To Main Proceedings Document
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and
Reinhold Niebuhr
by William L. Biach
Abstract:
Futures studies extrapolate the implications of current trends into the future. The
objective is to either change undesirable futures or take advantage of desirable ones. The
process has characteristics in common with System Dynamics methodology. Multiple
social systems often interact in the analysis. Quantitative and qualitative variables work
side by side in effecting the genesis of the future. Calibration is critical in ensuring that
conclusions are supported. But, it can also suffer from traps that system dynamics has
recognized and addressed. For example, basing decisions on conclusions derived from
simple causalities is the source of unintended consequences and faulty policy. Or
ignoring the implications of long term feedback loops. The results are calls to action but
provide no clues as to what effective action may be. Beyond methodology and
operational issues, there are broader lessons to be learned from System Dynamics about
responding to insights into the future. Proactive, optimistic futurists assume that any
future can be changed to a desirable one. System Dynamics would question how realistic
that premise is. In fact, the most powerful learning futurists can get is stated simply in the
Serenity Prayer of Reinhold Neibuhr - “God, grant me the serenity, to accept the things I
cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the
difference”. This is the gift of System Dynamics.
Introduction
For half a century, modern Futures Research and modem System Dynamics have been
developing along somewhat parallel paths. They were both seeded by the innovative
work of a few brilliant people who continue to exert their influence. Both are being
applied to the solution of commercial problems as well as major social ones. The
practitioners in both fields are seeking better ways to make decisions because the
decisions of the past are the seeds of the problems of today. Both fields deal with
interaction of different categories of ideas.
Despite all this, they remain on parallel tracks, never joining forces. A history of futures
thinking, as we will show, demonstrates the influence of systems. The ethical foundation
itself of futures studies has shifted from correcting problems of the present to assessing
the quality of decisions and their consequences in the future. The motives and
characteristics of futurists have a basis in systems. Futurists study systems. And,
inevitably, system behavior and principles of System Dynamics must come out in such
studies.
Yet, while System Dynamics goes virtually ignored futurists wrestle with generic
problems grounded in systems principles. Many significant problems futurists are
engaged in remain intractable because System Dynamics principles aren’t an organic part
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
1
of their process. By incorporating the knowledge of system behavior and the disciplines
of systems analysis, the important, global work futurists undertake could be made that
much more robust. Additionally, the futurists' commitment to systematic futures planning
brings credible attention to world problems and could give systems dynamists the role
they seek in making a better future.
We will first look at the history of futures thinking and the resulting characteristics to
show the link to system dynamics. We will then look at the issues that remain at the heart
of futures research and discuss specific remedies taken from systems thinking. Finally,
we will suggest some system dynamic principles that could form the basis of different,
but more integrated discipline.
Foundations of Futures Studies
History of Futurism
The desire to know the future is part and parcel with being human. Early practitioners of
"seeing" the future were linked to divine inspiration and magic. Cultures whose deism
was tightly integrated with the environment gained their foresight through systems
awareness. Interventions such as rituals and sacrifices reinforced respect for the larger
system and were intended to keep it ‘friendly’ to the needs of mankind.
The Renaissance brought the scientific method to all things and replaced knowing
through awareness with knowing through analysis. Mankind, no longer a part of the
system was deemed steward. The 16th Century brought Utopian concepts. Originally,
utopians envisioned a perfect society in a land far away. The end of the 18th century and
the French Revolution saw a shift from spatial displacement to a temporal one. Sir
Frances Bacon promoted the ‘idea of progress’ ; a Utopia of the future developing out of
the present over time. Cultural evolution, a concept that didn't exist previously led to the
realization that the future could be designed and brought about by human action and that
a better world could be created (Cornish, 1977).
Leaping over the formal evolutionary analysis, ‘science’ fiction writers made significant
contribution to visions of the future. Social commentary always took on an exaggeration
of current cultural norms. Novels like Gulliver's Travels or Robinson Caruso were rooted
in the spatial displacement. Social criticism, a passive activity, found the spatial "present"
satisfactory. The new writers, desiring a call to action, presented a future that was a
consequence of decisions made in the present.. The futurists were and are activists and
require a malleable culture that could only exist in the future.
The development of new countries and national planning in the mid 20" century created a
need for more formal futures methodologies. WWII stimulated the growth of the
operations research field and the creation of the ‘think tank’ for military applications.
Professional societies focused on peacetime futures study and seminal publications such
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
2
as The Art of Conjecture by B. de Jouvenel marked the establishment of the modem
futures field.
Critical to our discussion is to note the enormous impact that US futurists have had on
modem futurist thinking. This in no way implies that the contribution from practitioners
elsewhere was of less importance, stature or quality. However, during the developmental
period of current practice, the US was in the strongest position commercially, politically,
and academically to study, develop, and apply futures studies. It was also in the moral
and spiritual state to be motivated to "get the answers". World War II left the US witha
conviction of its own invincibility and the role of godfather to the.world The position that
everything is a problem that must have a solution, was a systemic result of the dominance
of males in policy-making positions. By application, the future was specific, predictable
and could be fixed. The US view of what was morally ‘right’ took precedence, by brute
force, over all other points of view.
As time went on, and the failure of policy became apparent as the hidden influence of
systems continued to exhibit behavior. Society became disenchanted with the institutions
for not providing the solutions they thought we were entitled to. While the more
political/pragmatic, in-the-trenches response was to manage short-term solutions to
symptoms, the futurist, looking at the long term, recognized the human influence on the
future as well as the need to live with the uncertainty of it. And so, futurists and the
discipline of futures study has taken its place as the pathfinder for managing the
intentional movement of society into the future.
What is a Futurist?
Futurists attempt to clarify goals and values, describe trends, explain conditions,
formulate alternative images of the future, and evaluate, and select policy alternatives
(Bell(1996) of Lasswell 1967). Futurists are not fortunetellers. They do not believe the
future is predetermined. A basic tenant of futurist thinking is that humans shape the
future through the decisions they make. It is the futurist’s job to analyze how the future
can be shaped and the consequences of different decisions we might make to influence it.
They are actively involved in determining mankind’ s future.
Futurists are transdisciplinary meaning the compounded influence of many disciplines
applied to an issue rather than a linked involvement as implied by inter- disciplinary.
Transdisciplinary applies at several different levels. First, most significant problems we
face cannot be understood or addressed without understanding the stake different
disciplines have in the problem and how they interact. Second, methods developed for
different disciplines can provide new insights when applied to others as well as in joint
contribution. Thirdly, alternative futures arise from different cultures, historical
backgrounds, and different spiritual and intellectual bodies of thought (Masini, 1993).
Futurists Joseph Coates and Jennifer Jarratt surveying 17 leading futurists from many
fields including business, anthropology, technology, etc and describe areas of
commonality (Coates, 1989):
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
3
Technology- Futurists agree that technology is a, if not the, primary driver of change. Its
pervasive role in all material parts of our lives, our decisions, and our interrelationship is
a key systemic structure.
Complexity- Futurists must deal with complexity. Increasing complexity is a systematic
reality and strongly affects the uncertainties of future outcomes. It affects the influence
and therefore the number of variables that need to be incorporated into their thinking.
Traditionally, coming out of the very American attitude of being able to "solve" all
problems, was the objective of "managing" complexity. Donald Michael's view is that we
need to learn to live with it (Michael 1973).
Multiple futures- Today, the idea that the future is pre-ordained has been replaced by the
view that there are multiple futures. This takes into account the influence our decisions
can have on the future.
Social Order- Although there will be flare-ups and discontinuities, they will not
dramatically affect daily lives. Nuclear war, initiated by small third world countries will
be the major threat. However, the growing interdependency, the "Global Village" will
make this a less likely scenario.
Religious concerns or motives could he a source of instability. Religious beliefs, as a
driver, are accepted for their long-term promise. That promise makes suffering in the
present tolerable if not noble. The shared vision also creates a social acceptance of the
policy.
Although there exists the belief that some solution to resource limitations on growth can
be found, generally it is believed that the population cannot continue to grow
Energy- A transition to new energy sources will be required. However, the economic
turmoil and possible slow down will make people reluctant to take the necessary action
and ultimately it may take exhausting current resources to provide the urgency.
The Futurist as Observer of Systems
Futurists are activists by nature and are in their field specifically because they want to
affect the future. They share the system dynamists’ belief that anxiety and the strife in the
world is a result of the decisions we've made. And, that by being able to make better
decisions, the future will evolve with less unintended consequences and therefore match
the what the futurist see as ‘good’. Accurate models of extensive systems are impractical
so futurists relegate themselves to observing system behavior rather than understanding
it. Therefore they don’t benefit from the value of System Dynamics in testing
assumptions, aiding in understanding behavior and assessing the consequences of policy
decisions.
As in the sciences (futurists don’t believe Futures Studies is a science), when you don't
understand the mechanics of the underlying process, you are left with trying to forecast
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
4
behavior based on observation and correlation. Regression, game theory, trend analysis,
etc., the tools of the futurist, do not take into account the contribution of mass and
feedback, systems concepts, and therefore lack insight into why behavior arises.
And so, the modem day futurist, trying to deal with a faster, more complex, and more
unstable world made the transition from a tradition of predicting the future to one of
suggesting a variety of plausible scenarios differentiated by the decisions we might make.
These scenarios come out of an extrapolation of observed trends that are analyzed by
people with broad understandings of interrelated disciplines. However, they lack the
piece that gives them understanding of the “why” of the behavior.
Fundamental Challenges of Futures Studies
Forecasting
Forecasting, whether it is one or many futures, is the processing of observations. Futurists
take past behavior and current trends and introduce policy decisions that affect the way
changing conditions interact. The resulting possible futures are evaluated for their
desirability and a course of action is agreed upon. So, forecasting accuracy is of great
concern. How do we establish boundaries that correlate to an acceptable level of
accuracy?
Time- Over too short a time frame, the model is too volatile. Over too long a time frame,
the trends tend to perturb under the influence of factors outside the model. Trends based
on extrapolating the past assume stability in the future. But, the increased rate of change
of our core infrastructure makes that window shorter and shorter. Forecasting accuracy
based on time is getting increasingly impractical.
Geography- Forecasting within a local geography assumes that environmental
conditions, indigenous species, and social structure will be insulated from influences
outside the region being studied. But the effects of environmental destruction such as
global warming are influencing every part of the world. Increasing demand for natural
resources is eliminating species of animals and plants several times a minute. Climactic
shifts are making life in traditional locales untenable. Global information systems are
dramatically changing the expectations of stable cultures.
Any attempt to use one-dimensional characteristics of a model to define the accuracy of
forecasts is bound to be unsatisfactory. This is because these attempts mistake limits due
to analysis of observed behavior with limits due to an understanding of the cause of the
behavior. E.g. Although behavior is often documented over time, time doesn’t cause the
behavior.
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
5
Taking Action
Optimism vs. Pessimism
The objective of the futurist is to make the future desirable for mankind and the Earth. A
fundamental issue is whether undesirable futures can be changed. Optimistic forecasts are
a call to action to fix the future. A pessimistic, albeit realistic, position that there may be
no action that will really makes a difference is anathema to futurists. But, where to draw
the line or even if the line needs to be drawn is an issue that futurists have no established
way of determining. So, regardless of how intractable the problem, the futurist is left with
the option that action should be taken, an optimistic point of view.
So, being proactive and optimistic that action is worthwhile, the futurist helps establish
policy to institute an action plan. The character of the action plan depends on whether we
view the future as desirable. In such a case we look to take best advantage of it. If it’s
undesirable, we seek to change the course. That decision of what, not whether, depends
on how we view the future and what is defined as desirable and good.
What is ‘Good’ and ‘Desirable’
Futurists have moved to a position where they look at the consequences of their policies
and determine if they are “good”. This is a subtle shift from a position of assessing if the
present is “good” and whether to continue with the status quo or change it. But, the shift
to consequences requires studying a dynamic situation that may have no parallel in the
past and is subject to great instability. The spectrum of questions must expand.
‘Good’ for who or what? -
Decisions for the good of mankind have historically been bad for the rest of the earth.
Policy decisions have wide ranging effects that must be brought into the equation. Non-
systemically based interventions are likely to make the situation worse. Nuclear power,
intended to relieve the rape of the environment, may become the greatest polluter of all.
‘Good’ when? -
What is the time frame, this week, 1,5,10,50,100,1000 years? The futurist must take into
account the inertia of the system, anticipate goal-seeking behavior, and accept that there
may have to be trade-offs along the way. E.g. A major rehabilitation of the infrastructure
could cause years of inconvenience.
‘Good’ is relative-
Enforcing a well intention “good” universally may be bad. It may be good to reroute a
river to provide irrigation for agricultural commerce. But, the untold ecological damage
probably lowers the long-term economic viability of entrenched communities upstream
and down. A plan that would raise the standard of living for a region ten fold seems good.
But if that region were economically depressed so that ten fold increase was still below
the standard for the US, it would be viewed as exploitation, the program terminated, and
the people returned to poverty.
‘Good’ may change-
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
6
The definition of ‘good’ changes. And it can change quickly as a result of dramatic
cultural shifts. Look at the effect of the Internet on the economy. Prior to the Internet, a
company was a bad investment unless it had shown a history of stability. Today, a
company that shows stability is unattractive. “Good” is a perception and is based on
social norms. But norms can and are manipulated. They often are manipulated for an
ostensibly good purpose. They become part of the structure of the system. And as they
become obsolete, they cause a system to resist change (see discussion of Mass on page
8).
Policy Making
Chronic errors in policy and decisions occur when the consequences of the policy result
in no long term effect or worsen the condition they are intended to correct. This comes
from low leverage decisions that underestimate the system ability to maintain stability. It
also comes from a basic lack of understanding of how to manage basic system principles.
Taking action without considering the systemic origin of the problem or the
consequences of the action will conflict with the system. For example, self-destructive
mechanisms are built into all organisms and institutions. In an effort to maintain an
indigenous culture, we may interrupt one of these mechanism and in the process,
necessarily change the culture we sought to preserve.
The “local” point of view
People tend to "fix" things that are undesirable on the local level without commitment to
the long term or broader issues. An action, which has consequences to the non-local
support system, is taken to improve a local condition. The practice continues because the
local level is the limit of our scope of influence. Meanwhile, the damage to the support
system demands more action. And so we become addicted.
System Dynamics and the Futurist
System Dynamics and Futures Studies
Futurists study systems. They study past behavior and the circumstances surrounding that
behavior. Then project the future state of that system. If that future state is not in keeping
with the spectrum of desired states, they seek to intervene in the process that caused the
present to evolve into that state and re-chart the course. In the methodology futurists
follow, recurring issues come up which affect the purpose and quality of their work.
Forecasting accuracy is an example. Their solution is to induce the source of the issue
and create structural or philosophical constructs to guide them.
Many of these issues are a direct consequence of working with systems. Futurist view
systems as a grouping of associated components that partake in a pattern of behavior.
They don’t acknowledge that the system is the source of the behavior. That many issues
they wrestle with are the same issues anyone would confront working with a system.
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
7
Fundamental principles and behavior of systems are the source of much of the paradox
and ongoing debate at the core of Futures Studies. System Dynamics holds the key to
much of it.
System Dynamics Concepts in Futures Studies
Structure
System structure is what defines system behavior. The observed behavior of components
of the system is the result of the interplay of all the components and how they respond to
changes in other components. The effect of components that maintain their status when
the process pauses, stocks, influences behavior in an unintuitive manner. Soft stocks such
as national pride are as influential as hard ones like national debt. But, since they are
harder to quantify, it is harder to codify their behavior and are therefore left out of the
equation. Feedback of how the system responds to components of the system enables the
system to control itself. Both of these characteristics are part of all real systems.
Correlation, trend, and causal analysis, the stock and trade of futurists, cannot account for
these effects.
Forecasting based on past performance can only be accurate as long as the inevitable
perturbation from what was observed hasn't exercised much influence. Only by
understanding the structure of the system can we correlate the future behavior of one
component with another. This is the answer to forecasting accuracy.
Chronic results can develop from structure. Two systems with the same structure will
produce the same behavior. Often we continue reapplying an intervention to systems with
the same structure and the interventions continue to fail. Futurists attribute its failure to
poor implementation or errors in forecasting. System dynamists attribute the results to the
inevitable behavior of the system.
Policy is part of the system. They are the rules by which decisions are made. Due to the
unintuitive behavior of systems the policy, in consort with the rest of the system
structure, may produce unexpected and undesirable results. So, effective policy
management without understanding the system structure is unlikely to produce the
desired consequences and is likely to exacerbate the problem.
Mass
In physics, the measure of an object's ability to sustain efforts to change its state of
motion is its mass. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion and objects at rest tend to
stay at rest. An object's momentum and inertia are directly related to its mass. Systems
also have the same characteristics. A balanced system responds to interventions in a
negative feedback way so as to regain the "status quo". It therefore exhibits behavior as
though it had mass. And indeed, since the stocks in a system are responsible for "staying
power" it further makes sense to talk about mass.
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
8
Futurist must understand the forces and dynamics that give rise to current conditions and
that the mass of the system determines how responsive it will be to interventions.
Technology responds quickly because its mass, the body of technical know-how,
reinforces change generally. However, if that applied know-how limits innovation, it can
be make the system sluggish. Culture responds slowly because the mass of security
rooted in the mass tribal knowledge, gained from a long history, makes change fearful.
Scope
Systems contain smaller systems, are contained in bigger systems, and are linked with
other systems. Since there are practical limits to how large a system we can analyze we
establish boundaries to or the scope of the system. Large system behavior generally
overrides small system behavior. Small system behavior can be modified effectively, but
will rarely alter the inevitable state of the larger. Nonetheless, changes anywhere in a
system have consequences elsewhere and highly leveraged ones on small systems can be
significant.
For the futurist, trying to establish the parameters for the ‘correctness’ of his forecasts, an
understanding of system scope is invaluable. The scope will determine how insulated the
behavior is from the effects outside the scope. He can therefore safely make his study
knowing the parameters of the forces that would void his forecast.
The futurist is also concerned about the consequences of applying policy. As is well
known to system dynamists, interventions produce unintended consequences. By limiting
the scope, the futurist may be better able to assess the unintended consequences within
the scope of study. But, this problem is relatively unimportant. The bigger problem is
determining if there are undesirable consequences outside the scope of the system. One
result may be that the broader system, in order to stay stable, may compromise the more
robust mechanisms solving the problem creating a dependency on the intervention.
Another result may be a serious influence of another system linked to it. Being outside
the scope of study this might cause irreparable damage.
These concerms cannot be addressed unless the futurist considers the systemic scope of
his studies.
Behavior
Although systems are the subject of his studies, system behavior is what the futurist
works with. Working with behavior without acknowledging the system at best limits the
choice of options. At worst it can produce irreversible unintended consequences.
Feedback and the persistence of stocks create very complex behavior. It is behavior that
doesn’t respond instantly to change. It is behavior where an intervention becomes part of
the system and changes its characteristics. Given a large enough system, the behavior will
always exhibit negative feedback in order to maintain balance. This basic balanced nature
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
9
of systems causes them to push back when efforts are made to change their course. This
can be very subtle and one source of apparently chronic conditions. This complex
behavior puts us on a road to change that is not one of continuous improvement. Nor do
all elements of the system to arrive in an ‘good’ state.
System behavior is not all chaos, although behavior study may lead to that conclusion.
System Dynamics has recognized that there are a few characteristic behaviors. Although
they rarely appear in pure forms, nonetheless they give clues to what strategy produces
desired results, and minimizes unintended consequences. With this knowledge, and the
right system scope, the futurist can create more robust policy.
System Dynamic tools can give futurists a full understanding of what to expect before
taking a route of change. They can then prepare for inevitable setbacks and not be
discouraged. They can gain support to ride through the tough times by knowing that
things will turn around.
Entropy
Futurists recognize destiny as a future state. It may or may not be pre-ordained. For
practical purposes its preordained if we can't change it and not preordained if we can
influence it. The difference is a matter of scope. But what drives a system to "behave"?
It’s the dynamic resolution for tension within the system. The future of the system is
where all dynamic tension is in balance and the system is in equilibrium.
In physics, the term for a physical system's tendency to transform itself to a state of
minimum potential energy and therefore no unbalanced tension to cause it to change state
is entropy. It is the ultimate state of a physical system. Likewise with all systems, there is
an ultimate future for systems. Interestingly enough, along with entropy, behavior
appears more predictable, but managing interventions and change becomes more
complex. The system still has the same structure and therefore the same source of
behavior, but because there is less dynamic tension, the influence of changes and trends is
better absorbed producing subtler results which may not be obvious.
It’s the state that is the ultimate purpose for the system. It’s like Robert Conway’s final
journey in The Lost Horizon. Regardless of the obstacles, the final destination is still
Shang Ri La.
The Growing Need for Systemic Futures Studies- the Global
Village
The futurists’ major problems
Futurists agree that the two most pressing problems we face are population growth and
global warming. Not only are these problems systemically localized, but also they are
tightly integrated with an ultimately bigger systemic issue, The Global Village.
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
10
#1-Population growth
Mankind has no organic survival instinct. It exists in emotions and is sustained by
intellect. Mankind needs a survival policy- Death is bad and life, regardless of quality is
better than death. Every culture has some philosophical construct that explains that either
death is bad in and of itself or is bad because it subverts the purpose that can only be
fulfilled in life. The byproduct has traditionally been the maintenance of as large a
population level as possible. Programs to extend life expectancy or eliminate disease and
starvation are part of the strategies. Early results show that the consequences may not be
as good or obvious as expected and are clearly too complicated systemically to intuit an
answer. The optimistic assumption that the solutions will arise in time to solve the
undesirable consequences is too dangerous due to lack of time.
Starvation, for example, is a natural consequence of a system trying to maintain balance.
Providing food will not end the systemic pressure to reduce the population. Changing the
structure of the system will just shift the pressure somewhere else in the system and it
will change the culture it was trying to save. But, quality of life in one culture is
measured differently in another. So the only effectivesolution to starvation is in conflict
with the value of maintaining diversity and ultimately with the original objective, to
improve quality of life.
Extending life spans is fraught with conflicting issues. The ‘good’ of an extended life
span is generally viewed as good only to the young. Deteriorating health is an obvious
issue, but is likely to improve hand-in-hand with extended lives. But, the greater threat is
an extended life without purpose. Currently, a career that allows you to maintain your
lifestyle is over past 50. There’s a practical reason. Business is recognizing that
management skills are of little value-added compared to those of innovation (see
Internet: page 6-7). So, managers are a commodity. Experience only has value when the
environment for applying the experience is the same. The pace of change makes
experience obsolete in a few years. Few people in their middle age have the resources or
mental acuity to start again. People in their 50's have memories which are barriers to the
out of the box thinking required to produce innovation.
So, short of a major cultural change where there is a valued place for people over 50,
extending life, even with better health, will increase the percentage of unproductive
population. This problem, possibly one of physiology, may be solved, but will it be soon
enough? Will the pieces be solved in the right order? Already we are better at keeping
people alive than keeping them healthy. And we're losing ground on keeping people
valuable. Euthanasia is becoming more and more attractive despite its conflict with our
basic strategy for survival.
The complexity of the issues go on and on. Traditionally, the futurist would deal with
these issues separately. However, clearly they are tightly interconnected. The essence of
the population growth problem is growing, unrestricted consumers.
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
11
#2- Global Warming
The issues around global warming are well known and equally growing in complexity.
They are driven by demand for scarce resources, existence or high cost of
environmentally friendly solutions, and a growing population of consumers. There are
symptoms of far ranging systemic influences from local activities. There is the interplay
of cultural change and conflict. The essence of the global warming problem is the fragile
state of the global infrastructure supporting the growing global body of consumers.
The Global Village
Global logistics, economy and information infrastructure has increased the scope of our
influence. Additionally, they have conspired together to put ever-increasing pressure on
our capacity to survive. Information has spawned the desire worldwide for a middle class
with a standard of living equivalent to the US. Economy has provided larger markets for
the sale of value added products and services. And, logistics have made it possible for
raw materials, finished goods, food, and information to be delivered anywhere.
The problems raised by the global village may be the most insurmountable of all. It is
estimated that by 2050 50% of the earth's population will be in a middle class with a
standard of living equivalent to the US. This is a consumer society on a gargantuan scale.
Such a society would have an unimaginable destructive power. If China were to meet its
growing energy needs by mobilizing its vast coal reserves, it would release more carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere than the rest of the industrialized world put together making
emission control hopeless.
The consumer society is a resilient system. It replaces religion with material goods. And,
as dissatisfaction grows due to obsolescence, it transforms itself to offer new material
goods that hold the promise of quelling the failure of the past. Despite efficiencies that
come from consumer societies, the ultimate state of a global consumer society is an
unsustainable one
The global village creates a tragedy of the commons scenario of on a virtually maximum
scale. The commons is the world’s resources and the sheep is mankind. The solution to
tragedy of the commons is overarching authority, establishing control. On what basis is
that control exercised? Who is the authority in the global village? Futurists recognize that
governments are not responsive enough to manage the future. Business, the likely
successor, depends on consumerism for their survival. The implication is that the scopes
of most efforts for sustainability are mere bumps in the road as the systemic behavior of
the global society takes hold. More than ever, high leverage interventions based on sound
system dynamic principles are the only possible strategy. Or, simply accept the
inevitable.
The global village exists. It incorporates population growth, global warming, and most
other major social and geopolitical threats. But, unlike local villages of the past, we
cannot walk away from the unintended consequences of our actions.
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
12
Conclusion
Futures studies originated in an effort to survive through better integration with the
mechanism of existence. The complexity of that mechanism defied fighting and tinkering
and relegated futurism to one of facilitating a life of respect, harmony, and acceptance.
The enlightenment brought with it a belief in the heroic capacity and responsibility of
mankind to manage the mechanism. Man could understand it and control it for his own
benefit. The leap of self esteem caused by the enlightenment could only be matched by
that of the 20th century, and mostly by the second half after World War II. And more so
by last 25 years with the growth of the computer. And even more so in the last 12 years
with the growth of telecommunications and the last 6 with the Internet.
Yet, along with this growth in mankind's ability to analyze and control we have gained an
understanding of the influence we have on the future. This changes the charter of the
futurists from one of predicting the future to one of proposing possible alternate futures.
Then to help develop policies that would make the future which best aligned with what is
‘good’ the most likely. This implies a responsibility to find a robust strategy for defining
‘good’ in light of an increasingly dynamic environment of interacting cultures and values.
The scope of systemic influence has grown to virtually the entire earth, which means that
strategies cannot ignore the behavior of the big picture. Scope needs to be systemically
based; broad and transdisciplined.
But, there are always boundaries to the scope of the system we can influence. That
system is only a part of a larger system that will absorb our influence in its greater mass
and continue toward its ultimate entropic state.
Futurists must resign themselves to focusing their efforts on the interplay of systems in
order to be effective and responsible. They must recognize the failure of policy due to the
disregard of system principal. And, they must recognize that ‘good’ based on our
understanding of it can only be instituted on a local short-term level. And the system we
are part of has its own agenda.
How then are we to act? A principle of system dynamics is that our intervention must
have a scope to match our assessment of the system. If the system is too large, our
intervention will not produce the future we desire. If the system is too small, we will
effect our change within the scope of the system, but we risk unintended consequences
outside our analysis. We must accept responsibility for these consequences as the price
for having the future we choose. A policy systemically based may result in an apparently
chaotic behavior. But, we must have the fortitude to stand by the decisions and accept
that the system has mass and will take time and effort to reach the desired condition.
System dynamists recognize the true beauty in observing the ever changing but
progressing state of systems, even if there is peril or disaster in the future. They have the
comfort that short term cycles lead to long term trends. And, that due to the need to
balance, the "bad times" are the necessary high leverage tension to trigger a seminal
change in the system's behavior. Reinehold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer* summarizes the
lessons system dynamics has for the responsible, effective futurists:
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
13
God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference
*Reinhold Niebuhr actually accredited Friedrich Oetinger, an 18th century theologian
Bibliography
Bell, Wendell, (ed) Slaughter, Richard A. (1996) "New Thinking for a New Millennium",
Routledge, London, UK
Coates, Joseph F. & Jarratt, Jennifer (1989), "What Futurists Think", World Future
Society, Bethesda MD
Dator, James A (1986) "The Futures of Futures Studies: A View from Hawaii", Futures
18,3: 440-445
Dyson, Freeman (1992), "From Eros to Gaia", Pantheon Books, New Y ork
Greider, William (1998), "Fortress America- The American Military and the
Consequences of Peace", PublicA ffairs, New Y ork
Kaufman, Stuart (1995), "At Home in the Universe- The Search for the Laws of Self-
Organization and Complexity", Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Michael, Donald (1973). "Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn", Jossey Bass, San
Francisco
Masini, Eleanora Barbieri (1993), "Why Futures Studies", Grey Seal, London, UK
Samuelson, Robert J. (1995), "The Good Life and its Discontents- The American Dream
in the Age of Entitlement 1945-1995", Times Books, New Y ork
Toffler, Alvin (1980), "The Third Wave", Bantam, New Y ork
William L. Biach
William L. Biach is President of Biach Information Arts and CEO of Biach Industries Inc He has been
working in system dynamics for over 20 years. Biach Information Arts was started to integrate information
technique and systems thinking as a tool to facilitate healthy change. He has participated in futures studies
for many years. He has a BA in Physics and Phlosophy and an MFA in Directing.
Bill Biach, Biach Information Arts, 17 North Avenue Est, Suite B, Cranford, NJ 07016 Telephone 908-
497-0585 FAX 908-497-0540 Email billb@ biach.com
Lessons for Futures Studies from System Dynamics and Reinhold Niebuhr
14
