Ecological Systems Thinking: Technological and Natural Systems
Stuart Umpleby and Eric Dent’s early classification system in “The Origin and Purposes of Several Traditions of Systems Theory” itself shows the difficulty of the exercise of cataloguing. While the schema developed includes various important “traditions” such as general systems theory, operational research or systems analysis, system dynamics, organizational learning, top quality management, and cybernetics, it does not mention a specific “tradition” focused on the environment or ecology, and it ignores developments of biological ecology altogether. This itself is demonstrative of how much a cataloguing reflects the interests and needs of the cataloger.
Despite the questionable value of Umpleby’s and Dent’s classification for my own purposes, their systematization does note various thinkers of import in what might be classified ecological strains of systems thinking. Among these are Kenneth Boulding, who they classify under “general systems theory” and Donella Meadows, who they discuss under “system dynamics.” While Umpleby’s and Dent’s catalogue has its value, its failure to highlight ecological systems thinking in its own right, makes it of limited value to one of the most important areas of systems thinking today.
In this paper, I will briefly discuss a group of thinkers, including Boulding and Meadows, but also Bateson, along with Eugene and Howard Odum and James Lovelock, who are important for their contribution to systems thinking aimed at the environmental thematic. I will also briefly introduce an ecosystems model that views the development of human “cultural” systems as emergent from, continually dependent upon, and in a feedback process with the natural ecosystem. This basic schema is developed on the basis of the work of Kenneth Boulding and the “evolutionary cultural ecology” of Peter Finke. It highlights the need, given the present ecological crisis, for the systems of politics, economics, education (including science), as well as technology, and art and cultural expression (including philosophy and metaphysics) to reflect a concern for planetary sustainability.
My focus will be on human technological systems (construed very broadly). Here I will highlight in particular the recent work of Braden R. Allenby and Daniel Sarewitz in The Technical Human Condition. Allenby and Sarewitz usefully highlight what they characterize as levels 1-3 technologies and technological thinking. Their argument is that humans engage very well in level 1 technological thinking—essentially thinking in terms of cause and effect about how to create technical solutions to human problems. We are less good at thinking at level 2 technological thought, which requires consideration of how simple solutions (of level 1) are networked into, dependent upon, and affecting socially created systems. Finally we are worst of all what they call level 3 technological thinking, that is, at thinking of how levels 1 and 2 technological thinking affect the planetary system. I agree with Allenby and Sarewitz that we are not very good at thinking systemically in the ways they mention. I argue here that given this reality, individualist solutions to the problems are insufficient. While the concerns for the earth system must be tackled on all fronts, governmental initiative is fundamental.
Cybernetic traditions:
- 9) Social sciences
- 3) Experimental epistemology; constructivism; philosophy of science