Tory, wonderful post, and as far as I can understand, spot-on in all
respects,
A few things to add to Jochen's comments, as sources for thought:
The acts that organisms take, merely in the course of living from one
day to the next, tend to be under-emphasized in relation to the acts
of reproducing (not sure whether this is Darwin or Hollywood
fetishism...). But the input-output relations of ecology should
correspond fairly nicely to the input-output relations of the
economy, if either were a well-formed technical theory. In
economics, input-output goes under the names Leontief I/O theory, or
closely related von Neumann-Gale growth theory. I have often wished
that either had more of the strictness of chemical input/output
relations -- at least where such are warranted -- but that is not yet
the case, as both fields have been more interested in the flexibility
afforded by innovation than in the constraints that limit the landscape.
In terms of what organisms do to each other, whether intentionally or
inadvertently, there are the two names "Niche Construction" and
"ecosystem engineering". The first has a book by Laland, Odling-
Smee, and Feldman. It's a big area, and the book only opens the
topic, but it's a start. Many of the ideas are general enough that
they are equally comfortable in the economy, which is, as you say,
part of the global ecosystem.
The questions about supply and demand driving are things I wish I
understood how to think about. It is a strangely child-level
response, but I am brought back to The Story of Stuff (internet
video), about the notion of demand and its consequences. I have
thought for many years that (whatever your reaction to its
orientation -- I tend to agree with it) it poses the central problem
we don't do a good job of understanding, about the role of economic
organization and the problems of thinking about growth in a world
that is physically and energetically finite.
Eric
On Oct 17, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:
Without wanting to start a long diatribe, I am curious how the
group sees this:
Is it really viable to say that
economic systems are more
complex and more differentiated than ecologic
systems.
? Even to an amateur (moi, nodding to SAS) this seems
unsubstantiated. Economic systems are within ecological systems,
ultimately. And we have no way of knowing if we understand the
complexity and intersecting differentiation of ecological systems.
We just cross our fingers, then in a hundred years new information
shows up and they all say "What were they thinking do to X?"
The planet is a closed loop, right? So any system in it is subject
to the same restrictions.
And
but they also generate a product
which is independent from themselves.
makes me wonder what one would consider (sorry everyone, really I
am) an emergent phenomenon: if an element in an ecosystem generates
CO2 and changes the range of potential elements/ life forms that
may arise, how is this any different than generating an iPod that
changes the possible desires and future products of the
marketplace, or generating drugs that then change the range of
potential elements/life forms?
Am I missing something?
Tory
ps I really am just curious. No desire to start a long wrangle....
Too much to do for that. But curious.
Thanks in advance.
On Oct 17, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Both systems can be viewed as complex
adaptive systems consisting of many interacting
agents that adapt and learn from their interactions
with one another:
system: economic system - ecosystem
agent: organism - company
interaction: food webs - supply chains
One major difference is perhaps what the
agents do with their supply, the agents
of ecosystems are more "selfish":
* Organisms consume s.th. to produce more of
themselves, they maintain themselves with food,
and they produce stuff necessary to make more
copies of themselves. Agent and product are
identical.
* Companies consume s.th. to produce a product
which is different from themselves. Agent and
product are different.
On the one hand, economic systems are more
complex and more differentiated than ecologic
systems. Companies can consume other companies
to produce larger companies and to maintain
themselves, but they also generate a product
which is independent from themselves.
On the other hand, ecologic systems are much
more sophisticated, since they are unbeatable in
green technology, regenerative energy and natural
recycling ;-)
-J.
----- Original Message ----- From: Russ Abbott
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: Alexandre Lomovtsev ; Shuger,Debora ; Porter,Edith
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:35 AM
Subject: [FRIAM] Economy vs. ecology
I've been thinking about the differences between our economic
system and a natural ecology. Since I'm not an expert in either
I'm writing this in the hope that someone who is will clarify any
issues I get wrong.
It seems to me that a fundamental difference is that natural
ecologies are supply-driven. By that I mean that the supply of
resources (food, sunshine, etc.) is the primary determinant of how
the ecology functions. (I'm not talking here about transitions
when a species invades an ecology and upsets the pre-existing
balance. I want to focus at least at the beginning on ecologies
that have achieved a fairly stable state.) In such ecologies
fairly well-defined food webs are established. These determine the
sizes of the various populations, etc. Of course there are or can
be cycles such as the standard predator-prey cycle. But even in
these cases, the whole thing is supply driven. It's what's
available (primarily to be eaten) that determines everything else.
Our economic system is for the most part supply-driven. The
economy is not completely detached from the need for basic energy
and other natural resource supplies. If there are supply shocks in
these areas, the economy will feel them. But for the most part
what most people do (as economic agents) depends on whether
someone is willing to pay them. That means that most people are
dependent on the demand (for their services) rather than the
supply (of available food). Our current economic situation
illustrates that very well. We are currently demand-deficient. Not
enough people want to buy enough things (or services) to keep us
all employed. This seems very strange and artificial. That so much
of the economy depends on demand rather than supply makes it very
vulnerable to the kind of problems we face today.
But as I said, our economy is not completely demand driven. We are
still supply dependent. Working with others I'm hoping to build a
model that illustrates where the tipping point is. When does a
supply-driven ecology become a demand-dependent economy? Is it a
sharp phase transition? Can it be characterized in terms of other
properties? Comments are welcome.
-- Russ Abbott
______________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Google voice: 424-242-USA0 (last character is zero)
blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
______________________________________
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
-----------------------------------
Tory Hughes
victo...@toryhughes.com
Tory Hughes website
Tory Hughes facebook
------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
