Dec 16, 2022
Our Planet: Adapt and Overcome
Seeing the image above, I am sure you have heard slogans like “save the planet” and “there is no planet B.” While I support the idea that we should take care of our planet, I say we must take a more differentiated position to understand our situation and role regarding climate change. Therefore, let me present THE major problem regarding climate change which only takes the following tiny illustration.
The image above illustrates a system using a modeling language called Causal Loop Diagram[1], which is often used in Systems Thinking[2]. The system variables A and B are connected by an arrow crossed by two bars. It represents a delayed effect between A and B, meaning B results out of A with a certain delay. And exactly those delayed effects are our biggest problem as humanity.
You don’t believe that? So let me explain.
Because we can!
While I am writing this article, the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar is taking place. Big new stadiums were built for this event, including all the required infrastructure. And it’s already clear that these stadiums are not needed after the World Cup. Additionally, many people will fly to Qatar to see the World Cup football matches. And while these matches take place, even the fields need to be climatized because it’s too hot in Qatar.
All in all, this event consumes a lot of resources and produces immense CO2 emissions. And most of us would agree that such an event is bad for the environment. And most of us agree that such an event is problematic since we know climate change will dramatically impact us. So why do we stage such events as the FIFA World Cup when they negatively impact our climate?
The answer is simple: because we can.
We can because the adverse effects of climate change are delayed, so we don’t experience them yet. At least not much, and not in the northern hemisphere where I live, where most CO2 gets produced.
Too many, too much
Outstanding events like the FIFA World Cup are one thing, but they are not the utmost reason for climate change. Instead, we can reduce the problem to a simple and more generic formula: We, as human beings, are too many, and each of us consumes too much — especially the people living in economically developed countries like me. And the big problem is that all the conveniences we take for granted today are already too much.
Do you want some examples? Here they are.
Buying a new smartphone every year so we always have the latest model? Too much. Owning a car? Too much. Commuting to the workplace by car every day? Too much. Living in a house and heating that house over the winter time? Too much. Living in a flat and heating that flat? Too much. Eating meat and consuming milk products? Too much. Flying on vacation by airplane? Too much. Sending a search request to Google? Too much.
We can find an endless number of examples since the real problem is that these things become inappropriate when too many people are doing them simultaneously. Remember that the problem is not only our direct consumption of goods. Everything we consume must be produced: the houses we live in, the cars we drive, the smartphones we use, the food we eat, and the whole infrastructure we keep alive.
The foundations of industrialization and scientific management made our production systems and processes highly efficient. And they allow us to maintain a standard of living that was unthinkable even 100 years ago or even less. But the production of goods is often uncoupled from its environmental impact because these effects are delayed.
Summarized in three words: because we can.
Stuck in a sub-optimal status quo
All of this is clear to most of us. We know that we have reached eight billion people on Earth. This, combined with our consumption-oriented economic system and our very own behavior inside of it, are the drivers behind climate change.
So why don’t we change it? Systems theory gives us the answer.[3]
Here, with the help of the mechanism of deviation amplification, one can explain why significant effects arise from certain small, quasi-random beginnings, which gradually determine the structures of a particular system and are then hardly revisable historically.
Niklas Luhmann, Einführung in die Systemtheorie, p. 54 (freely translated by the author of this article, Boris Karl Schlein)
We can condense Niklas Luhmann’s quote into two words: history matters.[4] Over the ages, our system has formed, structures have coagulated, and so it has become what it is today. And even though we know that our status quo, the way we live, is sub-optimal, when it comes to climate change, breaking with the status quo is not easy.[5]
Let me provide a short example: Let’s say I decide to live in a tent somewhere in the woods of Germany to save CO2 emissions. It’s simply not allowed since wild camping is forbidden in Germany. And wild camping on a long-term basis is even more forbidden. I also need a valid address to have access to the job market. And I need work since I need money. So guess who is not living in a tent somewhere in the trees? You are right; it’s me.
This exaggerated example may sound silly, but it shows that all of us are under societal constraints we cannot simply shake off. And as I already wrote, these constraints form our current status quo. Of course, they provide many positive outcomes for my current situation, but they don’t consider climate change since its impact is still too little at the moment I am living.
We call it system-intelligent behavior, where we act according to the boundaries of the system in which we find ourselves. It means that there is always a reference that guides our behavior. And climate change is currently not our reference since its effects are not strong enough to direct or dominate our behavior.
Now let’s remember the picture at the top of this article. It shows people who own a smartphone, wear proper clothing and hold up signs written on them with pens. All this stuff must be produced, so it harms our climate. Consequently, this expresses the societal constraints (and expectations) we live in.
Because we can.
Us versus our very own psychology
Stepping away from the systems theory view, let’s look at a more individual level.
Cognitive psychology says that we constantly downgrade dissonant information and upgrade constant information. It means that whenever we do something that we know is wrong or — let’s say — sub-optimal, we automatically have excuses for it. Although these excuses are false, smug, short-sighted, and ignorant.[6]
A short example: The weather is a little cold and rainy but still OK. Instead of driving by bike to an appointment, we choose to take the car, although it is unnecessary. During the car ride, we immediately have a guilty conscience. But excuses are not far off, like “well, I am not doing it often,” or “this one more ride won’t break the world.”
This is also possible since we don’t perceive our behavior as directly coupled to climate change because of the delayed effects. For instance, mother nature will not instantly burn my lawn when I open my car to drive to a grocery store.
Because we can.
Thoughts like “this one more ride won’t break the world” lead precisely to the next section. We constantly compare ourselves to what others are doing.
The others will do it as well
If only everyone would join in.
We may have heard someone say the line above or thought it ourselves. As attractive as this thought may be, it is unrealistic because it is undercomplex.
Let’s say that a single small country enacts strict climate regulations on itself to address climate change. But we all know that as long as we do not address climate change on a global level, climate change will go out of hand.
Therefore, we need regulations at a global level. Otherwise, it would lead to a situation where some countries have economic disadvantages because climate regulations restrict economic growth. Or it would require a massive change to develop green industries that replace the established ones. Such a change always means risk since we cannot predict if new industries will develop so they can compensate for the existing industries. And most human beings try to avoid risk — and consequently, we (try) avoid change as long as we can.[7]
Wait a minute. I think it’s time for a concise and incomplete summary of Game Theory’s Prisoner’s Dilemma: I don’t know what the others will do. So if I am not doing it, I think the others will do it. So I will do it not to have any assumed disadvantage.[8]
Consequently, game theory explains how asymmetric information[9] hinders us from facing problems on a global scale. We don’t know what the other party will do in the end, so we choose the safe path. Again, this is risk-averse behavior.
Therefore, we must return to Systems Theory and the reference that guides our behavior. Still, the effects of climate change are not strong enough to overrule our risk and change aversion. This allows us to slip out of global regulations. Thus, most countries would likely favor their own hidden agenda.
Just to make that clear: we can see this is currently happening when looking at the shortcoming results of the UN climate change conferences.
Because we can. And by the way, that’s called politics.[10]
We are not zooming out
In my article Change against Positive Feedback Loops, I highlighted the role of positive feedback loops that have a massive impact on what we do and who we are today. Not only as an individual but as a whole society. Consequently, I highlighted (human) evolution as a process of positive feedback. For instance, take the following quote.
[Risk-averse] behavior has prevailed in our evolution because it represents a behavior essential for survival. And who or what survives impacts the following generations. Risk aversion is a primal instinct inside us, formed by evolution, the ultimate positive feedback mechanism.
Change against Positive Feedback Loops, Boris Karl Schlein
What helped us survive in small and separated groups some million years ago may not be helpful in today’s globalized world. Risk aversion leads to the phenomenon that we tend to stay with our own people since we perceive differences as a risk. Consequently, we tend to avoid and dislike people with different looks, cultures, etc.
This ends up in nationalism, a made-up construct that rests on the pure belief that we as a nation are the same, superior to others, and that this is valuable. Nationalism leads to protectionism, which makes global climate change regulations even more unlikely. And thus, we can see that the problem is inside of us caused by our evolution.
Evolution brought us to a point where we cannot zoom out. It means that we are still way too self-centric, whether it’s us as an individual or as a particular group of people to which we attribute specific characteristics. And attribution of characteristics means that we build our assumptions on it due to our limited cognitive capabilities — radical constructivism.[11]
Evolution has not produced human beings who can always face the bigger picture. Thus, I am not talking about an individual view but how we behave in large groups, organizations, or even societies. Since personal interests and short-term thinking heavily drive our behavior, evolution did not prepare us for the challenges of a globalized world with eight billion people.
Because we can.
Driving home for Christmas — 220 km/h
Here’s another example — not on a global but national scale. In Germany, we currently discuss if we need to have a speed limit on our autobahns. This discussion comes up occasionally, but now it is pretty intensive. Ironically, it’s not mainly driven by climate change. The primary reference is the shortage of gas and oil caused by the Russian war against Ukraine. And guess what? Germany still has not decided to introduce a speed limit.
We must see that speed limits make absolute sense from several perspectives. Statistics from other countries indicate that it would lead to fewer car accidents and deaths on German autobahns. And, of course, it would lead to less resource consumption caused by less wind resistance when driving and better traffic flow.
Of course, there’s a lobby trying everything that the speed limit will not come. You can say that the German speed limit problem is the same as the US American problem with introducing gun regulations. Most people in Germany agree that a speed limit would make sense. But we do not change—history matters.
Because we can.
More than one option
Suppose we understand evolution as a process of reinforcing positive feedback loops. According to the Path-Dependence Theory[4], evolution never leads to optimal but to sub-optimal status quo. Therefore, we continue the argument by asking if our evolution is a development into a dead end or not. And the consequence of this question ends up in the following three options to think of:
- We can save planet Earth.
- We will become extinct.
- We must emancipate ourselves from planet Earth.
Let’s get back to the picture at the very beginning of this article. The woman’s sign states, “There is no Planet B.” The assumption behind this sentence is that we must preserve planet earth forever as it is today — this is option one.
It is a very comfortable belief and expresses how short-sighted evolution made us. The people in the picture are roughly about 20 to 30 years old. The period in which they have consciously perceived their environment is about ten to 15 years. Such a period of time means nothing to mother nature.
We are a life form that lives around 80 years, at least in developed countries. Besides the technical innovations, our surrounding environment has mostly stayed the same. At least not what we experience daily. To me, the trees, woods, and fields look very much the same today as when I was a child thirty years ago.
Since we are limited in our spatial and time perception, we are limited in our perception of the environment. And this leads us to the thinking that we must preserve the status quo because we have never experienced radical change. However, the assumption that we can or must preserve our environment’s status quo is most likely wrong.
Our environment will likely change in the long run, and we as a species have to adapt. If it were otherwise, it would mean that we, as human beings, can control our environment. This is almost a presumptuous assumption. Climate change is a perfect example that we cannot control our environment, but it got out of our hands. If it ever was in our hands.
And to be honest, saving planet earth has never been the objective. The actual reference behind it is to save the human species and allow us to live in a pleasant or at least acceptable way. We must also admit that planet Earth can exist without us. It may only reach a state where our species cannot exist. Following the Gaia Theory[12], the Earth might recover from humanity’s negative impact, but that does not necessarily mean humanity survives.
We are the bad guys
This brings us to the second option, that we might be extinct. This is when our evolution is a dead end for humanity. It sounds sad and very uncomfortable, but it is more likely as we cannot adapt since our evolutionary process did not prepare us for the challenges of a global scale. To do so, we would need to break out of evolution, a process of positive feedback. This is a tremendously difficult change — especially if we need to do the change with the dynamics of a group of eight billion people.
However, the implicit assumption behind options one and two is that we will always be bound to planet Earth. But what if that assumption is already wrong?
Have you seen the 90s blockbuster movie Independence Day?[13] Well, I think it’s quite a shitty movie. However, there is one thing we need to consider, which is a common theme in many science fiction novels and movies: the evil aliens want to extract all resources from our planet, no matter what happens to the life forms living on this planet — including us.
The truth is that we do not need any evil aliens for that. It’s us who are already doing it. We suck every resource out of this planet to satisfy our lust for consumption, and by doing so, we pollute the environment and drive climate change. Thus many life forms on this planet suffer — including us.
And as bad as it sounds, evolution made us what we are now. We often think that what we are and do is extra-natural, but everything is the result of evolution. And evolution is nature. It also includes all inventions we have developed to date—social and technical innovations. For example, our smartphones are the result of an evolutionary process.
And precisely this point, that every innovation produced by human beings is a result of our evolution, is the key to understanding that evolution may lead to a situation where we overcome our planet. Technology might bring us to a position where we can exist without planet Earth. Then, the only questions are if we need a new suitable planet or if we fully emancipate from planet-based existence.
For instance, we may create machine beings to succeed us. We can also consider them a step in our evolution, especially since the human body is undoubtedly the biggest hurdle to leaving the planet in the long run. For instance, the probability is high that microorganisms and whatever exists on another planet are incompatible with the biochemical processes in our bodies. We would probably just die if we stepped on another planet with an existing biosphere.
To be honest, these ideas sound pretty sci-fi — also to me. They create an uncomfortable feeling since they require a massive change in our self-understanding. However, it’s a very consequential thought. So the argument that this is science fiction may only be an excuse to avoid dealing with the idea. However, there is one thing we can be sure of: we don’t know what will happen. Still, everything we make up about our future is a hypothesis.
Coming back to climate change, we just learned that it might not make sense to cling to the idea that we must preserve planet Earth in a stable state forever. Instead, it would be a matter of taking the next step. Namely, to innovate. But innovation takes time.
Time is the enemy
Now comes the central insight: even though we will not save our planet, we need time to innovate. And this brings us to the understanding that taking care of mother Earth is still a good idea because it buys us time.
On the other hand, we need to innovate faster, so we need less time. To deepen this argument, the fact that we have overpopulated our planet already is a great starting point. So, let’s discuss the world population’s effects and illustrate a first model.[14]
The above model describes that innovativeness increases the more people live on our planet. There are simply more people who may have good ideas. It’s about pure statistics. And in effect, we may require less time to reach the innovations we need to overcome the planet.
However, the more we are, the more we consume. Higher consumption most probably leads to faster climate change. This would result in less time available. Therefore, given the model, we must ask ourselves which of the illustrated effects we give more weight to.
Since models always represent a reduced view of reality though they are never complete, we may add the following information.
The above model is extended by the idea that climate change would reduce the world population — because of its adverse effects like starvation, war, and other harmful effects on our health. Therefore, as hard as it sounds, it might be a balancing factor. The next thing to ask is what innovativeness may mean for the consumption of goods.
Here’s an example. We currently see more and more things that used to be driven by muscle power getting electrified. For instance, I see many e-scooters and e-bikes nowadays that I did not see ten years ago. They require not only electric power but also many battery packs that need to be produced. Of course, these batteries get recycled at a certain point, but we should not underestimate the pure number of batteries to be produced the more of these vehicles are on our streets. This increased production would drive our economies, as well as climate change.
Because we can. And it’s the result of innovation.
The same with electric cars. Does the automotive industry develop electric cars to save the world? Of course not. They want to sell new vehicles. And selling new cars requires them to be produced — regardless of whether an electric motor or a combustion engine gets installed.
Innovative technology is always a good reason to make more or new business. And being successful and making money is the reference for every company — not only for car manufacturers. Everything else is greenwashing.
Because we can.
And in the case of greenwashing: because we want! As said at the beginning of this article, we tend to downgrade dissonant information and upgrade consistent information constantly. That’s why we tend to believe in greenwashing initiatives by (large and small) corporations.
A big solution?
The first idea of a big solution brings us back to the topic of change resistance. A circular economy would be an innovation that buys time.[15] But establishing a new economic system would require global regulations. And as we have seen at the beginning of the article, this is not easy to establish as it would require a massive change — that would not happen on time since the reference for it is still missing due to the delayed effect of climate change.
Another solution might be the invention of a new power source like nuclear fusion. It probably would lead to a situation where we have as much energy available as we want. This energy would be enormously clean compared to traditional energy sources and would not depend on external factors like wind or sun.
However, infinite energy would most likely lead to increased production. Consequently, the result might be only a short dip in our overall ecological footprint. Additionally, more energy leads to more wealth, also on a global level. And we know that wealthy people consume even more.
Therefore, it is likely that more wealth results in more consumption. More consumption requires more production. Consequently, the invention of nuclear fusion power plants might provide the energy for this level of production without burning coal, gas, and oil, but the increased production leads to more processing of (natural) resources. Surprise: that means oil, gas, meat (methane through cattle farming), and whatever.
In the context of wealth, we must also talk about education. We know from developed countries that education leads to reduced reproduction. That means that the world population may shrink the higher the education. But education only comes with wealth. And as we have just seen, wealth would mean more consumption. So, at best, these effects may level out each other.
These are only a few examples of possible effects. Thus, we can see that it is always a complex situation we’re in. We solve one problem, but many new problems occur by solving the original problem in a certain way.[16]
The small things in life
Taking all of this together, I don’t think there is one big and easy solution. That’s why I believe that our reality is that we need to overcome our planet rather than save it. Therefore, we should foster innovativeness and take care of our planet to buy time. And we must do everything to make us aware at which point we are.
Similar to the Kondratiev Wave[17], delayed effects lead to a situation where every development follows an infinite sinuous line. It’s a never-ending up and down. The wave results from the fact that we don’t care until the curve hits a certain bottom level due to delayed effects. Only then we see the need for change. Thus, change happens and the curve goes up again.
It means that we finally adapt to the current and urgent challenges. After some time, the external factors have changed, and the curve begins to sink again. And sometimes, the curve goes down a little too long since the effects are delayed. And then, we miss the time for a change, and things end.
We are currently at a relatively high level since we experience extraordinary wealth and quality of life. However, climate change is the reason why it already goes down. So let’s hope we don’t miss the tipping point when we need to change our behavior — which is now.
And, of course, waiting for the significant change to happen is another way of burying our heads in the sand. It’s precisely what makes us not act before things become really bad. Therefore, I think it is essential to see that every one of us can do our part. As I discussed at the beginning of this article, we are still caught in our societal boundaries. Thus, our actions might be small, but everything we can do today is a good thing to win more time. We may eat less meat per week. We use the bike more often. It’s a start.
Because we can.
Footnotes
[1] Learn more about Causal Loop Diagrams at Wikipedia.
[2] Learn more about Systems Thinking at Wikipedia.
[3] Learn more about Niklas Luhmann and his Theory of Social Systems on Wikipedia.
[4] Learn more about the concept of History Matters in the context of the Path-Dependence Theory at Wikipedia. You may also read my article Change against Positive Feedback Loops.
[5] Read my article Change against Positive Feedback Loops to understand why our status quo is sub-optimal.
[6] Learn more about Cognitive Dissonance and why we downgrade dissonant information at Wikipedia.
[7] Read my article Change against Positive Feedback Loops to understand why how risk-propensity is connected to change.
[8] Learn more about the Prisoner’s Dilemma at Wikipedia.
[9] Learn more about Information Asymmetry and its effects at Wikipedia.
[10] Wikipedia says that “politics […] is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups or other forms of power relations among individuals […].”
[11] Learn more about Radical Constructivism at Wikipedia.
[12] Learn more about the Gaia Theory at Wikipedia.
[13] Learn more about the 1996 movie Independence Day at Wikipedia.
[14] From an ethical point of view, reducing the number of people living on this planet is problematic. It would require drastic measures, producing dramatic effects that must be avoided at all costs. Since I am not discussing this from an ethical perspective, I leave it to this footnote.
[15] Learn more about the concept of a Circular Economy at Wikipedia.
[16] Read my article Don’t Step into the Three Traps of the Newtonian Mindset to understand why we cannot predict the outcome when we are in a complex situation.
[17] Learn more about the Kondratiev Wave at Wikipedia.
Related Articles
Change against Positive Feedback Loops
Boris Karl Schlein
Climate Change and Maslow’s Pyramid
Boris Karl Schlein
Don’t Step into the Three Traps of the Newtonian Mindset
Boris Karl Schlein
Three Ideas for Organizational Change
Boris Karl Schlein
What COP27 may mean for the climate-displaced
Leah Durst-Lee
Can Just Stop Oil make the case for protest?
Henry Mance, Financial Times (ft.com)
We Are On The Brink Of Disaster
Will Lockett
Climate Change is Systems Change
T. Callahan
Our planet is in crisis: Climate change is just a symptom. Outdated technology is the problem.
Andrew Hessel
I’m Thankful Smart People Are Telling the Truth: Economic and Population Growth Need to End ASAP
Dave Gardner
Book Recommendations
Thinking in Systems
Donella H. Meadows
Feedback: Wie Rückkopplung unser Leben bestimmt und Natur, Technik, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft beherrscht
Jürgen Beetz
Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie
Niklas Luhmann
Einführung in die Systemtheorie
Niklas Luhmann
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
Malcolm Gladwell
