Comments on: Where the Linear Crosses the Exponential

By: Zane Selvans

Zane Selvans — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:37:48 +0000

I think it’s a little misleading to talk about progress (economic, technological, or otherwise) as being simply “exponential”. As you mention, complex systems like our economy and the climate are really governed by networks of interconnected feedbacks, both positive and negative, and are potentially capable of both explosive growth, and catastrophic collapse. Such systems are wildly non-linear, and inherently difficult to predict without deep and detailed knowledge of their inner workings – which we do not have, and may not easily obtain. It is thus foolish to imagine that we can make rational plans today around what we think perhaps possibly our economy, technology, and climate might be like in 50, 100, or 200 years. We can either throw up our hands in despair, or we can try and damp those exponential factors that we know will lead to serious problems if left unchecked: resource extraction, population growth, greenhouse gas emissions. As a species, and a society, we deal poorly with uncertainty in non-linear domains. For the technically inclined, I recommend Albert Tarantola’s book on inverse problems (http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/), for the lay person Nassim Taleb’s “Fooled by Randomness” or “The Black Swan”. For a little insight into the historical (and very possibly future) instability of the Earth’s climate, Richard Alley’s “The Two Mile Time Machine” is very readable.

By: JS

JS — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:34:29 +0000

Here’s the problem with most futurists, there’s nothing new in the moral or religious realm under the sun.

This emergent environmentalism evolved previously.

And I agree with Enoch…this is not a religion, unless there’s some animism or something there. Let’s keep the terms defined and clear!

By: Enoch Root

Enoch Root — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:14:36 +0000

‘Our individual lives’ are no more or less linear or exponential than ‘progress.’

Lives progress at both linear and exponential rates, depending on what you’re measuring.

One night, George W. Bush goes to sleep, and has a dream. He dreams that everything he’s doing to set back the cause of the human condition will come to haunt him in full, rather than in part as now. And he wakes up the next day and announces that he’s not sure what must be done, but he knows he must resign from the Presidency for this reason.

Is that a story of linear or exponential individual growth?

Also: Environmentalism is not a religion, in that there is no doctrine. There is only an approach which yields similar behavior in many people. When you fill in the gaps of ignorance, you reach one of a narrow band of conclusions, and that’s just how it is. There is no leap of faith required.