[Free]

Michael Crichton
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, Washington DC, 6 Nov 2005. By Michael Crichton:

Some of you know I have written a book that many people find controversial. It is called State of Fear, and I want to tell you how I came to write it. Because up until five years ago, I had very conventional ideas about the environment and the success of the environmental movement.

The book really began in 1998, when I set out to write a novel about a global disaster. In the course of my preparation, I rather casually reviewed what had happened in Chernobyl, since that was the worst manmade disaster in recent times that I knew about.

What I discovered stunned me. Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.

Undaunted, I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements. That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example. ...

It’s no surprise that predictions frequently don’t come true. But such big ones! And so many! All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems. I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end. ...

To encourage what is happening anyway is a common procedure in many areas of advocacy. For example, it now seems clear that despite the warnings of Paul Ehrlich and others, we are not going to have a population explosion of 14 billion people and associated mass starvation. How did we avoid this explosion? Because—the head of planned parenthood once explained to me, everybody in the world listened to Ehrlich—and got busy stopping population growth. I was astonished she could be so uninformed about her subject area. Ehrlich may be a celebrity in the west; but his advocacy had little to do with solving the problem of population, because that problem was already being solved by itself, at the time he wrote his book. ...

According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4). [b]...

Ausubel expects the trend to continue through this century as we move toward pure hydrogen—without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late. [/b]...

All right. Then in summary, when I went back to examine old fears, the first thing I found was that newspapers were focused on momentary concerns; the second thing I found was that the language employed was excessively frightening, and the third thing I found was that a lot of advocacy was encouraging what was happening anyway. But I learned some other things, too.

One interesting feature is the tendency to reversals: a benefit becomes a hazard and then becomes a benefit again. Butter is good, then bad, then good again. Saccharine is good, then bad, then good. But this is also true for some much larger scares, like cancer and powerlines, which hit the media in 1989. ...

Because the diagram implies that things are simple: Kill the wolves, and save the elk. Move the grizzlies, and avoid the lawyers. And on, and on. It’s this simplistic, cause-and-effect thinking that must go.

And for that matter, who believes that the complex system of our atmosphere behaves in such a simple and predictable way that if we reduce one component, carbon dioxide, we will therefore reliably reduce temperature? CO2 is not like an accelerator on a car. It’s not linear (and by the way, neither is a car accelerator.) And furthermore, who believes that the climate can be stabilized when it has never been stable throughout the earth’s history? We can only entertain such an idea if we don’t really understand what a complex system is. We’re like the blonde who returned the scarf because it was too tight. We don’t get it.

Fortunately, studies show that we can learn to manage complex systems. There are people who have investigated complex systems management, and know how to do it. But it demands humility.

And I would add, along with humility, managing complex systems also demands the ability to admit we are wrong, and to change course. If you manage a complex system you will frequently, if not always, be wrong. You have to backtrack. You have to acknowledge error. You’ve probably learned that with your children. Or, if you don’t have children, with your bosses.

And one other thing. If we want to manage complexity, we must eliminate fear. Fear may draw a television audience. It may generate cash for an advocacy group. It may support the legal profession. But fear paralyzes us. It freezes us. And we need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear: ...

Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world. It’s time we knew it. Thank you very much.

[oowolf]

Get this. There are some wealthy (Bush republicans) from Oregon who have a vacation cabin near my place. They can't miss the big "Bush Sucks" sign I painted on the side of my "barn" when the war started. I suppose they consider me a colorful character (a yahoo). Well, they were out here over Xmas and the woman insisted I read this book. Knowing who this author is, I figured it would be status-quo propaganda, but I took the book on the condition that SHE has to read Jensen's "The Culture of Make Believe".

Maybe I shoulda just given her "The Party's Over"?

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', '
')According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4).

...

Ausubel expects the trend to continue through this century as we move toward pure hydrogen—without the assistance of lawyers and activists. Obviously if a trend has been continuously operating since the days of Lincoln and Queen Victoria, it probably does not need the assistance of organizations like the Sierra Club and the NRDC, which are showing up about a hundred years too late.

...

And for that matter, who believes that the complex system of our atmosphere behaves in such a simple and predictable way that if we reduce one component, carbon dioxide, we will therefore reliably reduce temperature? CO2 is not like an accelerator on a car. It’s not linear (and by the way, neither is a car accelerator.) And furthermore, who believes that the climate can be stabilized when it has never been stable throughout the earth’s history? We can only entertain such an idea if we don’t really understand what a complex system is. We’re like the blonde who returned the scarf because it was too tight. We don’t get it.

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '
')[b]According to Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute, industrialized nations have been decarbonizing their energy sources for 150 years, meaning we are moving away from carbon toward hydrogen. In other words, the ratio of carbon to hydrogen decreases as you go from wood and hay (1:1) to coal to oil to gas (1:4).

[Cerryl]

"Decarbonizing" my arse. Look at these two graphs from the EIA. Check the consumption trendlines. They will show quite plainly just how much "decarbonizing" we've accomplished.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec7_4.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_4.pdf

[Colorado-Valley]

Skymoore's right. This guy considers himself a scientific writer, and doesn't even understand the basics of the carbon cycle?

He should stick to his dinosaur-cloning ...

[hotsacks]

It's interesting Crichton uses Ausubel as reference. The professor is on record as a big booster for a hydrogen car future,a believer in enormous NG reserves in NA,and opposed to global warming theory.Just another happy face scientist brought to you by the lovable Rockefeller Institute.

[Ancien_Opus]

This is a classic mistake for scientific investigations, correlation with two phenomena moving in the same direction but without the cause. The actual
cause may or may not be related to both of the phenomena.

The author chooses to ignore energy density and carbon sequestering and only focused on the carbon to hydrogen ratio. It just seems silly to claim that civilization moved from wood - coal - oil because of hydrogen ratio and not energy output and portability? Quite a leap of faith indeed.

[ashurbanipal]

Of course, Crichton is correct in his underlying thesis, but his application of that thesis is just plain stupid. In fact, I have a pretty hard time thinking of a piece of writing more stupid than this. Some comments:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on…

Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big. Suppose we line up all the victims in a row. If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium. Fifteen thousand people is three miles away. It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.

[threadbear]

Crichton's anti-fear essay, using Chernobyl and Y2K as examples is self contradictory. He claims that in a chaotic system, interventions have ramifications that aren't readily apparent. So, when we see a problem with what appears to be an obvious solution we should avoid applying that solution because it always portends a different outcome than what we desire? This is sometimes true, of course, but is it a justification for utter complacency in a biosphere that is falling apart?

He uses Chernobyl as an illustration of another point to support complacency over fear, by stating flatly that this disaster only killed 50 people. His conclusions about the results of this catastrophe run counter to his central premise-- Ramifications of a particular event aren't readily apparent.

The cancer rate has increased many fold in Chernobyl and surrounding areas, whether the catastrophe has been an immediate cause of death or not. The manifestation and assessment of damage from Chernobyl isn't static. The catastrophe is ongoing

As far as Y2K goes a relaxed attitude to the approaching problem would have likely resulted in a catastrophe, had people not been scared out of their wits.

It's lovely of Crighton to suggest we all relax, but is it appropriate for the times? He doesn't make a compelling argument, so I'm not throwing my diazepam away.

[mgibbons19]

I really dug State of Fear. The story kind of sucked, but the scientific lit review wasn't too bad for a fiction writer. He hits the nail on the head when it comes to non-scientific thinking. In order to be scientifically critical, one must look for evidence that weakens one's most treasured hypotheses. People just aren't wired to think this way. When you throw in all the interests of the news media, advocates, anti advocates, business types and so on and so forth, it is no wonder that (T)ruth is so hard to understand. If it even exists.

[smiley]

I was a big fan of Crichton, still am. And in principle I do agree with the message of the book. The environmental movement is a very dodgy affair. It is totally unregulated and yet it has a huge influence on the general public.

Most people are for instance totally unaware that Greenpeace is a corporation, not a charity. It hasn't got a non-profit status. It's aim is to make money, even if that means misleading the public by fake studies.

Other organizations are sincere but so fanatic in their ideas that they are willing to abuse science to fit their message. I remember a particular case were an organizations put up posters against CO2 emission. They probably wanted a picture of a smokestack spewing out CO2. Problem is that you can't see CO2 so they took a big picture of a cooling tower of a nuclear plant. The plumes were impressive but it is just steam.

I have seen numerous nailbiting examples of how scientists were misquoted, articles misused, and scientific results misinterpreted.

That said, Crichton has completely overshot his goal and moved to the other extreme in this book. He has joined the ranks of those who blindly condemn everything which is faintly environmentally related and will do everything to prove their right, even if that means ignoring heaps of scientific studies in favor of some snippet of information which supports their ideas.

Chernobyl is a perfect example of this thinking. Many people have died at Chernobyl and still do to this day. So the Russian government says that only fifty people died? Well up to two years ago they said that Aids didn't exist in Russia. There are countless reports that tell you that the death rate has been much higher. But if you are so convinced of your own right then you don't have to look any further than that one report that tells you what you want.

I can't understand why Crichton has abandoned the scientific method which he has held up in all his previous books, and I can only hope that his stance is intentional. Perhaps to provoke discussion and to get people out of their trenches. But otherwise I would be severely disappointed.

[bobcousins]

I guess we have to take Crichton seriously because he gets on chat shows and people listen to him.

But I don't really get why he is suddenly worked up over what he considers "bad science". He has made a career of it. I guess he is pissed off because he has found a real life scare story which is scarier than his limited imagination can think of (if he has to get his story ideas from real life... he is what SF fans call "sci-fi" - not genuinely creative science fiction but regular novels with some bad science thrown in). So basically he is just worried about his career - it is his job to scare people, scientists should be hidden in the back room making better iPods.

[Seadragon]

I can find plenty to be scared about, but it's not cloning dinosaurs or out of control viruses, it's running out of resources and growth at any cost. Unfortunately, changing the "growth at any cost" system we've set up apparently doesn't interest the public. Too bad we can't tie peak oil to avian flu or something.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'T')he environmental movement is a very dodgy affair...

Most people are for instance totally unaware that Greenpeace is a corporation, not a charity. It hasn't got a non-profit status. It's aim is to make money, even if that means misleading the public by fake studies.

[Ludi]

I don't really see how anyone can claim the environmental movement has had an enormous impact on our lives. It certainly hasn't. It hasn't stopped environmental degradation, it is doing next to nothing about the myriad problems we face including Global Climate Change. I wish it had such a huge effect people seem to think it does, but from my observation, it has not. From where I stand, I see business as usual, which means urban and suburban expansion, human population growth, pollution, soil loss, deforestation, acid rain, habitat loss, mass extinction, etc etc.

[elroy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ear may draw a television audience. It may generate cash for an advocacy group. It may support the legal profession.

[CB00097]

I read "State of Fear" over the holidays and as per mgibbons19, although components of the story were at times silly, the underlying premise that your reality can be shaped by special interests.

In particular, the Appendix which covered Eugenics I found completely enthralling as that happened well before my time and the names listed as advocates I've always considered the best and brightest of those generations.

Bottom Line: Even if you don't agree with his science, I think Crichton's book is a must read if you believe in strong self-analysis and self-criciticism as the basis for validating your world paradigm/model.


Matthew.

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat is absolutely misleading. Greenpeace had its charitable status revoked in 1989 by the Canadian government, which stated possible loss of jobs in the logging industry as a reason ("no public benefit"). Greenpeace has been desperately trying to regain its charitable status since then, because without that status it cannot supply tax receipts for its donors.

[Doly]

I hate Michael Crichton with a passion since I read Jurassic Park. The reason is that the book featured two of my favorite science themes: dinosaurs and chaos theory. And reading the book it was obvious that he had no idea about either before he thought of writing the book. He documented himself, of course. But documenting yourself doesn't stop you from developing misconceptions. It takes years to weed out your misconceptions. Michael Crichton doesn't know this because his method of working, which becomes obvious when you read several of his novels, is choosing a brand new theme that he knew nothing about, read a bit about it, and then write a novel full of wrong concepts. And make it a best-seller, so all these wrong ideas get spread.

Isn't that a good reason to hate a writer?