The Spaceman and the Cowboy economies of Kenneth Boulding

Kenneth Boulding's famous 1966 paper The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth presented the idea of the Earth as a zone of finite resources. That is, as a spaceship. His ideas could be illustrated using a systems diagram (left), which provides a good introduction to modeling in general.

For this introduction I used the systems diagram of the Simulistics program (simulistics.com) and Odum and Odum's model for a renewable resource that appears in the book Modeling for All Scales (2000, Academic Press).

One can see why this model describes a population inside spaceship: the resource R is being supplied at a fixed rate but is being drained at a rate proportional to the size of the population. On the other hand, by removing the outflow from R one can turn this into a cowboy economy, that is, a land vast and rich where "seldom is heard a discouraging word".

The cowboy economy corresponds more to the way we think, but the above model is the way “reality” is. Boulding gave two recommendations how we can make our world more like the spaceman economy it should be.

First, lessen consumption rate. Consumption may be described as disposal minus recycling. Thus, one way to decrease consumption rate is to increase recycling. Another is to lessen supply (like toilet paper, when its supply is low disposal rate is low). And another is to increase prices.

Second, increase the stock of R. This may be brought about through technology, such as genetic engineering, which can draw the maximum from nature. Another is to simply plant more.

But what Boulding is really saying goes bigger than all that. He is asking no less than we change the way we study and do economics. He says that we should shift from an emphasis on production (measured by GDP and GNP) and instead shift to measures of stock. One way this can come about is to value intellectual creations, such as technology.

One insight from all this is that mathematics is a language. The diagram above is a model, and so is its mathematical formulation, written as a system of differential equations. Mathematics is a language that allows one to communicate with the computer. It is a motivation to understand that it is a language that allows us to communicate with some of the most powerful tools created by man, computers. It is a universal language, one that can be used to interrogate nature itself. "How are you, tree?" is not a question nature can answer, though it could answer this: "How is your oxygen production rate today?"

We just have to realize that like all languages, mathematics can not express the full reality of things. It remains useful to understand aspects of these realities, however.

On the Gaia hypothesis and how students are graded

The difference between a scientific and a non-scientific hypothesis is an important one to learn in a science class. A scientific hypothesis is one that is open to the possibility of being proved false. Referring to Lovelock’s The Gaia Hypothesis, Table II, column (C) labeled Earth Without Life is what makes the Gaia hypothesis scientific. It does this because it predicts the data we should obtain were the hypothesis false.

To be falsifiable does not mean that a hypothesis is actually false. Neither does it mean that a non-scientific hypothesis is not worthy of being studied.

Going on further, we discussed a very simple model of a system:



The logic of the model is that the earth as Gaia performs certain processes, notably the transfer of matter, energy, and information in a controlled manner. The A’s are the inputs, the B’s the outputs, and C is the control. Lovelock did not present data from A or C, but rather the output, from B. He compared the atmospheric components of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and showed that the B of earth is markedly different from those of the other planets.

What made the difference? Life.

Taking off from this example, we showed that processes are more difficult to study than their results. It is not easy to tell who is brilliant, but it is much easier to see who is productive. I explained that I graded students not on the basis of their intelligence or their study techniques, but on their output. I pointed out that talent is useless without output, and that good papers produced by students are useless unless published.

Do we know enough to lift all bans on GMO's?

(LR: Minerva Tabije, Abraham Guiyab, Grant Delfin, Stacey Gutierrez, Nino Runes, Joaquin Montesclaros)

21 May 2008. The debate was on whether knowledge today was sufficient to justify lifting all bans on genetically modified organisms.

Government (Tabije, Gutierrez, Delfin) argued that there have not been sufficient evidence to show that GMO’s are unsafe for human consumption. They further argued that the development of commercial products like Flavr Savr tomatoes, beta-carotene enhanced food, salt resistant plants, and a variety of medicines and vaccines provide solutions to the world’s food and health problems. GMO’s save lives.

Opposition (Guiyab, Runes, Montesclaros) argued that is not sufficient evidence about the long term risks of GMO’s, particularly the ecological risks. They argued that effects such as the loss of biodiversity, the evolution of insect resistance, and the spread of resistance genes, could take several generations to observe. Furthermore, if a serious adverse effect is observed, it will be impossible to recall the errant genes, for they would have spread through nature. GMO’s are a Pandora’s box.

This debate involved weighing the short term benefit of saving lives against the long term risk of ecological damage. The way to solve the dilemma is to ask whether the evidence now allows us to predict the long term risk. To assess this, it is necessary to know the details of how genetic modification is performed. These details differ somewhat from one organism to another; thus, the assessment should be made on a case-to-case basis.

As chief adjudicator, I felt that it was Government’s job to show data that 1) suggest there is little risk to health; and 2) suggest there is little ecological risk, which would include a discussion of the technology and its inherent flaws. The Government was not very clear on these.

On the other hand, the Opposition provided data on potential risks. They cited the case of the monarch butterfly, the larvae of which are killed when they ingest large amounts of genetically modified pollen (modified to contain an inserted insecticidal peptide). Although genes do spread in the environment, their argument that they do through the food chain is, however, inaccurate.

Nonetheless, we gave this to the Opposition because we did not think Government was able to satisfactorily rebut the ecological argument of the Opposition.

Are socialist measures the best way to protect the environment?

(LR: Mando Manikis, Inigo Taojo, Cheneil La Madrid, Kristeen Saguinsin, Denise Ramos, Carla Santos)

20 May 2008. The debate today was on whether the Philippine government should adopt socialist measures as the best way to protect the environment.

Government (La Madrid, Taojo, Santos) argued that the means for protecting the environment are too expensive for private companies to invest in; private enterprises are run by a profit motive that discourages such investment. They singled out the following industries as those which should be the object of government control: public transport, emissions testing, logging, healthcare, and education. They described, for example, that government control of public transport would result in all buses having environmental technology; besides, government could also dictate salaries and organization which would lessen bus lines and traffic, lessening pollution.

Opposition (Ramos, Saguinsin, Manikis) argued that such measures are unrealistic in the Philippine context. Where, they ask, would the government get the money for these environmental technologies? Taxes? They argued that the Philippine economy is not one that would raise the kind of money needed, even from high taxes.

We gave this to the Government mainly through defects in the Opposition’s strategy. They failed to underline their most important and relevant argument, namely, that the Government’s position was impracticable or unfeasible.

As a policy debate, Government was obliged to demonstrate need, benefits, and practicability. We think that need and benefits were demonstrated; Opposition tried to show that the Government’s position was not practicable, and they had a point.

However, this argument of the Opposition came near the end, and even then was not clearly articulated. Before they got to that, they first argued intensely that socialist measures violate fundamental rights, lead to corruption, and tend towards communism. They cited examples of inefficiently run government agencies like MWSS and GSIS, and the large investments of the private sector in corporate social responsibility; they cited Jollibee. The audience felt, however, that the Opposition failed to show what these arguments had to do with environmental protection. As to MWSS, GSIS, Meralco, and Jollibee, these are not even in the industries listed by the Government as those they wished to take over.

Government was, therefore, not refuted.The audience further noted that the Government was more able to articulate its position clearly and consistently, thanks to the Government team’s expertise in verbal expression. We underscore here the importance of mastering verbal expression, especially English, as a means of convincing others of the merits of one's ideas.

Does society corrupt man?

(LR: Christopher Siy, Carla Santos, Sabrina Tan, Pia Baria, Steph Sol, Abby Canlas)

19 May 2008. The debate today was on Rousseau's theory that society corrupts man.

Government (Tan, Santos, Siy) gave two major reasons why it does. The first was that the very idea of common good necessarily means that people will have to limit some their desires, but such desires never disappear. The result is that people find ways of “outwitting” others to get these desires, and this leads to corruption. The second reason is that society “defines” what is right and what is wrong. In effect, if there were no definitions, there would be no corruption.

Opposition (Canlas, Sol, Baria) argued that although society puts limits and makes definitions, it is man himself who decides on his actions. Therefore, the source of corruption is human decision. Error, which leads to corrupted decisions, comes from man’s wounded nature. In fact, they added, society exists in order to educate man in correct conduct. It certainly is not society’s intention to corrupt.

The audience gave this debate to the Government because of this argument: Both sides agreed that corruption was a vicious circle, with society corrupting man (government) and man corrupting society (opposition). Thus, the motion holds true; Government was not refuted.

In effect, Government used an argument very difficult to destroy. The only way Opposition could have gotten around this, I think, would have been to use an analogy. In a murder, we say that the gun killed the victim, but we do not imprison the gun. Opposition could have made the case that society is, like the gun, amoral. Then they could have used Government’s definition of corruption as “moral degradation” to argue that moral actions, and therefore corruption, can only arise from free decisions. An amoral object is amoral precisely because it does not make free decisions. Such objects may, indeed, cause evils, but they can not be said to cause corruption in the moral sense. Difficult, but playable.

Is economic growth the cause of all environmental crises?

(LR: Patricia Antonio, Kristopper Japlos, Jean Samsin, Bea Abalajon, Juan Ongchangco, Mariel Sison)

16 May 2008. The debate was on the question of whether economic growth was the cause of all environmental crises.

Government’s strategy was to argue based on a working definition. Government (Samsin, Japlos, and Antonio) defined an “environmental crisis” as a serious incident that caused death and injury to people. They argued that the presence of people was associated--even synonymous-- with economic growth. The presence of people in a place that experienced any form of disaster would, by definition, turn a “natural hazard”—a serious incident that may cause death and injury but not involving people--into an “environmental crisis” by the mere fact of involving people--who, of course, would be there because of economic growth.

Opposition (Abalajon, Sison, Ongchangco) did not contest the definition of environmental crisis, but they pointed out that environmental crises may be caused by natural disasters that had nothing to do with economic growth. Furthermore, they argued that actual environmental crises in the world were not caused by economic growth but by the failure to implement laws.

The audience gave this debate to Government for the following reasons.

First, the opposition failed to detect and then attack the Government’s argument that the mere fact of having people present was always the result of economic growth, and that it was the presence of people that turned a natural hazard into an environmental crisis. Government’s strategy, which was entirely based on a definition, was quite weak, but Opposition failed to capitalize. Furthermore, Opposition’s argument that weak implementation of laws was the problem rather than economic growth was contradicted by one of their own speakers who said that “economic imperatives overtook the implementation of these laws”, thereby saying that economic growth was an indirect cause of environmental crises.

Government’s strategy of using a definition to favor its side was very risky. Its success depended entirely on Opposition detecting the flaw. Fortunately for them, Opposition did not do this.

However, it was pointed out during deliberation that this definition of the Government was defective. Furthermore, the practice of making definitions that prove one’s point—especially if it ignored contrary positions—was not fair. It is precisely the function of debate to make such faults apparent.

Is order in nature evidence of intelligent design?

(LR: Jonathan Esteban, Quintin Abat, Ernest Sy, Gelo Yap, Charade Castro, Chris Schoof)

15 May 2008. The debate was on whether the interconnectedness found in nature was evidence of intelligent design, by which we understand that nature was designed by a Designer, who we do not necessarily identify with God.

Government (Castro, Sy, Abat) argued that the interconnectedness of living and non-living systems on earth implies purpose in all of the components that comprise the systems, of which food chains, biological structures, and geologic cycles are examples. By analogy, a structure such as a watch is so intricately structured and interconnected that the only explanation for how that structure came to be is that it should have been designed. Clearly the watch was made by an intelligent man. Similarly, when one observes such intricately balanced structures in nature, the intricacy is so complex that one must postulate the existence of an intelligence that designed those interrelations. The existence of a Creator is implied.

Opposition (Schoof, Esteban, Yap) argued that though complexity may have been designed, it is not evidence for it. Evolution, for example, provides an explanation to explain order. Thus, we need not attribute complexity to the action of an intelligent will that provides direction or purpose.

It was on the question of whether purpose implied intelligence that this whole debate seemed to rest.

The Government’s case is that interconnectedness itself implied purpose, and purpose implied intelligence. However, what seem to be purposeful arrangements in nature may simply be mental constructs. The Opposition pointed out that humans have the peculiar habit of creating these constructs to understand their world.

But, the fact that a purposeful relationship is a construct does not mean that it does not exist in reality. That, however, is just the point. If you can’t see what it really is, then how can you prove or disprove its very existence? What the actual purposes of things are, whether they are intelligently given purposes or not, is ultimately unfalsifiable, which makes the theory of intelligent design unscientific.

The theory is unscientific in another way.

Let’s take the example of the human eye, broached by the government. This structure is so complex that it is hard to imagine that it could have arisen by random mutations alone. But, opposition pointed out that even if the eye may be very complex to us, in the language of nature the eye might actually be something rather simple. In any case, it is not perfect.

But the absence of perfection is not proof that there is no intelligent designer, because he may be acting slowly. Neither is the trial and error of evolution proof of his inexistence, because the intelligent designer might choose to work by trial and error. Thus, because of his freedom, his existence can not be falsified. This unfalsifiability puts the theory of intelligent design outside of science.

This does not mean that there is no intelligent designer. There is one, as Government pointed out using the 5th proof of St. Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God. But his existence is demonstrated in philosophy and not in science.

Thus, both groups are correct. It just depends which field—science or philosophy—they are addressing.

This was a very difficult debate that saw both groups receiving high points from the audience.

Does order exist in nature or is it imposed by the mind?

(LR: Laurice Visco, Angelica Angeles, Nichole Arellano, Kenneth Torres, Nino Buendia, Matt Labra)

14 May 2008. The debate was on the question of whether there is truly order in the world, or whether order is only an imposition of the human mind.

Government (Angeles, Torres, Visco) argued that the real world may follow certain actions, but these are not orderly. It is our mind that tries to make sense of these actions by giving it names, like “eating”. The corresponding real event may simply be a random interaction, say between a rabbit and a carrot; the two meet and of them disappears. One evidence is that perceptions of people are not all the same.

Opposition argued that the mere fact of the world being intelligible is already evidence that there is some order in reality. What happens is that the order we come up with may be temporary, but it is still based on observation. Scientists don’t “impose” in the sense of doctoring nature. We systematize, but it is not all just a matter of perception. Perceptions, it is true, change, but this is not evidence of disorder in nature but rather a progressive approach towards increased understanding of the real.

We gave this debate to the opposition mainly because we felt that, technically, they were more articulate. I pointed out, however, that the strongest evidence in their favor was not something they elaborated on. It came from the audience: progress is itself evidence that there is some order in nature. Why, for instance, do we consider the fact that we have identified 114 elements in contrast to the medieval 4 as progress? Because it is an improvement. An improvement of what? Greater improvement in usefulness and in consistency. That means we are approximating the real more and more.

I reflected an insight in that we always view the world through some kind of filter between us and reality. The filter is concept, language, perception. What lies on the other side is probably much richer than what goes through the filter. Scientific progress is a question of changing the filter to make it more useful and consistent, but it seems that we might never reach the point where we will be able to see reality as it is through science alone.

Thus, there is something on the other side of the filter, but it is probably not science which provides the best means for us to get to know it. Science is limited and changing. To see the other side we will need the methods of another field: religion, philosophy, art.