Ecology: Biology of Interaction. VI-16. Scenarios of the Future
Let us consider two questions of fundamental importance. First: can we influence the probabilities of different scenarios for the development of humanity and the biosphere? Most likely yes. In any case, we have a broad arsenal of actions that can promote depletion scenarios — and, therefore, means to push development in another direction as well.
VI-16. Future Scenarios There is an important asymmetry between the past and the future. The past, which determines the present, is generally defined. We arrived at the current situation through a certain path. But what will the future be like? For us, it remains uncertain... We can predict it, but we cannot be sure of the correctness of our predictions. In general, it is clear that the future of humanity and the biosphere is determined by those complexes of cause-and-effect relationships that ensure the current dynamics of these systems (Fig. VI-16.1). We analyze the current cause-and-effect relationships that determine the events we observe, continue them into the future, and describe what awaits us... Fig. VI-16.1. Future scenarios can be divided into two groups: flourishing scenarios and depletion scenarios The situation is complicated by the fact that different forecasts offer us fundamentally different future scenarios. In general, these scenarios should determine the outcome of the race between two global trends—the depletion of the biosphere's resources and humanity's increasing ability to destroy its environment, on the one hand, and the development of technologies and the expansion of humanity's creative capabilities, on the other. Which of these trends will win? Depending on this, the scenarios we can build are divided into two groups, shown in the figure. Can we determine which global trend will win? Adherents of one view or another are confident in this and often claim that the future they herald is inevitable. The models they have built prove this 100%! Unfortunately, the confidence that models can predict the details of what has never been observed is based on a mixture of deception and self-deception (in varying proportions for different prophets). As we indicated (Section 1.12), models are a useful tool for research, but they can also mislead their creators. The point is that when extrapolating the observed dynamics of models into the unknown future, one must assume that the cause-and-effect relationships that determine the system's dynamics will operate in the same way as they do now. This is a very "strong" assumption that, in the vast majority of cases, is not justified. Fig. VI-16.2 shows the difference between interpolation and extrapolation of system behavior using modeling. Interpolation can be effective and accurate; extrapolation, if it predicts significant changes in the system under study, is not. The effectiveness of interpolation using modeling has been repeatedly proven; at the same time, extrapolation only provides hypothetical future scenarios that are practically never accurate. Of course, this is not an argument against building such scenarios: they should be built and analyzed, but they should not be confused with inevitable predictions. Fig. VI-16.2. Confident prediction of system dynamics in states that have never been observed is impossible in most cases The important question is: is it currently determined which path future events will take? A general analysis of the situation suggests that up to a certain point, our efforts can change our future, and after a certain key moment (a bifurcation point), we will become powerless to significantly influence our destiny (Fig. VI-16.3). Different models and different specialists answer differently whether humanity has passed this key moment. How should we act in such a situation? Fig. VI-16.3. Using the metaphor of a ball rolling on a surface of complex shape to describe system dynamics (see Section 1.09), we can assume that there is a certain key moment (bifurcation point) when the system almost irreversibly chooses the direction of further movement If the moment of determining our future is still ahead, we must concentrate our efforts to influence our destiny in the desired direction. If it is already behind us, but we are not sure, we should tirelessly strive to influence the situation as if we had such an opportunity. Let's consider a simple analogy. There are a number of situations where first aid (e.g., artificial respiration) can save the life of a person in danger. Sometimes first aid is effective, sometimes it is not. Should it be stopped in a situation where it is unclear whether death has become irreversible or not? In no case! Attempts to help should be made until the signs of death become unambiguous (and, moreover, they should be determined by a professional who can consider all possible scenarios of events). What if we become convinced that the chance to preserve humanity's desired future has been lost? Artificial respiration in a similar situation should be stopped, and efforts to transition from depletion scenarios to flourishing scenarios should continue. The models used to determine the chances of resuscitating a person in clinical death operate in interpolation mode. Specialists have repeatedly observed the trajectories of patients in transitional states; the experience accumulated by humanity is trustworthy. Fortunately, we have not observed humanity's transition to collapse; our ideas about this process remain hypothetical, obtained in the mode of insufficiently justified extrapolation of current trends. There will be no definitive grounds for confidence that the chances of recovery for humanity and the biosphere are lost until the very last moment... Fig. VI-16.1 poses two questions that are of fundamental importance to us. First: can we influence the probability of different scenarios? The answer is most likely yes. In any case, we have a wide arsenal of possibilities that contribute to depletion scenarios (e.g., starting a nuclear war); we should assume that we also have means to push the development of humanity and the biosphere in another direction (likely not as spectacular as war). Second question: if we can influence our future, how should we do it? If we think about this question, we will realize that there are no generally accepted answers to it. Profane ecology (Section 1.1.1) offers a whole bouquet of contradictory answers, but most of them are irrational and impractical. Proving that "organic" farming cannot save humanity is a relatively simple task (although a large part of the proponents of this myth will simply close themselves off from any rational arguments). Finding a rational alternative to this simple recipe is a much more complex problem. A not final, but important conclusion that follows from the problems discussed is the need to improve our ability to account for the factors influencing the stability of biosystems, to predict the dynamics of such systems (including using modeling), and to spread among the rational part of the population an understanding of the importance of caring for humanity's sustainable existence for the biosphere. In any case, the authors of this textbook, who are engaged in modeling the stability of biosystems and education, have chosen this path for themselves.