Executive Summary

Executive Summary of A Model in Crisis

The problem we seek to help solve is the global environmental sustainability problem. The problem was identified in 1972 by the first edition of Limits to Growth. It described the problem this way:

“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

However, despite heroic efforts by many individuals and organizations, civilization has failed to solve the problem. Environmental carrying capacity overshoot continues to grow, with no overall credible solution is sight. As the third edition of Limits to Growth lamented in 2004, “humanity has largely squandered the past 30 years.”

Our premise is that it is possible to take an analytical approach to the problem and solve it, if it is still solvable. This is because present solution efforts, while well intentioned, are based on little more than intuitive hunches and educated guesses. This works for simple everyday problems, the kind people are accustomed to solving. But it fails disastrously for complex system problems, such as the global environmental sustainability problem.

Intuitive hunches and educated guesses are the equivalent of solving a problem by trial and error. If a problem has a small number of solutions to try, and there is plenty of time, and erroneous solutions do not make the problem worse or insolvable, then trial and error can work. But this is not the case here.

This book presents an example of a sufficiently mature analytical problem solving approach. It is built around the same line of attack science has found so successful: a process tailored to the problem type. For science this is the Scientific Method. For complex social system problems this is the System Improvement Process, though any suitable process would do.

This process has been applied in a rigorous manner. The key findings so far are:

1. The model civilization is using to run itself is in crisis, because it has failed to achieve its objective of running civilization “well.”

2. The “social side” of the problem is the crux, not the “technical side.” Society knows what it must do to survive: live sustainably. Technically there are many practical ways to do this. But for strange and mysterious reasons society doesn’t want to do them. This is “change resistance,” which is the social side of the problem.

3. Analysis of the agents involved shows there is one super agent that has essentially become the New Dominant Life Form. This is the modern corporation. Because it profits more from unsustainability it is against solving the problem. From this we conclude that the key to solving the social side of the problem is solving the New Dominant Life Form problem.

4. A simulation model hypothesizes that the social side of the problem is caused by a dominant “race to the bottom among politicians.” This occurs because presently politicians can gain more supporters through falsehood and favoritism than they can through the truth and no favoritism.

5. It appears the social side of the problem can be solved by structural changes which cause the race to the bottom to no longer be dominant. Instead, the race to the top among politicians becomes dominant. Since the race to the top is based on truth, it can correctly address the problem, starting by giving it the top priority it deserves.

6. The structural changes required can be accomplished by pushing on the proper high leverage points of the human system. According to the simulation model these are (1) ability to detect deception, (2) repulsion to corruption, and (3) quality of decision making.

7. By contrast, conventional problem solving efforts tend to fail because they are pushing on low leverage points, such as “more truth memes.”

8. A rigorous, analytical, process driven approach to the complete problematique has not yet been tried. Nor has the solution of pushing on the three high leverage points. Therefore there is a glimmer of rational hope.