Donella Meadows

 

Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, Thinking in systems             [ ]

p.104

Here are just a few of the delays we have found important in include in various models we have made:

    • The delay between catching an infectious disease and getting sick enough to be diagnosed──days to years, depending on the disease.

    • The delay between pollution emission and the diffusion or percolation or concentration of the pollutant in the ecosystem to the point at which it does harm.

    • The gestation and maturation delay in building up breeding populations of animals or plants, causing the characteristic oscillations of commodity prices: 4-year cycles for pigs, 7 years for cows, 11 years for cocoa trees.8 

    • The delay in changing the social norms for desirable family size──at least one generation.

    • The delay in retooling a production stream and the delay in turning over a capital stock. It takes 3 to 8 years to design a new car and bring it to the market. That model may have 5 years of life on the new-car market. Cars stay on the road an average of 10 to 15 years.

     (Thinking in systems : a primer, Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, sustainability institute, 2008, QA 402 .M425 2008, )

    • One notable challenge for the hardware tower is that it takes four to five years [4 to 5 years] to design and build chips and to port software to evaluate them. {“A view of the parallel computing landscape” by Krste Asanovic, Rastislav Bodík, James Demmel, Tony Keaveny, Kurt Keutzer, John Kubiatowicz, Nelson Morgan, David Patterson, Koushik Sen, John Wawrzynek, David Wessel, and Katherine Yelick in the Communications of the ACM, Volume 52, Issue 10, pages 56-67, October 2009.}

    • A second challenge is that two critical pieces of system software—compilers and operating systems—have grown large and unwieldy and hence resistant to change. One estimate is that it takes a decade [10-years] for a new compiler optimization to become part of production compilers.  {“A view of the parallel computing landscape” by Krste Asanovic, Rastislav Bodík, James Demmel, Tony Keaveny, Kurt Keutzer, John Kubiatowicz, Nelson Morgan, David Patterson, Koushik Sen, John Wawrzynek, David Wessel, and Katherine Yelick in the Communications of the ACM, Volume 52, Issue 10, pages 56-67, October 2009.}

Thinking in systems

a primer

Donella H. Meadows

Edited by Diana Wright

sustainability institute

2008

  <---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, Thinking in systems             [ ]

◇pp.92-94

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

INTERLUDE • Spruce Budworms, Firs, and Pesticides

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Tree ring records show that the spruce budworm has been killing spruce and fir trees periodically in North America for at least 400 years. Until this century, no one much cared. The valuable tree for the lumber industry was the white pine. Spruce and fir were considered “weed species.” Eventually, however, the stands of virgin pine were gone, and the lumber industry turned to spruce and fir. Suddenly the budworm was seen as a serious pest.

  So, beginning in 1950s, northern forests were sprayed with DDT to control the spruce budworm. In spite of the spraying, every year there was a budworm resurgence. Annual sprays were continued through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, until DDT was banned. Then the sprays were changed to fenitrothion, acephate, Sevin, and methoxychlor.

  Insecticides were no longer thought to be the ultimate answer to the budworm problem, but they were still seen as essential. “Insecticides buy time,” said one forester, “That's all the forest manager wants; to preserve the trees until the mill is ready for them.”

  By 1980, spraying costs were getting unmanageable──the Canadian province of New Brunswick spent $12.5 million on budworm “control” that year. Concerned citizens were objecting to the drenching of the landscape with poisons. And, in spite of the sprays, the budworm was still killing as many as 20 million hectares (50 million acres) of trees per year.

  C. S. Holling of the University of New Brunswick put together a computer model to get a whole-system look at the budworm problem. They discovered that before the spraying began, the budworm had been barely detectable in most years. It was controlled by a number of predators, including birds, a spider, a parasitic wasp, and several diseases. Every few decades, however, there was a budworm outbreak ([population explosion]), lasting from six to ten years. Then the budworm population would subside, eventually to explode again.

  The budworm preferentially attacks balsam fir, secondarily spruce. Balsam fir is the most competitive tree in the nothern forest. Left to its own devices, it would crowd out spruce and birch, and the forest would become a monoculture of nothing but fir. Each budworm outbreak cuts back the fir population, opening the forest for spruce and birch. Eventually fir moves back in.

  As the fir population builds up, the probability of an outbreak increases──nonlinearly. The reproductive potential of the budworm increases more than proportionately to the availability of its favorite food supply. The final trigger is two or three warm, dry springs, perfect for the survival of budworm larvae. (If you're doing event-level analysis, you will blame the outburst on the warm, dry springs.)

  The budworm population grows too great for its natural enemies to hold in check──nonlinearly. Over a wide range of conditions, greater budworm populations result in more rapid multiplication of budworm predators. But beyond some point, the predators can multiply no faster. What was a reinforcing relationship──more budworms, faster predator multiplication──becomes a nonrelationship──more budworms, no faster predator multiplication──and the budworms take off, unimpeded.

  Now only one thing can stop the outbreak: the insect reducing its own food supply by killing off fir trees. When that finally happens, the budworm population crashes──nonlinearly. The reinforcing loop of budworm reproduction yields dominance to the balancing loop of budworm starvation. Spruce and birch move into the spaces where the firs used to be, and the cycle begins again.

  The budworm/spruce/fir system oscillates over decades, but it is ecologically stable within bounds. It can go on forever. The main effect of the budworm is to allow tree species other than fir to persist. But in this case what is ecologically stable is economically unstable. In eastern Canada, the economy is almost completely dependent on the logging industry, which is dependent on a steady supply of fir and spruce.

  When industry sprays insecticides, it shifts the whole system to balance uneasily on different points within its nonlinear relationships. It kills off not only the pest, but the natural enemies of the pest, thereby weakening the feedback loop that normally keeps the budworms in check. It keeps the density of fir high, moving the budworms up their nonlinear reproduction curve to the point at which they're perpetually on the edge of population explosion.

  The forest management practices have set up what Holling calls “persistent semi-outbreak conditions” over larger and larger areas. The managers have found themselves locked into a policy in which there is an incipient volcano bubbling, such that, if the policy fails, there will be an outbreak of an intensity that has never been seen before.”4 

     (Thinking in systems : a primer, Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, sustainability institute, 2008, QA 402 .M425 2008, ◇pp.92-94 )

  <---------------------------------------------------------------------------->