [1-3] are a part of the “Lifel Deep Society
>> Build-A-Thon” initiative. A research Build-A-Thon that aims to bring
>> together domain level researchers, philosophers and theoretical
>> researchers, and other problem solvers to build a multilevel model
>> that can prove to be useful in enhancing our understanding of the
>> combined ecosystem-economics system. This initiative provides exciting
>> new opportunities for researchers to both further their own research,
>> while also contributing towards addressing the larger problem of
>> ecosystem-economics alignment.
>>
>> This discussion on the FIS network invites your ideas, questions,
>> comments, criticisms, suggestions on the multilevel view presented
>> here, and three high-level questions arising from this view:
>>
>> 1. Is our social organization in some of its essential elements an
>> extension of the larger pattern in the organization of living systems
>> as proposed here [1]?
>>
>> 2. Are there important organizational or role similarities between
>> modulator systems- Mycorrhiza networks, gut bacterial networks and
>> financial investment networks?
>>
>> 3. Are there ways in which these insights could be leveraged to align
>> dynamics between ecosystems and economic systems?
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>